None of what you listed is ‘free’, that’s still being paid by the company as an expense account for his services when he (Cook) works. If he flies on a private jet, who do you think is paying for that? If Tim Cook is dining out at an expensive restaurant or staying at a well-renowned hotel, who do you think is paying for that? It’s not like Tim Cook is charging his personal groceries to his business account, these are two different things that are not exclusive what you consider ‘free’.
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 CEO Tim Cook Earned Over $11 Million in 2019, Not Counting Stock Awards
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
None of what you listed is ‘free’, that’s still being paid by the company as an expense account for his services when he (Cook) works. If he flies on a private jet, who do you think is paying for that? If Tim Cook is dining out at an expensive restaurant or staying at a well-renowned hotel, who do you think is paying for that? It’s not like Tim Cook is charging his personal groceries to his business account, these are two different things that are not exclusive what you consider ‘free’.
Are you actually complaining about someone being reimbursed for work-related expenses?
If he doesn't pay for those things out of his own pocket, how is that not free to him?
It’s not “free” in the sense that these aren’t gifts to him. If I have to accompany my students on an overseas excursion, I don’t think anyone can really say that I get to enjoy a free trip, food and lodging. I am not there on holiday, it’s stressful having to look after a bunch of 11-year old kids for 6 days on end, and it's time away from my family. Of course the school should pay for all these expenses if they want me to go, and it’s still work to me at the end of the day.
The word free is not the correct word. Free implies something for nothing, as in free beer. This is a business expense reimbursement. It is not “free”, because it is an on the job expense.
There's a reason it only says "not including stock" here
Tim Cook's net worth and overall compensation is entirely dependant on the stock price of Apple with certain thresholds. the more he pumps up the stock value, the more stock they award him when his options come due.
Yeah but at the same time imagine all the stress and responsibility he has. Obviously he’s cut out for it, but damn. I can’t imagine what his inbox looks like lmao.
I also wonder who will be his successor... He’s actually a pretty likable guy. He was an awesome COO. Doing well as CEO. Phil and Craig come to mind... But idk who else they’d choose.
He lives and breathes Apple, so this is all part of his job. He works to get these “benefits,” which are actually part of his work. He’s not just vacationing and screwing around. It’s business.
Stocks don’t pump up by themselves, there has to be some meat behind it. So by producing products people want to buy, having those people buy said products, the stock price could rise.
It’s not why iPhones are so expensive, it’s a result of iPhones being so expensive. It represents 8 hundredths of 1% of profit and has no impact on cash available for R&D, lower prices, or higher wages.
What I’d like to know is the ratio of his salary to the average non-retail salary. Over the last 40 years this gulf has grown across the whole of the S&P and represents a looming problem. It is in part a result of CEOs chairing their own boards, and sitting on each others’.
What I’d like to know is the ratio of his salary to the average non-retail salary. Over the last 40 years this gulf has grown across the whole of the S&P and represents a looming problem. It is in part a result of CEOs chairing their own boards, and sitting on each others’.
Of course, stock options are pretty typical today. For salary and incentives though, pretty modest for everything he has done for Apple.
my comment was not to pass judgement.
Tim Cook is doing what Tim Cook believes is best for himself and designing a business and product strategy accordingly.
I was just filling in the gap as to why some people are surprised that he only gets 11m / year for running Apple.
The reality is he does not only get 11m /year for running Apple. He has a specific Stock option plan that encourages certain types of financial growth over others.
how YOU interpreted that is on your own. a discussion on if that sort of pay for executives is good / bad for the company is a debate that is probably worth of it's own thread in PRSI
They can, at least for penny/pink stocks. Don’t need meat to get the stock price to go up.
Sold all my Apple stock to help purchase my first home six months ago, which wasn’t much considering how much stock is these days and the cost of homes in Cali. These guys get the same amount of money handed to them to travel on personal aircrafts. Not bitter just wondering what I did wrong in life lol.
Part of what you say is true. Part is false. I do not believe Tim Cook is using Apple for his piggy bank as you imply. (If this is what you meant, if not please elaborate)
That’s true in general. But specifically with Apple, the price isn’t rising to $300 with crappy products, bad services, etc. there has to be some meat behind the stock price rise.
Yup, crappy products, crappy key boards, forgetting about Mac pros... but strong dongle revenue to frustrated customers...
let’s be honest, all Tim did was be the ceo when the chinese market really opened up. And when the Chinese markets sneezed, Apple stocks got sick. No leadership there, just external forces at play.
A monkey could have been the ceo and apple would have been successful with the vision, products (software and hardware), and engineering teams that Steve left him.
Tim just let these teams run loose and people like John ivys went unchecked.
Tim has lost shareholders a lot of money, apple stocks could be much higher with someone who actually gave a crap about items products.
and want to talk about a CEO, let’s talk about MUSK!
I wonder "how much" and "what" taxes are on Stock awards vs if it was given in a normal salary. I'm betting there is a tax savings in stock awards.
These comments are always great at showcasing how little someone knows about the jobs executives and especially CEOs have. You see the compensation but none of the work they put in. Since you think anyone could do it, why aren’t you a CEO?
Not sure if you’re being serious, but this is possibly the worst analysis possible.
Cook has “lost” shareholders money? Oh, you’re the “It’d be worth $4 Trillion if the Mac didn’t have a butterfly keyboard” guy? Give me a break. Deal with reality.
Tesla hasn’t even started making money yet, so their valuation is based Entirely on potential in a market that will be highly competitive when electric vehicles become more economically feasible. Tesla is also HEAVILY invested in the China supply chain.
Agreed that the big picture is total comp.
However, it does seem low as a proportion of shareholder value delivered.
Wonder how it compares to other CEOs
ex:
Salary (cash comp only) vs Top 50 CEOs with most increase in market cap
[automerge]1578165919[/automerge]
This. ... was the thought I just had before reading your reply.