My perennial near-hero Mark Cuban recently examined the issue of CEO pay, over on his handy soapbox, The Blog Maverick. In his blog post titled "My 2 Cents on CEO Pay," Mr. Cuban outlined his position on the subject and tossed some ideas around. The post makes a good read, and the author makes some good points. Additionally, the 65 or so comments by the readers are well worth the time to cruise them.

I'd like to discuss and expand upon an idea someone presented in addition to those discussed by Mark Cuban. It's actually a reverse scenario to what Mr. Cuban describes as moving chief executive officers into "the cash zone." In the Cuban scenario, the CEO would be paid cash, without additional compensation through stock grants, in order to make their pay more tangible and visible as a business expenditure. Mr. Cuban also asserts that this might more closely align CEO compensation with company performance. It's an admirable idea, but I doubt that it will ever happen.

In this alternate approach, we give the CEO all the stock certificates he or she can swallow. Then we provide an equal number to be divided among all other employees of the company. In this manner of compensation, all employees have their hands on the ball. The concept of laboring to line the pockets of someone else with gold would become extinct. The CEO would suddenly become a real person in the eyes of the rank-and-file laborers. Likewise, the labor force would be inextricably linked to the financial success of the CEO. If labor is to share the risk, they should also share the reward.

A further stop-gap to this scenario would be if upper management deemed that labor cuts were needed to create profitability, or for any reason other than "cause," they and the CEO would be required to surrender share holdings equal to the holdings of the displaced workers. These surrendered shares would then be distributed to the pink-slipped workforce members, with the company paying all applicable taxes on the transfer. Additionally, no party would be allowed to liquidate more than 5% of their holdings in any one year, as long as they were employed by the company, and upper management would be required to maintain holdings at least equal to those of the workforce.

I know it's a lofty scenario, but it sure would beat the heck out of what we have going on now.

January 22, 2007 was a tough day for Pfizer executives ... pardon me while I muse.

Imagine you own a business. In the past, things were good. You had all the right products and a solid reputation. Sales were strong, profits were good. But then something happened and suddenly your competition could sell the same products that you had. Oh my goodness! Whatever will you do???

Skeletonize your sales force. Cripple research and development. Curtail manufacturing. WOW! What a cool plan that is! That will send a real strong message to your customers and your competition. Why doesn't every business in a tough spot do that?

I'll tell you why, because it's the path taken by the spineless and lost. It is the way of fools.

Pfizer (NYSE:PFE) is projecting weakness, fear, and lack of fortitude. Pfizer is signaling it has nothing to offer you. Pfizer should just sell its assets, lock, stock and barrel and let someone new buy and run the show. Operating in fear of patent expiration... what a lack of vision that is.

Pfizer should just close up shop and get down the road. If its best idea for generating profits is cutting heads, well then I think the best way for investors to protect their dignity is by cutting Pfizer.

Please remain calm and move quickly towards the exits... a patent is expiring... OH NO!