Many founder CEOs take little or no salary or direct compensation for their jobs. Owning a big percentage of the stock is enough motivation to make the company more valuable.

Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs and Jack Dorsey have all at times taken $1 annual salaries.

Owning company stock or getting a salary doesn't really matter in this case. Both are compensation.

People also get up in arms on stock grants. Look at the recent Musk case. Regardless of what you think of Musk, any TSLA investor should be ecstatic with what he did with the stock. He took most of his salary in stock and now they want it back. The main reason the numbers sound big is because the stock grew so much.

But Zuckerberg still received more than 24 million in benefits from Meta. Another bluff. It is like saying you have 1$ salary while company is covering all your personal expenses.

Actually it will be better, more transparent if he received 24M salary instead of using benefits and bragging about $1.

I guess that's very tax-efficient too.

Wasn't that all security

It seems so, in so far as that it’s roughly the same as the number in this 2021 article.

https://www.thetimes.com/article/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-se....

Note that is a pretty comfortable form of security, including jets.

I'm sure you can call everything a security expense.

I need a secure housing. I need a secure meal. I need a secure car, jet, yacht. I need a secure sweatpants...

Don't forget Jeff Bezos – he took 80k/year the whole time he was CEO of Amazon.

If I was the owner of Amazon I would also "pay myself" $1. It doesn't make any difference.

Yes, that is the point being made.

It has nothing to do with motivation.

They have $1 salary and then get a ton of dividends or sell stock (both of which are taxed at waay lower rate than salary)

So they are very well compensated at all times.

I honestly don’t understand why they like to mention this $1 bs all the time.