decades of much lower executive pay. They did this in a small market with limited resources. (Their initial resources were donated to them by the Church and they wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for that. They used to report on their stewardship of these assets, but I understand they no longer do.) IHC achieved amazing results with such leadership then, why can’t they now?

I think it is a false dilemma saying you either you pay the big bucks and get quality or you don’t. There is a spectrum of other possibilities. I do think the high growth strategy (expanding into markets like Las Vegas) may require a different type of executive team. I also think the higher paid team is more likely to focus on going big. But is that right? Is it what is best?