Apple Awards Executives 1,000,000 Shares of Stock to Stay Until 2016

[CalWizrd]

Sorry, but that's a really cop-out answer. We aren't talking about human error, or mistakes which everyone invariably makes, we are talking about incompetent people in charge of 10's or even 100's of millions of dollars, not to mention countless employees... to place incompetent people in any organization, and to keep them there and to reward them is utterly ridiculous.

The system of having the wrong kind's of people in the wrong kind's of jobs for all the wrong reasons is why America looks like it does (more and more like a South American banana republic).

Sorry, but that's a real world answer. Had the individuals I referenced been under my management, I would have jumped through all of the endless EEOC requirements to spend six months documenting their poor (or lack of) performance, so that I could have gone to my HR liaison to present the case that they need to work elsewhere.

Sadly, they were not within my organizational management, so there was not a whole lot that I could do other than making sure that anything I required from their areas was delivered in spite of their best efforts to the contrary.

As for your South American banana republic comment, I'm sorry to say that in my opinion, our elected officials (either party/both parties) are the ones leading the charge in that direction.

 

[whatever]

Wrong. Steve Wozniak is that good people with minimum cost.

Although Woz is an awesome personality, he does not have the corporate mind to run a company such as Apple. He's the first one to admit it (and does in his autobiography). He has no interest in running a company or managing people.

 

[mccldwll]

...but two thirds of the "cash" is in off-shore accounts to avoid paying US taxes. If Apple brought it to the US to invest in the business - Apple would have to contribute their fair share to the US.

Not quite true, as usual. Two thirds of the cash is off-shore because it was earned overseas. If the cash is brought into the country, additional taxes (above those already paid to foreign jurisdictions) would have to be paid. However, not only is the cash not needed here, but since the tech business is growing fastest in other parts of the world, that's probably where the cash is more needed to "invest in the business", and where it's now being used quite effectively. Microsoft, on the other hand, rather than repatriate cash and "contribute their [sic] fair share", borrowed money domestically to distribute it to shareholders. So riddle me this AS, which corporate entity is really circumventing U.S. taxes?

 

[imageWIS]

Sorry, but that's a real world answer. Had the individuals I referenced been under my management, I would have jumped through all of the endless EEOC requirements to spend six months documenting their poor (or lack of) performance, so that I could have gone to my HR liaison to present the case that they need to work elsewhere.

Sadly, they were not within my organizational management, so there was not a whole lot that I could do other than making sure that anything I required from their areas was delivered in spite of their best efforts to the contrary.

As for your South American banana republic comment, I'm sorry to say that in my opinion, our elected officials (either party/both parties) are the ones leading the charge in that direction.

I always thought (as did Steve, btw) that the world is what you (we collectively as well) make of it.

The elected officials are most certainly to blame, but so are the companies that bribe them (PAC's are legal bribes, but are still bribes). And as can be seen with the revolving door movement of Gov. people to the private sector and vice-versa, the corporations and the government are one and the same. Corporations, and you pointed this out in your previous post reinforce and reward cronyism as much as the government does.

----------

Not quite true, as usual. Two thirds of the cash is off-shore because it was earned overseas. If the cash is brought into the country, additional taxes (above those already paid to foreign jurisdictions) would have to be paid. However, not only is the cash not needed here, but since the tech business is growing fastest in other parts of the world, that's probably where the cash is more needed to "invest in the business", and where it's now being used quite effectively. Microsoft, on the other hand, rather than repatriate cash and "contribute their [sic] fair share", borrowed money domestically to distribute it to shareholders. So riddle me this AS, which corporate entity is really circumventing U.S. taxes?

Regardless of who does it, corporations or people: nothing says patriotism and supporting America like not paying taxes and lobbying congress to continue make even more loopholes.

 

[CalWizrd]

... Corporations, and you pointed this out in your previous post reinforce and reward cronyism as much as the government does.

Don't make it the diabolical evil plot that it isn't. In the case I described, it wasn't any kind of cronyism (although this certainly does exist). Simply a case of individuals who bluffed and smooth talked their way into positions for which they were not qualified. Unfortunately, their management didn't have the smarts (or stomach) to take the appropriate steps to remove them.

It would be nice if the good guys always won and the bad guys always lost. We can only give our best efforts to make things right. Sometimes it's tilting at windmills.

 

[imageWIS]

Don't make it the diabolical evil plot that it isn't. In the case I described, it wasn't any kind of cronyism (although this certainly does exist). Simply a case of individuals who bluffed and smooth talked their way into positions for which they were not qualified. Unfortunately, their management didn't have the smarts (or stomach) to take the appropriate steps to remove them.

It would be nice if the good guys always won and the bad guys always lost. We can only give our best efforts to make things right. Sometimes it's tilting at windmills.

The idea of meritocracy the union was founded on is disappearing, trying to save it IMHO would not be tilting at windmills (yes, I realize the irony that Quixote was a 'Don').

 

[jsolares]

...but two thirds of the "cash" is in off-shore accounts to avoid paying US taxes. If Apple brought it to the US to invest in the business - Apple would have to contribute their fair share to the US.

They don't need to bring it to the US in order to invest it in the business.

 

[DakotaGuy]

Wrongs. Teachers are the executives. Administrators are the high paid secretaries and status quo enforces. And from my point of view, administrators steal their ideas from working teachers and call it their own - this is when they decide to effect a little change. If I had wanted to be a policeman, I would have gone into administration.

I'm a teacher and I'm no executive. I have one concern and that is educating my 20 students. I teach, mentor, and discipline them and do whatever administrative tasks that I must do to keep my classroom operating in an effective manner. Principals are the executives managing the workforce of the school and Superintendents are mostly concerned with money matters and being the link between the Board of Education and the employees of the school.

I love teaching and look forward to each and everyday with my kids, but I'm no executive and the only people who answer to me are my 5th graders. That's it. I answer to everyone else. If you are in a situation where you are managing the functions and employees of a school as a teacher then either your school has very weak administration or you are pretending to be something you are not.

 

[samiwas]

Don't make it the diabolical evil plot that it isn't. In the case I described, it wasn't any kind of cronyism (although this certainly does exist). Simply a case of individuals who bluffed and smooth talked their way into positions for which they were not qualified. Unfortunately, their management didn't have the smarts (or stomach) to take the appropriate steps to remove them.

It would be nice if the good guys always won and the bad guys always lost. We can only give our best efforts to make things right. Sometimes it's tilting at windmills.

But, I thought that's what capitalistic market did. I thought it was the great equalizer, always making sure that good talent succeeds and bad talent fails. Hmmm...it seems that the market may have a rift. Who knew? I wonder how deep it goes....

 

[SmallWalrus]

So if these guys leave, they get nothing?

 

[malcolmffc]

Presumably Steve had gazillions of shares - what happened to those?

 

[divinox]

Apple's cash reserves are estimated to reach $94 billion by the end of this year. That money has not been invested in equipment, inventory, talent or intellectual property. It's just a vast pile of money sitting in a heap.

The typical reason that tech companies suspend dividends is to reinvest capital in the business to help it grow faster. Apple isn't doing that.

My point exactly.

And if you think these decisions are being made by idiots who don't know about this stuff called money, then you shouldn't buy the stock.

Its not about them being idiots. Its about them not necessarily acting in the best interest of share holders. Thing is, if Apple reached 500 bn in cash without dividends, you'd say the same thing "Apple knows best". Point is, they dont. When people invested in Apple they did so for their competences in computing and consumer electronics. Not for their skills in financial placements.

----------

It is not unusual for a CEO with extensive assets to take a $1 annual salary, as in:

Vikram Pandit
Eric Schmidt
Larry Page
Sergey Brin
Jerry Yang
Larry Ellison
Meg Whitman
Mark Zuckerberg
Jeff Katzenberg
John Chambers
etc.

Edit: Sorry, not all CEO's, but you get the point.

Never said it was. Just pointed out that most of them (if not all) arent doing it out of generosity, but rather out of greed.

 

[divinox]

I guess you have not read up how Apple uses it's cash pile as negotiation leverage. You see parts suppliers prefer dealing with companies who can pay their bills w/o taking on debt to pay them. It's a good reason why no other company has been able to produce an iPad at iPad prices and get the margins Apple gets.

But let's go to the video tape: to-date ROAE 41% & ROAA 27%. So tell me again what Apple isn't doing w/ it's capital? Or that you'd really rather have a 5% dividend over 20% growth in stock price (this year alone).

And they expect to make 100bn orders any time soon?

We're not arguing that Apple shouldnt keep cash stock. We're arguing that (possibly) Apple is keeping more stock than it needs. Big difference.

p.s.

your question makes little sense. that is not the actual choice.

(you dont really think that Apple is getting +20 yearly returns on their dead cash, right?)

----------

You're missing the key point. Apple's cash reserve is unallocated. They're not using it to pay bills or for any other business purpose. It's a fascinating (and unusual) business practice and I'm very interested to see what impact that massive stockpile has on their future actions and performance.

Yup.

 

[TallManNY]

It's called Capitalism. You get paid your market value. And yes, on the bottom line they DO contribute 20,000 times as much. Take Apple pre Steve Jobs and now. The company has gone from break even, barely, to 27B profit a year because of HIS decisions. So, paying Jobs even 1B over that time span would have been a good investment, and well below his market value. And it is not really about how much these executives get paid, because that's capitalism, and it's a publicly traded company, so shareholders have a say in it, it is really about what that individual does with the money he's paid, and THAT is what you can argue is the great injustice.

Yes, but it is a busted part of capitalism. Look, when Lebron James gets paid big bucks we know that if you put him on a basketball team, that team will become much much better. You know that and you know it with certainty. There is no way with any certainty that you could point at any specific member of the Apple management team and say, yes, when I add that person to another company, they add tens of millions of dollars of value compared to other executives.

The reality is that shareholders have lost control of their companies. We lost control decades ago and executive compensation, especially CEO compensation, has skyrocketed. The boards give out huge payments to top executives without any real reason to think these guys are that much dramatically better at their jobs than people at less successful companies. Has Apple had a great run? Yes, and I don't think these guys shouldn't become rich. But mega-millionairs? No, this is a busted part of capitalism. I don't have a solution. I haven't even read much of a solution. Maybe additional board of director liability (but then no one would sit on boards). It seems that only greater shareholder activism will get companies to control their executive office pay. Or we can just have additional taxes on the rich so at least some of that money get redistributed.

----------

And they expect to make 100bn orders any time soon?

We're not arguing that Apple shouldnt keep cash stock. We're arguing that (possibly) Apple is keeping more stock than it needs. Big difference.

p.s.

your question makes little sense. that is not the actual choice.

(you dont really think that Apple is getting +20 yearly returns on their dead cash, right?)

----------

Yep, the only way Apple is going to use that 100 BN is to acquire some giant company. Otherwise they sit and invest it in U.S. treasuries and are receiving 2% on that investment. We might also see more and more these huge payments to high level executives.

 

[scoobydoo99]

I am originally from the granite bedrock of Wisconsin. Earthquakes freak me right out! Maybe a little weed is the best way to wait out a tremor?

All-natural and much better for you than alcohol or tobacco

"They?"

And who taught you these Marxism-tinged conspiracy theories? Your professors at school?

FWIW I grew up in an extremely liberal family, and my alma mater was a liberal arts college, also very left-of-center. At age 19 I would have believed every word you've written.

Then I grew up.

I grew up conservative. At 19, I was an active member of the College Republicans! I can't even count the number of radical right-wing papers I wrote denouncing the bleeding-heart liberals who wanted to overspend on social programs!

So, I suppose we have each taken the other's earlier role. As Archer said:

"It's like O. Henry and Alanis Morissette had a baby and named it this exact situation!"

I'm kinda starting to like you.

 

[mccldwll]

Yes, but it is a busted part of capitalism. Look, when Lebron James gets paid big bucks we know that if you put him on a basketball team, that team will become much much better. You know that and you know it with certainty. There is no way with any certainty that you could point at any specific member of the Apple management team and say, yes, when I add that person to another company, they add tens of millions of dollars of value compared to other executives.

The reality is that shareholders have lost control of their companies. We lost control decades ago and executive compensation, especially CEO compensation, has skyrocketed. The boards give out huge payments to top executives without any real reason to think these guys are that much dramatically better at their jobs than people at less successful companies. Has Apple had a great run? Yes, and I don't think these guys shouldn't become rich. But mega-millionairs? No, this is a busted part of capitalism. I don't have a solution. I haven't even read much of a solution. Maybe additional board of director liability (but then no one would sit on boards). It seems that only greater shareholder activism will get companies to control their executive office pay. Or we can just have additional taxes on the rich so at least some of that money get redistributed.

Yes, capitalism is broken and executive compensation is out of control in the U.S.. However, aapl through these retention bonuses makes a lousy example. In the overall scheme of things, compared to what's happening at other companies, these are well deserved and money well spent. LeBron James is a bad analogy. In cases such as this, it's not so much what these execs individually might bring to another company as how the loss of one or more of them would adversely and directly impact aapl.
----------

 

[sionharris]

This is both necessary and extremely depressing at the same time.

 

[Shivetya]

Go 1%!!!!

I know some will not like your comment, however many rated it high, but the truth is, there are some in the 1% who deserve to be there. It is not a static environment either.

Just like not every kid who plays school sports will make it to the professional league nor every aspiring actor will be A list not everyone is cut out for the top positions at great companies.

 

[ericrwalker]

Man, what a waste of money! They could've fed the hungry! etc...

Or maybe teach the hungry how to fish and hunt....then they won't have to depend on anyone else.

 

[JHankwitz]

How many options for the $0.80 / hour chinese labor putting this stuff together?

Apple has no control over how much Chinese labor gets paid. We have no idea how much Chinese management or the government gets since that information doesn't have to be disclosed like it does in the States. Apple contracts for specific product at a specific quality level to be delivered on specific date in return for specific money. They have no say or control beyond that.

 

[Goratrix]

Apple has no control over how much Chinese labor gets paid. We have no idea how much Chinese management or the government gets since that information doesn't have to be disclosed like it does in the States. Apple contracts for specific product at a specific quality level to be delivered on specific date in return for specific money. They have no say or control beyond that.

So, according to this logic, any kind of unethical behavior is perfectly acceptable, as long as there is a middle-man between the two parties? Nice...

 

[mccldwll]

Or maybe teach the hungry how to fish and hunt....then they won't have to depend on anyone else.

I hope that was a joke. There's a certain percentage in society who will never be able to do that. What as a society is done with them?
The biggest problem isn't with the top 1% (or 2%) but with the top 0.1%. There's a huge amount of wealth and the majority of politicians directly or indirectly controlled by that thin slice. Their view of the situation has been myopic. They've been too greedy and overreached. Society at large has been accepting the extreme inequality for a long time without question, but in the past few years the actions of and for the superrich have been so egregious that people are finally awakening. In situations such as thus, violence often surfaces and the superrich make easy targets.

----------

So, according to this logic, any kind of unethical behavior is perfectly acceptable, as long as there is a middle-man between the two parties? Nice...

No. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Major companies such aaapl make easy targets for these types of charges so they bend over backwards to improve the working conditions contractually, and followup with investigations. It's far from perfect but it's far from the sweat shops that self-promoting miscreants such as Mike Daisy love to allege.

 

[SeattleMoose]

Millionaires Who Are Worth It....And Not

Worth It....people who make their fortune designing products that people buy and use. People like this are overall, a boon to society.

Not Worth It...people who make their fortunes lobbying, obfuscating, and coming up with "legal" ways to game the system while making nothing of value. People like this have a parasitical relationship to society and are akin to an "infestation".

 

[ericrwalker]

Nope wasn't a joke.

I could go on, but it's not worth my effect. Explainations seem to fall on deaf ears.

I don't have a problem with anyone making "too much" money, except when it's done through scams through the government and bailouts and bad deals with crooked lobbyist.

I hope that was a joke. There's a certain percentage in society who will never be able to do that. What as a society is done with them?
The biggest problem isn't with the top 1% (or 2%) but with the top 0.1%. There's a huge amount of wealth and the majority of politicians directly or indirectly controlled by that thin slice. Their view of the situation has been myopic. They've been too greedy and overreached. Society at large has been accepting the extreme inequality for a long time without question, but in the past few years the actions of and for the superrich have been so egregious that people are finally awakening. In situations such as thus, violence often surfaces and the superrich make easy targets.

----------



No. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Major companies such aaapl make easy targets for these types of charges so they bend over backwards to improve the working conditions contractually, and followup with investigations. It's far from perfect but it's far from the sweat shops that self-promoting miscreants such as Mike Daisy love to allege.

 

[RLesko]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)

I think the biggest problem here is people having inflated values of their self worth. Great, I'm so proud you work your ass off to make 50k a year, but that doesn't mean you deserve a penny more than you make. In fact, if you were worth more than that, SOMEONE would be willing to pay you it. You make 50k a year because your skills are just not that special/unique. Quit crying about someone else's salary/bonuses, you just look like a jealous ****.

The fact is any low level engineer could be replaced with another and the company wouldn't skip a beat. You can't replace the vision these execs have with any amount of money. Rant over.