Earlier quoted context omitted.
I haven't denied any such thing. I'm literally just saying it's a gamble. Is it a problem? It seems unsolvable if so, unless we should ban CEOs from receiving stock compensation?
>I haven't denied any such thing. I'm literally just saying it's a gamble. Well, you said it was "at best a gamble". I don't know how else I'm supposed to interpret that besides you saying there was "at best" a 50/50 shot of either outcome happening from the perspective of the ones that announced it. I'm going to assume this is not what you meant. Anyway, since it's established that we're in agreement (maybe? It's no…
I feel like I'm on crazy pills.
Executives. Do. Not. Have. Windows. To. Sell. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this.
They have exact dates with exact numbers of shares on which sales will execute with exactly zero input from them. It's literally the most restrictive thing you can imagine, short of not allowing them to engage in stock sales at all.
https://www.raymondjames.com/-/media/rj/advisor-sites/sites/...
Here is what you seem to think happened: Daniel Ek fired a bunch of people during an open trading window, saw that the stock price went up, and sold a bunch of shares.
Here is what actually happened: Daniel Ek put together a schedule of specific stock sales at the beginning of 2023 that executed automatically on his behalf throughout the year. At some point during the year, he decided to fire a bunch of people.
> Better yet spread their entire buy/sell order over the course of the year.
They do. It's on a schedule. Over the course of the year.
> Or even better still, don't allow them to sell stock AT ALL until they are not in charge or aware of high level decisions at the company.
This is effectively banning equity pay for executives. Unless you think we should make C level executives somehow not in charge of high level decisions.
> CEO pay is on average 399x their average employee
An entirely different discussion.