>This may be a correlation-vs-causation effect. It's possible that companies that are in poor markets and likely to do poorly in the next few years have to pay more to attract qualified CEO candidates, because good executives realize the shit the company is in and don't want to take the risk of a failure on their resume without being compensated significantly for it.
I was also thinking that it could be the correlation vs causation effect, but I think it may have more to do with the fact that the highest paid CEOs are usually going to be found working at gigantic companies that are struggling to continue to grow.
Yes I think this is a simpler correlation. Bigger established companies have more cash to pay the CEO but less room for growth. The companies themselves are probably more concerned with minimizing risk and holding position - it might be a better study to compare CEO pay with board evaluation of performance.
I was also thinking that it could be the correlation vs causation effect, but I think it may have more to do with the fact that the highest paid CEOs are usually going to be found working at gigantic companies that are struggling to continue to grow.