I would have thought that if the boss buys a mansion and registers it under the names of trusted but invulnerable dependents - or some similar mechanism - that is the time to get out.
I have to accept the empirical basis of the argument. If the correlation exists, and can be replicated, then maybe mansion ownership does presage less attention to business. But, my gut says that the big CEO's are not motivated merely by dollars. Materially, what is the difference between 20 million and 5 million a year? In this upper league the guys and gals are fueled by ego, power, and reputation.
I think that some of the skills, expertise, and gravity of decisions taken by me, and a host of colleagues, were just as important in things that matter as those taken by leading CEO's, but we did it for only 1-5% of their remuneration. We did our work just as seriously even though the dollar amounts were less. It seems to me that the nexus between dollar amounts and devotion to duty needs to be proved.

In a past life as an executive recruiter, the GM of a certain overseas merchant bank told me that they had a check list of 10 easily observable factors, any one of which would automatically exclude a company from obtaining any finance from them.

I have no intention of listing them here but they all betrayed a corporate culture that was primarily focussed on what the senior executive team could extract from the company rather than what they could contribute to it.

These attributes evolve over time but retain their essence. They were rife in some of our more conspicuous corporate failures. And anyone who was aware of the checklist would have seen the Adlers and the Jodi Rich's of this world from a mile away.

A quick glance around the head offices of government departments is a revelation.

yes. and when they award themselves huge bonuses and salaries. as in - wait for macquarie bank to go next. jas