This IS like politics and I'm sure we'll just end up agreeing to disagree. So I'll just say my piece and then look forward to your continued insights on SFI in other areas. That's what got me into my SFI stake in the first place.
I, too, don't want Barney Frank dictating executive compensation. I believe market forces ought to do that. Believing that, I often wonder what market conditions have exploded exec comp to such extraordinary relative levels in the past decade. I do not believe it's supply/demand - that there is far greater demand for exec skills than supply of skilled execs. I believe the prevailing market forces determining comp levels are apathy, and apologies for using a loaded word - apathy such as yours on this subject. I believe superior executive talent will always push the compensation envelope. It's indicative of their inherent skills. So if noone pushes back, you're where we are today and I as a shareholder, want to push back. Well, OK, if I WERE a shareholder, I would want to push back... I'm a preferred owner...I AM market forces.
I do have one question for you, Quad, on this subject, then onward we go, If you truly believe what you say when you wrote, "I do not think Sugarman has any control whatsoever over share price. Nada; niente; zero," then why would voting him control over MORE shares provide him greater incentive to do anything to boost share price? If Sugar didn't believe his decisions could potentially influence share price, then what was his motivation to have come up with a plan to award himself more shares at a time and price when price has been decimated.