I think most people would agree the executives pay should be based on the stock value and not a fixed annual salary that doesnt rise or fall based on company performance. All that matters is total compensation and Tim Cook certainly is being rewarded with significant compensation.
I don't agree with it... It's a major reason why some companies are poorly run. Execs are motivated to manipulate the stock price so they get a bigger payout by making decisions with short-term stock price benefits instead of long-term benefits. Many execs' long-term view is limited to the current financial quarter.
If pay is going to be tied to stock performance it should be on a long-term basis so they aren't compelled to do things like firing employees in order to obtain a short-term stock price boost.
----------
uh no they don't. You assume that stock price is a direct function of how well a company is being run and that is ridiculous. Look at the different financial ratios and compare say google and apple. You will see that the stock price can move quite independently of good management by executives and objective measures of performance.
Also, lets say my compensation is all tied to stock performance. Let's see... How could i quickly pump up my stock price so i could sell and make a bunch of money. I could cut expenses. What is really expensive to companies? Oh yeah, people! They cost a lot. I'll layoff 5000 employees, cut expenses pump up my stock and make a fortune. Guess what? This has happened more times than you would like to know. I would rather have a ceo draw a huge salary than give him compensation that he has the direct ability to manipulate for his own selfish desires.
+1