Apple CEO Tim Cook Buys $3 Million of Nike Shares

[thettareddast]

So he’s the chair of their compensation committee. This is why you never see these excessive pay packages for executvies ever cut and why in the 1960s the average CEO earned like 5x the average worker and now its 500x. They all scratch each other’s backs by serving on each other’s boards.

So much populist fallacy it's hard to know where to start.

1. 1960s corporate structure also had boards and compensation committees.
2. the board is answerable to shareholders -- who elect them, and who vote on compensation proposals.
3. the shareholders are incentivized to maintain proper executive pay because the pay ultimately comes out of their equity either through cash or dilution. why would the literal owners of the company they want to overpay?
4. the CEO:worker pay today is 250x, half of what you think
5. CEOs get paid for performance. the companies in the 1960s were half as profitable as today in net margins.
6. in fact, the composition of the companies in the 1960s were much different than today, rendering bulk comparisons very misinformed. executive pay in manufacturing and other industries similar to the 1960s havent materially changed.
7. the impressive sounding pay today is in industries like tech when the companies themselves are ultra profitable -- no Exxon or GM or GE of the past ever gets close to the Nvidia or Alphabet of today.
8. the majority of pay is all performance-based, and in form of equity, with vesting rules, to align their incentives with the shareholders. only a tiny part is guaranteed in cash.


medium story short, the pay affects the literal owners of the company, whose interest and prerogative it is to keep the pay not-excessive. if you dont own stock or vote your shares, its really none of your business what the pay is like.

 

[danny842003]

So much populist fallacy it's hard to know where to start.

1. 1960s corporate structure also had boards and compensation committees.
2. the board is answerable to shareholders -- who elect them, and who vote on compensation proposals.
3. the shareholders are incentivized to maintain proper executive pay because the pay ultimately comes out of their equity either through cash or dilution. why would the literal owners of the company they want to overpay?
4. the CEO:worker pay today is 250x, half of what you think
5. CEOs get paid for performance. the companies in the 1960s were half as profitable as today in net margins.
6. in fact, the composition of the companies in the 1960s were much different than today, rendering bulk comparisons very misinformed. executive pay in manufacturing and other industries similar to the 1960s havent materially changed.
7. the impressive sounding pay today is in industries like tech when the companies themselves are ultra profitable -- no Exxon or GM or GE of the past ever gets close to the Nvidia or Alphabet of today.
8. the majority of pay is all performance-based, and in form of equity, with vesting rules, to align their incentives with the shareholders. only a tiny part is guaranteed in cash.


medium story short, the pay affects the literal owners of the company, whose interest and prerogative it is to keep the pay not-excessive. if you dont own stock or vote your shares, its really none of your business what the pay is like.

Roll on the revolution.

 

[JSRinUK]

Well, I like a good run too but I limit my “shoe budget” to £100. 😂

 

[delsoul]

Um... the fact that some people are struggling to buy groceries, but we have to read about the ultra-wealthy making seven-figure stock purchases, and the insane incongruity of that?

Just a guess.

I guarantee you have something that I can’t afford to have. With your thinking, I guess that makes it ours. Care to share now, comrade?

Tim is a free man that made his own money and can spend it how he wants. Did he come out of the womb with Apple stock and guaranteed CEO position? I’m one of the biggest critics of Tim but I’ll be first to say he worked for what he has. What’s stopping you from doing the same? (Unless you’re in the EU where nobody is allowed to get ahead).

Not sure I’d spend $3 million on Nike stock, but maybe Tim knows something I don’t and it’s worth putting his money into. He got Apple value up to astronomical numbers, no reason he wouldn’t do the same for his own bank account if possible

 

[mk313]

4. the CEO:worker pay today is 250x, half of what you think

The CEO:worker pay gap is actually around 1/10th that number. The 250 (or 260 or 285x) number that gets bandied about is almost always the average of the CEO's of the S&P 500 companies, which makes is heavily skewed towards the highest paid CEO's in the US. It's not really representative of the 'average' CEO's pay.

The S&P 500 CEO's make up about 1.2% of the over 42,500 CEO's in the US. Unsurprisingly, most of the CEO's that don't lead the 500 largest companies make significantly less than those who do.

 

[bLackjackj]

Tim Cook sits on Nike's board. He has insight into how Nike's business and its turnaround effort is progressing.

Not a good look!

The reason being why he shouldn’t be allowed to.

 

[trusso]

Um... the fact that some people are struggling to buy groceries, but we have to read about the ultra-wealthy making seven-figure stock purchases, and the insane incongruity of that?

Just a guess.

The percent of people disagreeing with my post, and willfully misconstruing it in their replies, is actually hilarious. I don’t know if y’all think you’re clued in to something I don’t know, because your obsequiousness is actually pretty shameful, not something to be proud of.

 

[I7guy]

The percent of people disagreeing with my post, and willfully misconstruing it in their replies, is actually hilarious. I don’t know if y’all think you’re clued in to something I don’t know, because your obsequiousness is actually pretty shameful, not something to be proud of.

This is still news and Apple related with all of its implications for Apple and Tim Cook.

It’s probably better to ignore the reactions or amend your original post if you disagree with the reactions rather than insulting the community.

 

[bigglow]

If I had $3 million play money I'd copy Tim too.

 

[thettareddast]

Not a good look!

The reason being why he shouldn’t be allowed to.

It’s literally the company policy of Apple and Nike and most other F500 firms to *require* non-employee directors to hold direct shares in the company.

It ensures alignment of interest.

The percent of people disagreeing with my post, and willfully misconstruing it in their replies, is actually hilarious. I don’t know if y’all think you’re clued in to something I don’t know, because your obsequiousness is actually pretty shameful, not something to be proud of.

There’s not material there to misconstrue. You made a big stink about a non-sequitur. Nobody forced you to read anything, and what Tim Cook chooses to do with his personal money has no bearing on what you brought into the conversation.

In fact, as Nike is a component of many stock indexes that most of the public own (eg through retirement funds), his buying of that stock is a boost to their value and a net positive to the publics equity value , no many how incremental it is.

 

[trusso]

It’s probably better to ignore the reactions or amend your original post if you disagree with the reactions rather than insulting the community.

I know it's impossible to tell through a computer screen, but the reactions don't bother me personally. I just felt compelled to comment on the unfortunate mind-blinders. That's not insulting anyone, merely making an observation. It's understandable if you think otherwise, though.

There’s not material there to misconstrue. You made a big stink about a non-sequitur. Nobody forced you to read anything, and what Tim Cook chooses to do with his personal money has no bearing on what you brought into the conversation.

I can't stop you from jumping to conclusions, and I do find it hilarious that several responders are getting very hung up on the "forcing you to read" aspect of my original post, as if that wasn't a common turn-of-phrase for publishing drivel in a variety of news mediums. But enjoy the ride on your high horse. I'm perfectly happy with the scenery where I'm at.

 

[thettareddast]

I can't stop you from jumping to conclusions, and I do find it hilarious that several responders are getting very hung up on the "forcing you to read" aspect of my original post, as if that wasn't a common turn-of-phrase for publishing drivel in a variety of news mediums. But enjoy the ride on your high horse. I'm perfectly happy with the scenery where I'm at.

The turn of phrase doesn’t magically pardon your trying to juxtapose unrelated things, like causality of Tim Cooks transaction with the state of poverty.

Or why you label drivel a material securities transaction by the chief executive of the company on which this website is based. (The materiality is determined by the SEC, why is why the transaction had to be disclosed in the first place).

Since you’re the person introducing negativity into the thread, no, we’re not in fact convinced that you’re happy with the scenery or anything else at all.

 

[carestudio]

too late for me to join the spree?

 

[trusso]

like causality of Tim Cooks transaction with the state of poverty.

Re-read your post. Causality? I said nothing of the sort. You see, this is why I can't take any of the responses to my comment seriously: everyone seems content to ascribe thoughts and words to me that I have not thought or said. I won't deny your right to respond however you see fit, but you're tilting at straw windmills.

The fact is, I make one even-handed comment about a man buying more stock than most of us will make in our lives (I'm not even picking on Mr. Cook in particular, he's just the example due to the article), attempt to shed light on the reality that most people in the world are facing, and...

Again, not surprised. Just (as always) disappointed.

 

[Abazigal]

The fact is, I make one even-handed comment about a man buying more stock than most of us will make in our lives (I'm not even picking on Mr. Cook in particular, he's just the example due to the article), attempt to shed light on the reality that most people in the world are facing, and...

So what's your point again?

That there are rich people in this world, and there are poor people in this world, and so...? 🤔

 

[trusso]

…and so maybe we should be focusing more on helping the poor than idolizing the rich.

But otherwise, you’ve got it. I don’t claim to be bringing any new wisdom here. It’s just the same old wisdom that’s been ignored in ages past.

 

[richard371]

I’ll take what he’s having. But $3.

 

[Dirk Pieters]

…and so maybe we should be focusing more on helping the poor than idolizing the rich.

But otherwise, you’ve got it. I don’t claim to be bringing any new wisdom here. It’s just the same old wisdom that’s been ignored in ages past.

I don't think this article idolises Tim Cook for being rich. The article said that he bought a few million $ worth of Nike shares.

There's only one person here pulling the not-fair-because-poor-people card.

 

[trusso]

I don't think this article idolises Tim Cook for being rich. The article said that he bought a few million $ worth of Nike shares.

There's only one person here pulling the not-fair-because-poor-people card.

Again, I'm not saying the article is idolizing him. It's the responses to my original post, which jumped on me for merely stating an obvious incongruity, which exhibits the unhealthy habits I am concerned with.

Please, folks, don't misrepresent my words. I do actually choose them carefully. If people can't engage with what is actually being said, then we're just talking past each other, which isn't good for anyone.

 

[I7guy]

…and so maybe we should be focusing more on helping the poor than idolizing the rich.

But otherwise, you’ve got it. I don’t claim to be bringing any new wisdom here. It’s just the same old wisdom that’s been ignored in ages past.

All of this is off topic anyway so I believe.

The point of the article is to say that Tim Cook made a purchase of Nike stock.

 

[etichi]

The good news is we all die and can’t take it with us.

 

[thettareddast]

The fact is, I make one even-handed comment about a man buying more stock than most of us will make in our lives

What does one thing have to do with the other? This site is macrumors, not trussorumors

…and so maybe we should be focusing more on helping the poor than idolizing the rich.

is the article preventing you from focusing on what or whomever you want?

Again, I'm not saying the article is idolizing him.

you literally brought up idolization. its in the quote above

Please, folks, don't misrepresent my words. I do actually choose them carefully. If people can't engage with what is actually being said,

you cant even engage with what you said, because you literally misrepresent your own position, and then whine about the conduct of others.