Would certainly be better but I would say ten years is not a crazy long time when it comes to borrowing decisions that often have 30 years timetables.

Also doesn't capture in the the unequalness of gains. Which is better - the fed doing something that has 90% chance of huge gains or a 10% chance of catastrophic economy shattering loss? Or an 80% chance of huge gains and a 20% chance of gains netting 0? The first is much more desirable if maximizing a bonus and could be tempting - but I dont think we want that risk.

It’s the same problem as CEO pay. But measuring success is even harder.

Yeah, this is about what I’m thinking. Normal salaries but options for massive payouts if things do well