Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Awards Executives 1,000,000 Shares of Stock to Stay Until 2016
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
He is a designer ... if he aint happy with what he gets fed, there is always someone's nephew to do the job.
Because Ive isnt classified as an executive officer by Apple under SEC rules
One top executive, industrial-design manager Jony Ive, wasn’t mentioned in the latest stock grants. Because Ive isn’t classified as an executive officer by Apple under Securities and Exchange Commission rules, the company can keep his compensation private. Despite carrying the senior vice president title, Ive isn’t listed as an executive officer by Apple in its annual shareholder proxy statement.
From Bloomberg
One top executive, industrial-design manager Jony Ive, wasn’t mentioned in the latest stock grants. Because Ive isn’t classified as an executive officer by Apple under Securities and Exchange Commission rules, the company can keep his compensation private. Despite carrying the senior vice president title, Ive isn’t listed as an executive officer by Apple in its annual shareholder proxy statement.
From Bloomberg
So more people spam the environment? We already ****ed up the balance by continuously trying to eliminate the world's basic population control mechanism.
I'm not normally one for complaining about salaries of directors of companies, contrary to popular belief I think they do an incredibly difficult job and deserve a very high salary... having said that... this seems just a bit excessive.
Are you implying that's a bad thing?
An old, very wise saying...
"When you are younger and not a liberal, you have no heart. When you are older and not a conservative, you have no brain."
I've grown up.
I think the stock options were necessary to keep the executive team intact. Its more important now than ever without Steve. Smart move by Apple and this is coming from an APPL stock holder. Only thing that worries be is Ive not being included.
I would think a real conservative would be very hesitant to align his or herself with what is now considered the far right. Conservative != Far right.
As I said above I don't mind high salaries for directors because they work extremely hard and have a huge amount of responsiblity. However, I can't help but think if I worked for a US company where I had less in terms of employment rights I'd be pretty annoyed. In somewhere like the EU employees seem to generally have better rights in terms of paid holiday, paid sick leave, paternity/maternity leave, dismissal notice, unfair dismissal, redundancy pay etc. In the US it seems a sizeable number of people view the limited employee rights provisions that are already there as communism!
Executive salaries do not occur in a vacuum. Like any other transaction, they occur in a free market, which sets the price. Again, the people running Apple are not complete idiots. If they thought they could hire brilliant, successful execs for less money, they'd do it in a heartbeat. In any business, no matter the size, labor costs are nearly always the largest expense--far more than the costs of energy, raw materials, R&D, real estate, equipment, or marketing. If they could trim that, they would. If you think there is a great "conspiracy" to overspend on this part of a company's budget, one that affects the bottom-line profitability so directly, you are making quite a demonizing leap of faith in the existence of a Boogeyman (or cadre of "boogeymen").
Executive salaries are high because the the positions are esteemed as so valuable that qualified candidates can ask for and get that compensation. No conspiracy among corporate boards to keep the exec salaries high. They'd love to pay them less if they could get away with it. But in a competitive marketplace it cannot be done.
A sports metaphor might help: if you had a major league baseball team, and you brought a fantastic pitcher up from your farm teams, initially you would be able to pay him slightly less than market value. Once he starts shutting down teams with his 100+ mph fastballs, the other clubs will note his value. When his contract with your team expires, he will get a huge lucrative offer from the highest bidder. You cannot control how much you'll pay him. The market does. Some team who desperately needs a starting pitcher who can throw heat will offer him more than any other team. Whatever that amount is determines the salary.
Is it fair? Is this pitcher a genius? No. Does he have the education of a teacher, professor, or scientist? No. Does he have amazing productivity as a skilled craftsman? No. Does he have the work ethic of a farmer or coal miner? No. Just lucky to have a unique physiology that permits him to hurl pitches at a very fast rate of speed coupled with the psychology of a competitor that enables him to perform at a high level under extremely high-stress situations. Fortunately for the pitcher, that skill set is in extremely high demand, as as thirty ball clubs struggle against one another to find a competitive advantage that will result in victory and financial reward, the price for such a rare talent climbs. Teams use stats and projections to determine the value of a player, and they do not WANT to overspend for their talent.
So it is with Fortune 500 companies. No board WANTS to overspend for CEO compensation. It eats at the bottom line profitability of a company like a cancer. But the specialized skills of a corporate executive are so highly valued that the market drives the price up.
The only entity you can credibly demonize in all of this is is free market capitalism itself, which has some flaws but certainly beats the alternatives. The lucky 1% are not conspiring to inflate one another's salaries. If they could, boards would pay less for executive salaries. They cannot. The market won't let them.
I am not on the far right... to be totally honest I'm probably better classified as libertarian than conservative. I have big problems with the "far anything", left or right. Way too many extremists for my taste. The only effective way for any large group of diversely opinionated people to function cohesively is to be able to recognize the value of agreeing to disagree while continuing to work towards a common goal. We have too little of that these days. No one is willing to budge because of the fear that the other side will take it too far.
From a business perspective, there is little doubt in my mind that the government (read: corrupt bureaucracy) should have the minimum involvement as possible. And I am repulsed by the concept that it is the government's job to take more from the people who have put in the sweat equity to make it and dole it out to many who are too damn lazy to bother (thus lining up a nice solid voting base).
Finally, if I hear our President or one of his flunkeys using the phrase "millionaires and billionaires" (where millionaire means someone earning more that $200,000 annually) one more time, I am fearful that I will puke right where I stand.
Have to love the passion of all the communists and marxists, even if their passion is completely misguided.
In what backwards pants, paradigm shifted, alternate universe was communism ever a good idea? Did the history books leave out the part where some country operated on communism and everybody loved it and prospered and the country became a superpower and bambi was re-born and the clouds parted and jesus played the first solo of comfortably numb on his thunder guitar for the world to see?
All these Occupy protestors think their protesting some "new fanged" idea where the wealth is redistributed and everyone gets a piece of the pie.
But this isn't new, marxism and communism has been around for ages, and it's proven time and time again to be an impractical mechanism.
I don't think most of the right leaning minds would even suggest that capitalism is perfect in all ways shapes and forms, but its still the best system we've got in this world.
People have to open their eyes. This is a global economy just like products, company talent is free to move.
I could spend ages bringing up pro capitalism statistics, explaining the economics of it all (both on a macro level, and on a labour level), but I think capitalisms record vs communism speaks for itself.
For all of you occupy advocates out there, who think their not getting a fair share of the proverbial pie I leave you with the following thoughts.
When your strapping on your "workboots" in the morning, think long and hard about your current position, and where you want to be 5 years down the road. This could be a financial or non-financial goal, but really try to frame it as what you would like your quality of life to be like. Once you've figured that out, start looking for people who have that quality of life, and figure out what they did. You'll quickly find in most cases that the person wasn't handed their quality of life on a silver platter, but took a risk at one point in time and ended up reaping the benefits. Don't sit back and expect others to fix your problems, you'll drive yourself crazy. There is only one person in the world that can dictate your wealth; and thats yourself. Once you attain your status as the 1%, then you can make real differences to other peoples lives and "share the wealth". I mean thats the end game right? Otherwise your just a wolf in sheeps clothing.
Cheers
In what backwards pants, paradigm shifted, alternate universe was communism ever a good idea? Did the history books leave out the part where some country operated on communism and everybody loved it and prospered and the country became a superpower and bambi was re-born and the clouds parted and jesus played the first solo of comfortably numb on his thunder guitar for the world to see?
All these Occupy protestors think their protesting some "new fanged" idea where the wealth is redistributed and everyone gets a piece of the pie.
But this isn't new, marxism and communism has been around for ages, and it's proven time and time again to be an impractical mechanism.
I don't think most of the right leaning minds would even suggest that capitalism is perfect in all ways shapes and forms, but its still the best system we've got in this world.
People have to open their eyes. This is a global economy just like products, company talent is free to move.
I could spend ages bringing up pro capitalism statistics, explaining the economics of it all (both on a macro level, and on a labour level), but I think capitalisms record vs communism speaks for itself.
For all of you occupy advocates out there, who think their not getting a fair share of the proverbial pie I leave you with the following thoughts.
When your strapping on your "workboots" in the morning, think long and hard about your current position, and where you want to be 5 years down the road. This could be a financial or non-financial goal, but really try to frame it as what you would like your quality of life to be like. Once you've figured that out, start looking for people who have that quality of life, and figure out what they did. You'll quickly find in most cases that the person wasn't handed their quality of life on a silver platter, but took a risk at one point in time and ended up reaping the benefits. Don't sit back and expect others to fix your problems, you'll drive yourself crazy. There is only one person in the world that can dictate your wealth; and thats yourself. Once you attain your status as the 1%, then you can make real differences to other peoples lives and "share the wealth". I mean thats the end game right? Otherwise your just a wolf in sheeps clothing.
Cheers
Last edited:
Just sayin...
I understand that the awards don't fully vest until their milestone dates in 2014 and 2016, but at today's prices those are bonus of ~$400,000,000 USD. That's some serious coinage, even more so if Apple's stock continues to rise at the rate it has for the past five years. I guess if you have $80,000,000,000 in the bank and just had your total revenue surpass $100,000,000,000 for the first time (FY2011), you might be willing to shell out a couple billion to hold onto your exec team for another five years. Especially since most of them were there for Jobs anyway, and now that he's gone (along with all his charisma, quirks, vision, leadership, etc.) maybe money is the only other thing that these guys can stay loyal to.
There are so many zeroes in those numbers it almost looks fake. Just for some contrast... most UC schools can operate at around ~$40,000,000 per year and CS schools at ~$30,000,000 per year, so... Just one of their board members could theoretically fund a UC school for about a decade with no one paying any tuition. And if they filed properly it could be 100% tax deductible, assuming they would need any deductions. And that's not taking into account the monies the schools get from the Fed/State level either, so maybe 20 years! I'm not socialist (it's a lot of zeroes, but it's all relative and they did earn it, essentially...) and obviously not accounting for inflation OR the fact that when the shares vest in 2014 or 2016 the stock price could be A LOT more than the current $400/share... Like $750/share, or a 2:1 split at some point like in '05... So the outrageous number of $400 million could be somewhere much close to $1 BILLION dollars per person, jus in (essentially) retention bonuses... I'm just sayin...
I understand that the awards don't fully vest until their milestone dates in 2014 and 2016, but at today's prices those are bonus of ~$400,000,000 USD. That's some serious coinage, even more so if Apple's stock continues to rise at the rate it has for the past five years. I guess if you have $80,000,000,000 in the bank and just had your total revenue surpass $100,000,000,000 for the first time (FY2011), you might be willing to shell out a couple billion to hold onto your exec team for another five years. Especially since most of them were there for Jobs anyway, and now that he's gone (along with all his charisma, quirks, vision, leadership, etc.) maybe money is the only other thing that these guys can stay loyal to.
There are so many zeroes in those numbers it almost looks fake. Just for some contrast... most UC schools can operate at around ~$40,000,000 per year and CS schools at ~$30,000,000 per year, so... Just one of their board members could theoretically fund a UC school for about a decade with no one paying any tuition. And if they filed properly it could be 100% tax deductible, assuming they would need any deductions. And that's not taking into account the monies the schools get from the Fed/State level either, so maybe 20 years! I'm not socialist (it's a lot of zeroes, but it's all relative and they did earn it, essentially...) and obviously not accounting for inflation OR the fact that when the shares vest in 2014 or 2016 the stock price could be A LOT more than the current $400/share... Like $750/share, or a 2:1 split at some point like in '05... So the outrageous number of $400 million could be somewhere much close to $1 BILLION dollars per person, jus in (essentially) retention bonuses... I'm just sayin...
Thing is, it isnt a binary choice. Your dichotomy is false. As an example, the Scandinavian model is looking stronger and stronger. In fact, its "surprising" resiliance in the wake of the economic crisis led OECD to officially adopt it as an alternative route to the anglo-saxian capitalist model.
Treating workers well doesnt lead to zero growth. Nor does it lead to societal downfall. There is plenty of data backing me on that.
For most, it is never about handing people things on silver platters. Rather, it is about providing people with the means to create their own happiness. Health care, education, child care, paternal/maternal leave, unemployment benefits, sick benefits. You know, these little things that actually make your quality of life higher than your realistic wage ever would.
In the end, most people want the same thing. A life with much joy, and few worries. Trust me, you dont need flat taxes to be able to have that.
Cheers!
Last edited:
Like many of the protesters, you probably have an incredibly high standard of living, on any historical or geographical comparison (your being on this forum is good evidence of that) and you act like you have to go to work every day and get whipped on the assembly line.
Funny, people are complaining that it is a lot of money and they don't deserve it, well, it is a lot of money but there are ACTORS who make as much in their movies, are you saying they deserve the? Worse yet, Kim Kardashian is getting paid millions to be a dumb bimbo...