Does this mean that a company should use somebody who owns a lot of shares during bad times (when some drastic measure is needed to bring the company back into profitability), and normal paycheck-people during normal times (to ensure that no big risk is taken without reason)? (genuinely asking)
> confused as to why someone who owns a lot of shares would want to take a "big risk" "without reason" during "normal times."
I wrote "normal paycheck-people during normal times (to ensure that no big risk is taken without reason)"
> Wouldn't a person with a lot of stock not want to take a big risk without reason at any time?
(honestly, I'm not sure if I understand the double negation correctly) If you got the stock (or options) for the price of "1" while becoming CEO or similar, you'll probably desperately try to raise that stock price above 1 while your "empire" lasts.
