It’s been 17 months since Richard Grasso was forced to resign as chairman of the New York Stock Exchange in a scandal over his wildly excessive pay package, but the scandal just won’t go away. Last week the exchange released the results of its own investigation into Mr. Grasso’s compensation, and tongues started wagging all over again. It turns out that things were worse – one might even say more bizarre – than anyone had suspected.

That investigation concluded that Mr. Grasso had received a total of roughly $150 million in “excessive” compensation and that this came about because he enjoyed extraordinary control over which members of the exchange board would sit on or chair its compensation committee, which led to “conflicts of interest.” Nor was Mr. Grasso the only one receiving excessive remuneration. The report says his executive assistant (personal secretary) was paid $240,000 a year, or roughly three times what other personal assistants earn, and that his two drivers were each paid $130,000 a year, or twice the going rate. And Mr. Grasso’s two top lieutenants were each given retirement packages worth more than $19 million.

All over Wall Street – and in many other places throughout the world – people reacted to the news with mixed emotions. There was outrage, of course, about the excessiveness of it all, the greed, along with disgust that “the system” could be gamed so shamelessly. There was also at least a little envy – after all, how many other top executives’ compensation packages are also negotiated at something less than “arm’s length”? Why should they be penalized because they were unable or unwilling to push the envelope the way Mr. Grasso apparently did? But perhaps most surprisingly of all, many people reacted with admiration for the man’s chutzpah – the shamelessness, the sheer, unmitigated gall – a trait regarded with special esteem on the mean streets of New York’s outer boroughs, the streets on which Mr. Grasso grew up.

You might say he took the money because it was there for the taking – just as mountain climbers say they feel a need to conquer Mount Everest simply “because it is there.” What gives nonclimbers the right to say that isn’t reason enough?

How can we really be sure that Mr. Grasso’s compensation was, as the exchange report called it, “far beyond reasonable levels”? Nobody is suggesting that it was unreasonable “beyond a reasonable doubt.” That is, nobody is arguing that its sheer excessiveness broke any law. The exchange has argued, to the contrary, that its board had every reason to feel Mr. Grasso was doing an excellent job and was worth whatever he was paid. Given what we have learned about the situation in just the past week, it is an argument that is peculiarly ineffective. The reason is one other emotion unleashed by the board’s investigation report: resentment.

It is conventional wisdom, on Wall Street as throughout the business world, that while high compensation is effective as a “satisfier,” it is even more potent as a “dissatisfier.” For each employee who feels properly rewarded and appreciated when given a generous raise, many of his or her colleagues will look upon that raise as cause for jealousy, envy, resentment at having been passed over, along with suspicions of bias, favoritism, or even impropriety.

In this case, at least, those suspicions seem to be extraordinarily well founded.