| ▲ | bko 3 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||
I think it's a pretty clear counterfactual. Someone works there company is worth X. If he doesn't work there, what would the company be worth? Note that the role itself doesn't go away, it will get replaced, but the difference in market value is his worth to the company compared to a median CEO. It sounds like you just have something icky against someone being worth billions to a business. It's not a moral worth, it's just a market value as perceived by the market. In other words, a rational investor would gladly pay the CEO $1b for him not to leave and save $6b in market cap. So by definition he must be worth at least that much. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | john_strinlai 3 hours ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||
>It sounds like you just have something icky against someone being worth billions to a business. there's many explanations as to why the stock dropped the amount it did. one of the least likely was that desai's leadership is worth billions of dollars. it has nothing to do with "icky". a rational investor would not want desai to receive a ~20x raise to stay, either. i have no idea why you think they would. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||