RE: RE: RE: quick question... >>nav declines, say, 50% one year and then gains 100% the following year (i.e. nav goes back to its starting point) that the CEO gets a stellar payout despite the fact that, like i said, it's just gone back to where it was the year before?
I think it's even worse than that. If it drops by 50% one year, and then more people buy in taking the assets back to the original point, but the NAV stays at the bottom, the CEO gets a HUGE payout (from the assets of the people who just bought in and from the people who are down 50%)