Apple Executives and Directors Required to Hold 3x - 10x Base Salary in AAPL Stock

Discussion in 'MacRumors.com News Discussion' started by MacRumors, Feb 28, 2013.

  1. macrumors bot

    MacRumors

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2001
    #1
    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]
    Apple has changed its corporate bylaws [PDF] to require executives officers to hold three times their annual base salary in stock, with Non-Employee Directors holding five times their annual retainer and Tim Cook required to hold ten times his annual base salary in stock.

    The requirement for executives went into effect February 6th, while the requirement for Cook and the Directors went into effect back in November.

    From The Wall Street Journal:
    Proposal No. 5, an item that was voted on at the recent Apple Shareholder's Meeting, would have required executives to hold 33 percent of their equity pay until retirement. Apple felt this requirement was too onerous and instead adopted stockholding requirements relating to base yearly salary.

    The base salaries of most senior executives will be $875,000 for 2013, while Tim Cook's salary will be $1.4 million this year. Non-employee board members receive a $50,000 yearly retainer.

    Article Link: Apple Executives and Directors Required to Hold 3x - 10x Base Salary in AAPL Stock
     
  2. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2011
    #2
    So if Steve Jobs was still here, his $1 salary would mean....
     
  3. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2011
    #3
    I really think you need to move on, let Steve go buddy. We have Tim and Jonny and the team now. I know bereavement is tough. However you got to let it go.
     
  4. macrumors 601

    Compile 'em all

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2005
    #4
    1.4 mil doesn't sound like much.
     
  5. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2010
    #5
    It still amazes me how much some people make.
     
  6. macrumors 6502a

    iAppl3Fan

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    #6
    Thank you very much!
     
  7. macrumors G5

    Rogifan

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    #7
    Wonder if Jony Ive has to comply since he's not a named executive officer of the company. :confused:
     
  8. macrumors 68000

    KylePowers

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2011
    #8
    He gets all his money from stocks anyway, since I believe they're taxed a lot less.
     
  9. zin
    macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #9
    It's also 40 times the average retail store employee's salary and 245 times the average salary of somebody assembling the products.

    It's all relative.
     
  10. macrumors 6502

    bassfingers

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    #10
    From my experience, the consequences of his decisions merits at least 40x that of any retail employee.
     
  11. macrumors 65816

    topgunn

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2004
    Location:
    Texas
    #11
    And Steve Jobs' family is required to hold 100 times his annual salary in Apple stock or 1/6 of a share.
     
  12. macrumors 68030

    basesloaded190

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2007
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    #12
    And also 1/48th of Ralph Lauren's. It's tiny in comparison to other CEO's of major corporations.
     
  13. macrumors 6502

    UnfetteredMind

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    #13
    So they have 5 years to get to this level. I also see nothing regarding the timing or periodical nature of confirmation. Do they have to constantly review and determine if they meet this as the stock price fluctuates or is it just checked periodically (eg: 4 times a year)? Seems a bit ... odd.
     
  14. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #14
    Pretty sure it was a joke. Don't know how that qualifies as bereavement.
     
  15. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 16, 2007
    #15
    I think most people would agree the executives pay should be based on the stock value and not a fixed annual salary that doesnt rise or fall based on company performance. All that matters is total compensation and Tim Cook certainly is being rewarded with significant compensation.
     
  16. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2013
    #16
    Sarcasm radiates off that post.
     
  17. macrumors 68030

    TallManNY

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2007
    #17
    Well thank god they give these guys enough in stock options to have and hold this amount pretty easily.
     
  18. macrumors demi-god

    glenthompson

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2011
    Location:
    Virginia
    #18
    Good to see. More companies should take this approach. I've always felt that the higher up the food chain you are, the more your compensation should be based on company performance. For CEOs it should be 75% to 90% of the total package. Company takes a loss for the year, then your pay goes way down. Companies that pay executives bonuses when they lose money should be driven out of business.
     
  19. macrumors regular

    lwapps

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2012
    #19
    But then how do you account for a decreased in performance due to factors which are out of your control. A CEO would say it was unfair that his pay was decreased if the company takes a loss if, say, the economy went into a recession that year.

    It sounds like a good idea but I think it becomes a lot more complicated in practice.
     
  20. macrumors 65816

    Swift

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #20
    1.4 million?

    Yeah, but he's just selling people a million copies of something they make.

    Now, for big money, go into healthcare... the CEOs really make out blackmailing people to pay to save their lives.
     
  21. macrumors 68030

    MattInOz

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    Location:
    Sydney
    #21
    Or banking for much the same reason.
     
  22. macrumors 6502a

    Nunyabinez

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Location:
    Provo, UT
    #22
    Uh no they don't. You assume that stock price is a direct function of how well a company is being run and that is ridiculous. Look at the different financial ratios and compare say Google and Apple. You will see that the stock price can move quite independently of good management by executives and objective measures of performance.

    Also, lets say my compensation is all tied to stock performance. Let's see... how could I quickly pump up my stock price so I could sell and make a bunch of money. I could cut expenses. What is really expensive to companies? Oh yeah, people! They cost a lot. I'll layoff 5000 employees, cut expenses pump up my stock and make a fortune. Guess what? This has happened more times than you would like to know. I would rather have a CEO draw a huge salary than give him compensation that he has the direct ability to manipulate for his own selfish desires.
     
  23. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    #23
    in my job, if my company is failing - for whatever reason - I get paid less, through our bonus structure.

    It doesnt matter if the problem is CEOrelated, or the market taking a dive, I get paid less. Hell, if head office change stuff that ultimately removes my depart,ments ability to make money, irrespective of the value we provide, we get less $$..

    thats life.

    CEOs should play by same rules.
     
  24. macrumors 68030

    Krazy Bill

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    #24
    Maybe Al Gore can get Al Jazeera to kick in his share? :eek:
     
  25. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2011
    #25
    Oh, the hardships these people must endure!
     

Share This Page