I'm lost. The original question was:
Now all we need is a reliable way to identify a 'good' CEO without the benefit of hindsight.
Your response was "A candidate has to have a track record of success."
People are pointing out that doesn't appear to be sufficient.
So I agree that people hiring CEOs aren't morons and think about it. But I'm still not sure what indicators are useful outside track record, or indeed if you think that is sufficient.
I didn't say it was sufficient. For example, if I say "an airplane has to have wings" would you argue that isn't all it needs? Of course not.
There's a reason that English has the words "all", "only", etc. For example, there's a difference between "people like hamburgers" and "all people like hamburgers." There's a difference between "choosy people choose cheese" and "only choosy people choose cheese." English is not a programming language.
I suggest interpreting my messages from a presumption that neither am I a moron nor are people who select executives.
You've said "A candidate has to have a track record of success. That's how", but every question people have raised to try and identify additional points the response hasn't really added any additional information.
If your point that "people who [successfully] select CEOs" have some additional criteria that they use (outside the track record) then: Yes! Great!
What is it?
Let me put it another way. Can we reasonably assume that people who find themselves in the position of needing to hire a CEO with their own money are not complete morons and will spend more than 5 minutes thinking about it?