$1 party, page-182

i have posted on a few threads about disagreeance with the way options to management are issued, the formula seem out. if the company make good profits- then yes. if a company is in losses then no.
why should we pay highly priced employees to run a company without profits.
of course there is a need to retain and keep loyality with CEO, but is there anything to stop them moving on after they reap reward via massively discount options. Some company will say if you move on they you forefit your options and rightly so. i have seen one sneeky one were he was able to transfer his options before he left.
as you mention performing rights based on SP is not tangiable, profits are.
..... like, and not saying this is true of CXO, getting another JORC will increase both resource and maybe reflected in SP, but that is not a profit.
we see many gold company continually try to increase resource estimates and still knowing they have a commercial resource still haven't moved to be a miner making profit.
there are so many angles to this... and the answer of fairness is in the formulas,
We have seen so many company pay out hugh 10s of millions in CEO payment yet the companies are going broke, bonuses while the company goes broke.
simulous payment by gov to prop up companies go the excutive salary or bonuses.

I actually do know of a CEO that does it fair. his and staff salary are very modest.
He buys the company shares, but also takes modest additinal share as payment for his job and some of his staff do the same, thus causing less dilution.

I;m in another stock where they issued free options (tradied) at a 25% discount to existing options. execisable at the same time. where is the fariness in that.

so as i waffle yes totally agree. and you have put it forward better than I.