Yep, I remember when BO started talking about having to tax the wealthy more etc. and I kind of agreed. Then he trots out $200k and I'm like WTF? That's probably a middle manager in NYC or SF or LA. And then a few weeks later he starts using the term "ultra-wealthy". What planet is that guy from? He constantly uses hedge fund managers as an example to get crowds riled up but then wants to set policy based on an income of 1/20th of what those guys make.
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
Whatever it is, I'm certainly open to contributing to the cost of his return flight.
I'll even go for First Class.
If Apple had such a great year, where are their charitable donations?
With Jobs gone, they'll come back. Eventually. Still cant get it out of my head how he treated that guy who was with him in the garage and got nothing. "ill match your bid. I'll give him zero, and you'll give him zero." Yuck.
If Apple had such a great year, where are their charitable donations?
From what I hear, the government is the biggest charity organization. Them paying taxes is their charity.
Again, you're missing the point. Aapl GC would not be a "cushy in-house gig" but a high stress position requiring competence and a specific skill set. A very bright, well organized generalist with the ability to understand and strategize on specifics. With as many legal suits as there are pending worldwide, the person with a strong overview is very valuable. Clearly it's worth a lot to aapl to keep him in place. As a shareholder, I have no problem with aapl's decision.
This is where someone like me comes in. I measure performance and I can trace inputs to outcomes. Decisions made by managers and their costs and return on investment. There are many who do what I do in companies like Apple. My data can tell a senior executive or the board just how much impact certain strategic decisions had, in terms of dollars. Apple isn't a bank, they're a hardware company. They make widgets and sell them, the inputs are very measurable... and there's cause effect patterns visible year over year in the business cycle. Just because that level of granularity is never seen by the average person doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I guarantee you Apple knows pretty damn well how many billions were saved when Tim Cook reduced inventory from six months to two days. The list goes on and I don't want to bore you with the 140 plus reports I provide on a weekly basis to my company's senior managers... but yes we do tick and tie even which marketing dollars spent on what campaign caused which sales through which channels (retail, online, etc.)...
It's not rocket science. And Apple's senior leadership team are each very integral to why Apple is successful. I know people love to think that Steve even cleaned the toilets but that isn't how Apple runs... or any successful company. Steve oversaw many design decisions with the final word but there's a hell of a lot of work that goes on before a design or product or ad campaign comes to him, and then even more goes on in the execution once he said "ok".
I provide data that can impact millions of dollars in expenditures and revenue, and I'm not even close to the top of the finance and operations pyramid... I can just imagine how many of me there are at every level of Apple.
You're right that it doesn't compare to pro sports. With Lebron James, you know his name will sell tickets, but it's actually a lot of probabilistic and quantitative hoohah to project what points he will score.... Watch the movie MONEYBALL for an interesting separation of gut versus science in sports analysis. It's a lot more convoluted than predicting what kind of sales funnel will hit how many units sold in a given number of days down the road at a known and predictable run rate.
Putting aside your lack of humor, and your general rude and insulting demeanor, you assume an awful lot. Who says I'm an Apple fan? I've been using macs and pc's since my first, an Apple II (slightly ahead of you, by the looks of your screen name). I can appreciate, but am a fan of nothing.
Oh you posted again to someone else's...
Ah, very nice. You sound like a very reasonable person with intelligent things to say.
Seriously, we are talking about $60 million. I'm very bright. I don't get paid that type of money. I mean seriously, this guy went to George Washington Law School. In my world, you draw the line at Georgetown and you certainly don't slum it down to the second George. Just kidding, but really he wasn't a great student. Then he works at two decent, but hardly stellar law firms. His bio says he was a litigator at Brown and Bain. A nice little firm, but hardly a national powerhouse. I assume he mainly did IP litigation and I don't think that makes him a generalist. Then he went in-house and he has been moving up the corporate ladder. He was the GC at Intel before coming over to Apple.
But here is the kicker. He joined Apple in SEPTEMBER 2009! That is right. He got his $60 million pay day after TWO YEARS of working at Apple.
Is it that he just has those super generalist strategist big picture ideas which became so apparent that after two years of work it was definitely time to give him the big bucks. Or could it be that senior executives at successful companies are just hugely overpaid?
I'm sure these guys are good. And I'm also sure that Cook's drive toward lower inventory was a huge cost saver for Apple. Nice lesson from Dell. Maybe Cook is a genius at that stuff and got Apple to do it better. It is only natural to look at the success of Apple and figure that everyone involved must be doing a fantastic job. The truth is probably that some are doing a great job and others are just kind of okay (keeping in mind that okay at the level these folks are working is still easily worth a $1 million a year salary). But when the board decides that on the same day all six senior VPs are each worth the same $60 million bonus; then there is not some specific nuanced calculation going on where they are ticking and tying value add moments together. Or maybe you think they are doing that calculation and it is a coincidence that the world wide product marketing person is doing exactly the same value add job as the GC and as the head of operations.
Thanks for the suggestion about Moneyball. I read it many years ago. I'm a big fan of advanced sport statistics, so don't get me started about Lebron as a value add player. The stats show him as probably the most underpaid player in the NBA based not on selling merchandise but on the actually number of wins he can add to a team's performance at the end of the year. Sports are much easier than real life because you always start with a level playing field, the same rules, and the score 0 - 0. In real life there are way too many variables to know for sure how much is skill and how much is luck. The board has doubled down that all these folks have mad $60 million skills. I'm guessing the board has tossed away most of that money for nothing because $10 million a year replacement executives could have done the job just as well.
Be Here Now
From the book, "Steve Jobs-roshi;" "Jobs found himself deeply influenced by a variety of books on spirituality and enlightenment, most notably Be Here Now, a guide to meditation and the wonders of psychedelic drugs by Baba Ram Dass."
----------
LSD may in this context be seen as a fast lane to Zen insight, braved by few.
From the book, "Steve Jobs-roshi;" "Jobs found himself deeply influenced by a variety of books on spirituality and enlightenment, most notably Be Here Now, a guide to meditation and the wonders of psychedelic drugs by Baba Ram Dass."
----------
LSD may in this context be seen as a fast lane to Zen insight, braved by few.
Did a little more Googling. GC Bruce Sewell was given 100,000 shares of Apple when he joined in September 2009. His SEC filings from earlier in 2011 show him owning another 75,000 shares. This current stock grant will add on another 150,000 shares.
That puts his total stock grant (and keep in mind he has been at the company now for two years and two months) at 325,000 shares. [Edit to correct typo.] If the stock price stays the same, by the time these vest in 2016, he will have been paid $130 million over seven years.
And that doesn't count the piddling million dollar plus he gets paid in normal salary every year.
And this is the guy who joined the company AFTER they developed the iPad and iPhone.
That puts his total stock grant (and keep in mind he has been at the company now for two years and two months) at 325,000 shares. [Edit to correct typo.] If the stock price stays the same, by the time these vest in 2016, he will have been paid $130 million over seven years.
And that doesn't count the piddling million dollar plus he gets paid in normal salary every year.
And this is the guy who joined the company AFTER they developed the iPad and iPhone.
Last edited:
Really? So those people who have seen their wages go DOWN over the past 25 years, their hours minimized, their benefits slashed, their pensions depleted, their retirement accounts evaporated, their jobs shipped overseas, or their existing jobs cut, all while being told that it's because the "economy is so bad!" are just jealous? Really? Is that all you've got?
Why should anyone expect their wages and benefits to go down, at the same time as record corporate profits and windfall executive payouts? And you expect them to sit back and take it, simply because they aren't in the club? People shouldn't even expect a livable wage or a wage that rises with inflation? THAT is crazy talk?
I think this whole "you're just jealous...just shut up...you're stupid" type of argument says that you, too, know it's egregious but you can't stand to say anything against "the big boys" lest you feel like you're actually saying something against capitalism (oh, the horror!).
I think people have gotten desensitized to the sheer amounts of money flying around. It's like this is just some video game and not peoples' real lives. I mean, at current rates, this bonus is equivalent to what the median worker would make in wages in 2,300 YEARS. This bonus equates to the median workers' yearly salary in just about 55 minutes.
It's actually kind of sad that we've gotten to the point where some people have to decide whether tens of millions is enough just to do a job (or whack a ball with a stick), while much of the country struggles just to pay the rent.
And to say that these execs are not replaceable is a complete fabrication. Does anyone seriously believe that out of seven billion people on this planet, that Apple found the exact handful of people that were required to do this? No, they just happen to be there and it's working. To say that no one else could do it, or do it even better, is far past the line of delusional.
And, an aside: I've seen numerous posts this week on several different forums with some rabid executive apologist saying "Boo frickin' hoo!" or some other form of "Boo Hoo". Is that the Fox News phrase of the week or something?
Doesn't that add up to 325,000? 100+75+150? That's coming out to over $180 million.
If you haven't tried LSD - you should. A couple of times in your life.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste - take some time to explore yours. Don't go to the grave without having a glimpse of its mysteries and potential.
Yeah agreed. He has no heart!. Cold as ice as Foreigner has said in a song. He could have done a lot of things with his wealth rather than letting it just sit there.
Then he said he saw what money did to many of the people he knew at apple and he did not want that to happen to him. Why not do the opposite thing and start his own version of a charitable organization which gives fairly back to the community ?. Or something even more compelling as his brilliance might provide ?. Zilch ?.
Good research. This would mean GC has something which we do not know and is valuable to Apple. My guess is that he has impeccable connections/influences in the legal community which would be advantages to his position and apple. Just imagine a sort of "white/black knight" protecting the legal interests of Apple. That would be worth the millions, would you not think ?.
Good research. This would mean GC has something which we do not know and is valuable to Apple. My guess is that he has impeccable connections/influences in the legal community which would be advantages to his position and apple. Just imagine a sort of "white/black knight" protecting the legal interests of Apple. That would be worth the millions, would you not think ?.
Or, simply, that Apple execs. are no exception to the rule; i.e., they are grossly overpaid.
Good research. This would mean GC has something which we do not know and is valuable to Apple. My guess is that he has impeccable connections/influences in the legal community which would be advantages to his position and apple. Just imagine a sort of "white/black knight" protecting the legal interests of Apple. That would be worth the millions, would you not think ?.
The GC is a very important position at Apple. Think about all the IP litigation that we read about and that is going on at any moment. Sewell is in charge of that and he has to make a lot of tough calls (like should we settle or fight this charge) or should we bring a charge of our own. Apple is basically in the litigation game almost as much as it is in the hardware game.
But no, he doesn't have the things you guess at. At least not in any significant way more than other big shot lawyers. Getting connections with lawyers is easy because lawyers want clients. Apple hires huge numbers of lawyers every year, so to get a connection with any lawyer you might use is as simple as sending them an email and telling them you are GC of Apple and they should call you. For the potential of largest company in the world as your client, every lawyer will drop what they are doing to give a call. Sure he can influence the hordes of IP lawyers who would love to have Apple as their client. But anyone with the title of Apple GC would have that influence. The guy might be good. But is he 60 times better than the lawyer you could get for $1 million a year? That is the question. Is this guy (or any of these executives) really worth mega paydays. Or are they just the guys who happen to have been working at the company that Jobs and Ivy work at?
Look executive salaries are huge in this country. You think it is just good capitalism with the cream rising to the top, but I think you are wrong. I think the system is not having optimum outcomes. I don't believe the board is maximizing value to its shareholders with this. This is just what board members have been conditioned to do. And if they don't do it, since the executives have a strong influence on who sits on the board, the board members who don't vote for huge pay days, they get replaced. Perhaps, and I don't run in high circles to know this, but perhaps if you don't vote for huge pay days you get a reputation around big business and then executives don't put you on other boards. I'm sure Jobs could kick anyone off the board he had wanted to and I'm sure there are tons of people who would like to sit on the board of Apple. So all they have to do is find some people who think since Apple has so much money I should pay lots of it to the executives.
You were on track above and making sense for a while before you derailed. You're conflating two arguments.
Yes, CEOs (and others at the top) in the U.S. are overcompensated relative to the average corporate employee. Zero doubt about that. Any chart on compensation over the past 20 years will clearly demonstrate that. And in many cases it is the board playing footsie with the CEO. Something needs to be done (limiting salary deductibility to corporations is a starting point) but that's the playing field on which everyone is competing at the moment. The results wouldn't be pretty if one company decided it would unilaterally limit compensation--like one NFL team deciding to play without modern helmets/gear, or a tennis pro competing using a 20 year old wood racquet. On this playing field, aapl's retention stock options are reasonable and necessary. It's "money" well spent. To suggest that the board isn't maximizing value to shareholders through these grants is beyond silly, and could only be voiced by someone who has absolutely no experience in this area and is not an aapl shareholder. I have been for years and have zero problem with aapl awarding approximately 0.1% of stock to keep an effective team together. I'm all for it. I'll benefit many times over in the long run. And, if you knew anything about aapl's board, you wouldn't even consider making such ridiculous accusations about the members' integrity.
OK, you're going to have to do better than a tired old talking point, with no supporting argument, to convince me of something different here.
Are you seriously suggesting that even if wages go DOWN, that the average person is still doing better in the end?
First of all, this is not a game. This is real life. Losers don't just turn off the Xbox and play again the next day. They go homeless or die.
The whole "zero sum game" implies that if Aye makes $5 and Bee makes $100, then after a huge economic increase, Aye makes $6 and Bee makes $200, both saw increased earnings. Even if Aye still makes just $5, he didn't lose (even if he got jipped in the deal). But if Aye goes down to $4 after the increase, then Aye has lost.
Is your implication that because Aye is still making something, that he is indeed better off? Do people actually believe this? Are the people who believe this in any way intelligent? Is this how the other side manages to keep the rank and file in line?
Last edited:
I'll take that as a "no".
Or as a "I know I was talking bollocks, but hoped nobody would call me out on it"