The article points out that Mozillo was a prime beneficiary of CFC stock buybacks.  Long term CFC shareholders would have been better off with dividends.  As you point out (in the case of CFC),  to benefit from buybacks, you had to sell.  This seems rather perverse for long term shareholders, unless of course, they are receivers of stock options, as Mozillo was. 

Russ:  you seem to confuse how an executive is compensated with how he (or you and I) invests.  Many executives receive a disproportionate share of their compensation in the form of stock options.  If they are successful in building the company and growing the stock price, they are - like shareholders - compensated well.  In order to realize this compensation, they must exercise their stock options.

Aside from how he is compensated, Mozillo owned 1,558,723 shares of CFC stock in early 2006.  In May 2007, he owned 1,921,691 shares.  He is also a long-term shareholder, just like you and me.  He took a much bigger hit on his share ownership than you or I did.  I actually owned a few hundred shares last year, but sold somewhere between $25 and $30....for a tax loss.

I am not bitter, nor do I look for somebody to blame when things go wrong.  I also own BRK, but I don't resent Buffett simply because he doesn't pay a dividend.  I own Microsoft, but I don't resent Bill Gates simply because he pays a paltry dividend.

I live in a free country, and I can sell my shares any day if I feel the management isn't running the company properly.  I can also vote my shares as I please.  If a company is taken down by criminal behaviour, those responsible should be prosecuted.  Otherwise, I have to accept that some of my investments (like CFC) will - in hindsight - turn out to be poor.

Best wishes.

Andy