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

[The Monkey]

wrt the current GC. iirc, Apple was having problems with the position for a few years, getting along with Jobs being one of the main issues (along with that little options backdating problem). I'll try to find the link, but I believe the current GC has brought some stability to the department and improved morale. Is that worth $130 million? Who knows. But it perhaps provides some insight as to why they like him. Being a GC for a major corporation involves a lot more than pure legal skills, you can get that anywhere. It's a mixture of legal acumen and business savvy. But basically, at the end of the day, it's about forging good relationships with the business and crafting creative solutions to help get the Company where it needs to go. Maybe this guy is good at that.

 

[mazz0]

wrt the current GC. iirc, Apple was having problems with the position for a few years, getting along with Jobs being one of the main issues (along with that little options backdating problem). I'll try to find the link, but I believe the current GC has brought some stability to the department and improved morale. Is that worth $130 million? Who knows. But it perhaps provides some insight as to why they like him. Being a GC for a major corporation involves a lot more than pure legal skills, you can get that anywhere. It's a mixture of legal acumen and business savvy. But basically, at the end of the day, it's about forging good relationships with the business and crafting creative solutions to help get the Company where it needs to go. Maybe this guy is good at that.

Is GC General Counsel? I was reading it as Garbage Collection and it made very little sense!

 

[The Monkey]

Same difference.

 

[divinox]

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.

Another way of putting it: It is not so much the executives per se that are worth paying out 0.1% in stocks for, but rather how it allows Apple to avoid the risks associated by bringing someone new in - someone, in every way possible (i.e. regardless of experience), unproven for the job.

In that sense, its not so much their superior skills that make it worthwhile, but that one knows what one has, and that one is - in a sense - rather safe than sorry.

Personally, i am quite certain that they could find someone just as able to a fraction of the cost. Problem is, what if they end up with a dud? After all, duds seem plentiful even at the top level, dont they? (Just look at the Apotheker debacle).

 

[jackc]

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.

If you don't know what zero-sum game means, which you apparently don't, you should look it up.

It means that when person X is better off by $1, someone else is not worse off by $1.

All you have to do is think about how voluntary transactions work -- both parties are better off. The fact that money is involved doesn't change that.

 

[TallManNY]

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.

First off, I am an Apple Shareholder (I even mention so in my signature line). But you are right that I've got little experience in the area of board approval of executive compensation (though I once was the proxy holder for a majority of the shares of a public company in a shareholder battle, that was actually kind of cool since when the board suggested a vote on something I got to stand up and say I have the proxy for X million shares and we vote No). Anyway, I've never sat on a board or been a top five executive. And I think your basic critique of me on this point is right. Since all the major companies are "overpaying" their top executives, you will lose your executives to another company unless you mega-pay as well. Now this is working out to a yearly salary of about $20 million a year in stock grants to the GC (a guy who basically just got there), but maybe there are other companies out there ready to make a comparable offer.

So basically I'm complaining that this is another step toward further inequality in our society but you are right that I shouldn't complain to Apple because no single company can do anything about this.

 

[divinox]

If you don't know what zero-sum game means, which you apparently don't, you should look it up.

It means that when person X is better off by $1, someone else is not worse off by $1.

All you have to do is think about how voluntary transactions work -- both parties are better off. The fact that money is involved doesn't change that.

Apple has a finite amount of many that it can use in an infinite amount of ways. Thus, your non-zero game argument doesnt really apply here. That said, without a crystal ball knowing the end consequence of each possible action is impossible. But that doesnt change the fundamentals at play.

 

[jackc]

Apple has a finite amount of many that it can use in an infinite amount of ways. Thus, your non-zero game argument doesnt really apply here. That said, without a crystal ball knowing the end consequence of each possible action is impossible. But that doesnt change the fundamentals at play.

You're right, it doesn't change the fundamentals. Because any voluntary transaction has an infinite number of alternatives. That doesn't make it zero-sum.

----------

Apple has a finite amount of many that it can use in an infinite amount of ways. Thus, your non-zero game argument doesnt really apply here. That said, without a crystal ball knowing the end consequence of each possible action is impossible. But that doesnt change the fundamentals at play.

And by the way, do I think some of these people are overpaid? Probably. But my opinion has as much as weight as if I yelled at a football coach on TV, or made a judgment about how well you are spending your household budget.

 

[samiwas]

If you don't know what zero-sum game means, which you apparently don't, you should look it up.

It means that when person X is better off by $1, someone else is not worse off by $1.

All you have to do is think about how voluntary transactions work -- both parties are better off. The fact that money is involved doesn't change that.

I know exactly what a zero-sum game is. What I can't tell is if you are willfully choosing to disregard what I wrote, or if you truly can't grasp it. Or if there's just some random tangent applied to it that gets some people to accept lowered wages.

The reality is that much of the country has seen their effective wages go down, and their benefits slashed or removed altogether, while others within their same organization benefit greatly. This has nothing to do with a "non zero-sum game", unless there's some alternate meaning we're talking about here. Any time I've heard "it's not a zero-sum game" used to approve of monetary outcome, it's been to silence someone complaining about their small gain or non-gain in relation to someone else's big gain, saying that the one person's success is not hurting the other person (true, whether it's morally right or not). I don't know how using "it's not a zero-sum game" can be used to approve of one person actually losing while another gains.

Or is this supported because Aye's loss of 1, and Bee's increase of 100, means that because there's a total increase of 99, Aye's loss doesn't matter because there's overall benefit? If so, that's about the stupidest thing I've heard. If this is the case, then lower wages and benefits could never be seen as bad, as long as someone is gaining to offset it. And if that's what you are trying to say, then I guess we have nothing else to talk about.

Let me try to be clear: I'm talking about people who really have seen their wages go down. Not this hypothetical "Well, because that other person got so much, you just feel like you have less." They are actually making less.

Am I missing something here?

I wonder what these executive bonuses and salaries will be like in ten years? If they keep having to outdo each other, it won't be long before we're in the hundreds of millions per year.

 

[TallManNY]

The reality is that much of the country has seen their effective wages go down, and their benefits slashed or removed altogether, while others within their same organization benefit greatly. This has nothing to do with a "non zero-sum game", unless there's some alternate meaning we're talking about here.

And let us not forget that even in the situation where Aye gets a $1 increase and Bee gets a $100, Aye probably has actually been harmed. This is because when Aye tries to go out into the marketplace to buy something for $1, Aye will get out bid for all the best stuff by Bee. If anyone wants to see that in action, come to NYC and try to buy a nice three bed room in Manhattan. You are going to struggle to do that unless you make over $500,000 a year. Heck you might need to pull in closer to a million.

But these are larger issues. Really when we look at Apple we have to realize that the vast sums of money the company makes doesn't have a great deal to do with our American standard of living. The cheap wages of China keep down their costs and the vast legions of customers (of which I am one) across the world keep up their revenue. When that kind of global reach ultimately resides in just a handful of top people, it is no wonder they can get paid a lot.

 

[jackc]

Let me try to be clear: I'm talking about people who really have seen their wages go down. Not this hypothetical "Well, because that other person got so much, you just feel like you have less." They are actually making less.

Am I missing something here?

Apparently I am missing something, because what do highly paid executives have to do with peoples' wages going down? I said it's not zero sum because whatever wage decline you're talking about has nothing to do with it. I suspect lower level Apple employees have seen their wages go up, if certainly by a smaller amount. Did Apple execs cause some other person's wage to do down?

 

[samiwas]

And let us not forget that even in the situation where Aye gets a $1 increase and Bee gets a $100, Aye probably has actually been harmed. This is because when Aye tries to go out into the marketplace to buy something for $1, Aye will get out bid for all the best stuff by Bee.

Well, yes. I know this quite well, but I was leaving that part out for the current discussion.

Apparently I am missing something, because what do highly paid executives have to do with peoples' wages going down? I said it's not zero sum because whatever wage decline you're talking about has nothing to do with it. I suspect lower level Apple employees have seen their wages go up, if certainly by a smaller amount. Did Apple execs cause some other person's wage to do down?

Well, actually, when I first posted in this thread (going back, I think it was the second post), it was in response to someone else who said that everyone was just jealous. And I explained that, that's not it at all. There's a difference between being jealous of someone and thinking it's BS. When one of my bosses laid off half of my department and then built a massive mansion, I was not jealous. It's "his right", but that doesn't make it right.

My original point was that people lose all this in the name of "the bad economy" when the money is there in many instances so that they don't have to lose. It fact, my original post had nothing to do with Apple itself. I'm just kind of sick of hearing about layoffs or furloughs in the same stories as executive compensation or record profits. Whether or not it meets the criteria of "awesome capitalism" does not make it right and OK, at least in my inconsequential opinion. And as much as it might not be my business, I'm allowed to have the opinion to think this is ridiculous

I'm aware that you think I'm wrong, but it is what it is. You can keep trying to tell me about zero-sums and free markets and all that, because I do understand it all...I just don't accept it.

 

[divinox]

You're right, it doesn't change the fundamentals. Because any voluntary transaction has an infinite number of alternatives. That doesn't make it zero-sum.

----------



And by the way, do I think some of these people are overpaid? Probably. But my opinion has as much as weight as if I yelled at a football coach on TV, or made a judgment about how well you are spending your household budget.

Thought i didnt have to print out in bold type that a bunch of those alternatives comes down to "more cake for A equals less cake for B". In fact, in the frozen moment each one does. Apple can not magically make new cake.

----------

And let us not forget that even in the situation where Aye gets a $1 increase and Bee gets a $100, Aye probably has actually been harmed. This is because when Aye tries to go out into the marketplace to buy something for $1, Aye will get out bid for all the best stuff by Bee. If anyone wants to see that in action, come to NYC and try to buy a nice three bed room in Manhattan. You are going to struggle to do that unless you make over $500,000 a year. Heck you might need to pull in closer to a million.

But these are larger issues. Really when we look at Apple we have to realize that the vast sums of money the company makes doesn't have a great deal to do with our American standard of living. The cheap wages of China keep down their costs and the vast legions of customers (of which I am one) across the world keep up their revenue. When that kind of global reach ultimately resides in just a handful of top people, it is no wonder they can get paid a lot.

Spot on. And with no (read: little) economic feedback into the area in which these values are extracted (e.g. China), well... yeah. Those who get it, get it.

----------

Apparently I am missing something, because what do highly paid executives have to do with peoples' wages going down? I said it's not zero sum because whatever wage decline you're talking about has nothing to do with it. I suspect lower level Apple employees have seen their wages go up, if certainly by a smaller amount. Did Apple execs cause some other person's wage to do down?

For obvious reasons, not paying the executives as much would leave more room for paying other staff more. Corp. finances are, as i tried to explain, in every way zero-sum (unless you have a ****** accountant). That said, its of course no guarantee. However, there is no single choice out of the infinite that does not affect each and every other option.

 

[jackc]

For obvious reasons, not paying the executives as much would leave more room for paying other staff more. Corp. finances are, as i tried to explain, in every way zero-sum (unless you have a ****** accountant). That said, its of course no guarantee. However, there is no single choice out of the infinite that does not affect each and every other option.

Yes, in the same way that part of your wage could have fed hundreds of poor people. Why do you hate poor people so much? Start the redistribution.

 

[divinox]

Yes, in the same way that part of your wage could have fed hundreds of poor people. Why do you hate poor people so much? Start the redistribution.

Wow, what a comeback? Where is the relevance?

And, for your information i already started. Not only do i (happily) live in a country with among the highest taxes in the world, i also contribute towards society at large by working in academia despite the fact that a job in the private sector would give me twice the cash in return. And that is just counting "what i do for a living".

 

[Wicked1]

What about all the other people, so tired of everyone focused on Executives, they would not be able to run the comapny alone, however the people could.

I just wish there was an even playing field across the board, as 60 Million is a little much for one person alone.

It will be interesting to see if they do anything for everyone else who is working for Apple on a full time basis.