That doesn't work too well for "closely" held stocks.

And it's way out of whack here in the states, compared to the rest of the world.

 

What about your judgement? Is it possible that the market has missed something?

 

At HP and Compaq'a shareholders expense. They voted on the merger and took the risk. They were wrong and paid the price. It's their company, non-shareholders can't tell them what to do.

 

What do you mean by "closely held stocks"?

Private companies still have owners.

VC funded companies have to answer to the VC investors.

 

Personally, I do not watch TV shows starring Paris Hilton. If it were up to me, her only income would be from daddy.

Celebrities have the power of leverage. All those millions of people that watch her tell the networks to pay her so that they can. Advertisers want exposure and will pay for ads during her show. Like it or not, the networks and advertisers value her. Consumers/viewers value the enjoyment they receive from watching her show.

 

Closely held is when the executives(or insiders) own a large chunk of the company(IE: more than 50%). They can vote themselves all the bonuses, stock options, stock grants they want. The mutual funds and everyday share-holders don't have enough of a vote.

 

You originally said the level of income proves the benefit to society. That is different from how much customers value the service being provided.

We basically have a system of socialism for those at the top and capitalism for those at the bottom. When who you know matters more than what you know, society is dumbed down.

 

If you owned a business, you could pay yourself whatever you wanted.

 

hmmm...
he's a mod you know!

 

Yes. They don't actually own the business though. They may own a controlling share(or form a controlling block). And the rest of the stock holders have no say in what their income should be. That's why I was saying it's not determined by what value they add to society.