It's difficult to understand pay of that size on a rational level. That represents individual shareholders voting for a significant dilution just to retain an extremely controversial celebrity CEO at a time when sales are falling. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/jul/02/t...

I see this kind of thing more as "how much the CEO is allowing himself to steal from the till because there's nobody above him" most of the time. Except in this case the shareholders really did make an expensive choice.