Blame autocorrect. But you get my point: doesn't have to be the HBS class; could be the HBS professors; or 100 bankers with 20-years experience each. Point being, there's got to be a better explanation for CEO pay than ROI on their services.
Sorry, didn't mean to be a grammar-nazi. I think their job means much more than meets the eye. The guy is directly lobby-ing the US president, and highly ranked officials around the world. Mistakes at that level cost quite a lot. It might be the case that some professors can be up for the job, but would anyone take a chance?
> Point being, there's got to be a better explanation for CEO pay than ROI on their services.
I'm not sure there is a better explanation for it for now.
Economists call this the principal-agent problem. When/if we figure out how to have public corporations without boards of directors who are scandalously traitorous to the common stock investor, most commerce will move to that new model.
