I don't get the "secret evaluations" part. I'm saying they are not observable to the public the way a QB's individual game stats are. It doesn't mean there aren't ways that CEOs are evaluated besides absolute revenues and profits and it doesn't mean they are secret.
There still nothing explaining this is nanything more than herd mentatility, and BoD are paying this amount because that is what they think they should do, instead of what they really should do. Raw numbers on the surface sometimes make zero sense. In the end it is none of my business and I really don't care, but it would be interesting to see how some of these boards are coming up with these compensation packages for one guy and justifying it to the shareholders.
Here's the market forces explanation - the market is willing to pay these CEOs "x". It is the same with actors/athletes/etc.
Disagree, for reasons stated before.
Why are athletes so highly paid? It's because they have great agents that have negotiated up salaries and a union that has done likewise. Did A-rod deserve a 1/4 billion contract from the Rangers? Was his performance exactly equal to the multiple he made compared to an athletic assistant trainer for the Rangers? Who knows?
As soon as the athletic trainer puts fans in the seats the way A-Rod does you have a point...until then the only way to square that is to invoke the evaluation criteria that doesn't take into account overall team performance for the year (aka...company profit and stock price) that the public doesn't know about.
Value is determined by the buyer. Nothing is stopping a company from paying a CEO 200K except that a person won't do it for that. Likewise, nothing is stopping an NFL team from paying the franchise QB 200K except for the same reason.
Agreed, the the market is full of buyers determining value that do not follow supply and demand, or have reasonable justifications. See oil price fluctuations. I'm arguing that market fundamentals aren't at play with CEO pay. I don't see it as supply and demand. On the surface it isn't always skill set and talent. There are numerous instances of it not being performanced based unless the board of directors care more about some other metric other than stock price.
Companies are free to offer what they like but there is no entity or organization setting minimum pay. If you think about it, athlete salaries are less market force driven since players unions and league rules have dictated minimums and maximums.