CEos are like governments, they can only control maybe 20% of...

CEos are like governments, they can only control maybe 20% of whats going on, the rest is controlled by the markets, they are at the mercy of outside forces, commodity prices, recessions etc"

Rubbish.

I am a shareholder in some 60 publicly-listed companies, as well as a handful of privately-owned ones and many of those companies have flourished through all manner of extraneous circumstances, thanks exclusively to the judicious manner in which those businesses are managed (in many cases adverse events have been capitalised on by savvy managers to enhance the competitive position of those companies through the cycle by, for example expanding capacity at the right time in the cycle, or acquiring weakened competitors).

The value that has been created by these exceptional managers has been enormous compared to having mediocre management.


"Lets say i run qantas and ma paid 3 mill a yea, arguably tooo high imo but anyway lets say oil prices drop by 90% so profits and share price increase=, or i have a big writedown so the next year my numbers look great...or i just got lucky it was a good economy"

If that's the basis that the owners of a company remunerate their CEO, then they are dumb. That dumb stuff some times happens doesn't alter the fact that in a great majority of cases, shareholders do remunerate their company CEOs in a way they think is logical and acceptable.

For every single company I own, I am satisfied that my managers are appropriately remunerated. Out of my capital, I stress.


"You think its ok for maquarie 2ic to make 50 mill last year i assume?"

If I deem his presence created for me, a Maquarie shareholder, more than $50m in value, then sure. Why the heck not?

.