Apple CEO Tim Cook Now the Eighth Highest-Paid Executive in the U.S.

[Silverstring]

Oh no, not complaining about anything here. You have lost the context of my comments.

I am merely talking about how people don’t quite think before spending money on Apple products now if they are able to bring it down to x number of coffees a month. They don’t see fair value/ price of the offering anymore, allowing Apple to charge whatever they want to.

This is not a complaint, it’s an observation. Complaint/ praise would be if I offer an opinion about said observation.

I know, I was being sarcastic.

 

[AFDoc]

Well deserved Mr. Cook. I still think he’s under paid based on what he has done at Apple so far.

total nonsense... no one person is worth that price in any industry.

 

[PlayUltimate]

What I believe many of us are saying is that this single individual's wealth increased by $265M over the course of the last year. I do see the distinction though.

This is can potentially agree with. And, as you and others have stated elsewhere, all of this "unrealized gain", unless he cashed out, is not taxed until sold.
Personally, in principal, I am not a fan of Elizabeth Warren's wealth tax proposals. However, every person, directly or indirectly, is paying a property tax based on the value of the underlying property. And that value and the associated taxes can change due to market conditions.
Thus, like the business shift from agriculture to services, the primary source of wealth for the elite has shifted from land to equity. I can see the argument for a taxation shift to include the value of those assets.

your basically arguing over the currents in vonnegut’s money river without even thinking about whether or not that’s how things should be

Actually, I do think about it a lot. But that was not the point of my comments. My argument was about the conflation that is made between income and asset growth. And some of the tax proposals being discussed will have the net effect of blurring that line. As a state above, I can see an argument for some of those changes.

 

[lostom]

Welcome to buying things.

My 2010 MBP lasted 8 years so maybe you’re doing it wrong.

My 2008 MacBook still runs ok, My iPhone 6 Plus still runs ok, my 2010, 2012 iMacs still run no with no issues.
M1 MBA and 12.9 iPad provides encouragement that they'll be around for a while.
Tempted to fire up the G5 and see how it's going?

 

[Veinticinco]

Decent coin for a glorified supply chain bean counter. Those Cantonese language lessons really paid off.

 

[Silverstring]

People should be free to do the maximum they can do in life. The ability to succeed shouldn’t be capped based on the lowest common denominator.

Right. The only two choices are the extremes of:

1. Unlimited
2. The lowest common denominator

Not a false dichotomy in the slightest.

 

[Silverstring]

and if they happen to be dying in the street of starvation somewhere they did not try hard enough?

I'm not attempting to speak for anyone else.

That said, I think the general idea might be something like:

The opportunity exists for one to not die in the street of starvation...one only needs to seize it.

Simple.

 

[I7guy]

Right. The only two choices are the extremes of:

1. Unlimited
2. The lowest common denominator

Not a false dichotomy in the slightest.

The false dichotomy is not mine. I’m only summarizing it.

 

[Silverstring]

The false dichotomy is not mine. I’m only summarizing it.

Do you mean it “it is what it is”? An immutable law of the universe?

 

[tann]

Personally no one should be paid so much money. So many problems in the world yet we still allow money to be the centre of it.

 

[I7guy]

Do you mean it “it is what it is”? An immutable law of the universe?

No. The immutable law of MacRumors that says many threads dealing with Apple will contain:
- false equivalencies
- biased criticism
- nonsense posts
- jealously, hate etc.

 

[Silverstring]

Opinions outside of shareholders frankly don’t matter.

In what world?

The opinions of customers, employees, suppliers and local communities—the majority of whom are not shareholders—matter more than the opinions of shareholders.

The opinions of shareholders follow from those other stakeholders, so how could they not matter? Again, it’s not like shareholders exist in a hermetically sealed bubble with no other inputs than their own.

You know who agrees with that? The CEOs of 192 large companies: https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...thinking-how-it-defines-corporations-purpose/

Guess who's in that aforementioned group? Tim Cook.

The days of shareholder primacy are over.

 

[poked]

Imo, you missed the point if you believe cooks’ compensation from the board was only a result of Apple having product(s) that sell themselves through branding. But you are entitled to your opinion.

Except Cook hasn’t done anything grandiose or surprising that gets investors a little frightened. That’s my whole point. The general public isn’t going to care WHAT or HOW he made it: he’s making millions off of a company that hasn’t had any innovative ideas since Jobs. Colorful computers was Jobs’ idea and I’d bet you most of anything the M1 idea also came from Jobs. That’s why Cook is the safest option from a shareholder perspective. He’s not going to screw up his position because he doesn’t care to be as tone-deaf as the rest of em, like Amazons CEO or the megalomaniac that is Elon.

 

[Yokon54]

In what world?

The opinions of customers, employees, suppliers and local communities—the majority of whom are not shareholders—matter more than the opinions of shareholders.

The opinions of shareholders follow from those other stakeholders, so how could they not matter? Again, it’s not like shareholders exist in a hermetically sealed bubble with no other inputs than their own.

You know who agrees with that? The CEOs of 192 large companies: https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...thinking-how-it-defines-corporations-purpose/

Guess who's in that aforementioned group? Tim Cook.

The days of shareholder primacy are over.

The real world. I’m well aware of the grandstanding CEOs like Jamie Dimon do to ingratiate themselves to the public though. They don’t really agree with that., IMO.

But customers matter, marketing matters, and public perception matters…no doubt. But it only matters because they increase shareholder value. You certainly don’t want to be a hated company or piss off your customers.

 

[Silverstring]

But customers matter, marketing matters, and public perception matters…no doubt. But it only matters because they increase shareholder value. You certainly don’t want to be a hated company or piss off your customers.

So we agree…non-shareholder opinions do matter.

Shareholders—and the company—don’t exist without the opinions of non-shareholders mattering, and the latter comes first. The reverse isn’t true.

Claiming otherwise is a distinction without a difference.

 

[I7guy]

Except Cook hasn’t done anything grandiose

That is not true.

or surprising that gets investors a little frightened.

Which investors are a little frightened. If investors are frightened, they should bail...why hold onto a dubious stock?

That’s my whole point. The general public isn’t going to care WHAT or HOW he made it: he’s making millions off of a company that hasn’t had any innovative ideas since Jobs.

Again, not true.

Colorful computers was Jobs’ idea and I’d bet you most of anything the M1 idea also came from Jobs.

That's the problem with this post. Speculation is being used to form a factual conclusion.

That’s why Cook is the safest option from a shareholder perspective. He’s not going to screw up his position because he doesn’t care to be as tone-deaf as the rest of em, like Amazons CEO or the megalomaniac that is Elon.

He's a safe bet, because he has shown the board that he can lead Apple in a way where they can innovate, execute and provide the masses with products that they like and will buy.

 

[Yokon54]

So we agree…non-shareholder opinions do matter.

Shareholders—and the company—don’t exist without the opinions of non-shareholders mattering, and the latter comes first. The reverse isn’t true.

Claiming otherwise is a distinction without a difference.

When I said non shareholder opinions don’t matter, I’m talking about as it relates to management, strategy, compensation, and workings inside the company…like the topic of this thread.

 

[DanTSX]

What sad and petty commentary….

So many whine and complain about the man building the company with the highest market cap, most widely recognized branding, and among the highest levels of profit. Not to mention the dividends paid to huge numbers of stock holders , and value of their securities…

Yet nobody complains about actors/actresses making obscene amounts of money for playing pretend, or sports players for playing a game!

You’d be using Windows Phone if it wasn’t for Tim Apple….

 

[Silverstring]

I’m talking about as it relates to management, strategy, compensation, and workings inside the company…like the topic of this thread.

Again, you can’t fully divorce those internal decisions from the context of larger society. They’re still literally informed by the opinions of non-shareholders.

Strategy can be and is at the mercy of the FTC and other governing bodies—see the storm brewing over the App Store “monopoly”.

If the FTC/European Union decides—in all of their non-shareholding opinion—that Apple must allow alternative payment options on the App Store, guess what instantly overrides the opinion of all the shareholders?

A good portion of Cook’s compensation—the topic of this thread, as you say—package is stock options. How those options can be exercised are at the mercy of the SEC, who’s regulatory decisions are shaped by non-shareholders.

All of these things made up of non-shareholder opinions precede all of Apple’s “internal decisions”, so, as I said in the first place: there is no bubble. The opinions of non-shareholders matters with regard to every single aspect of this company, any company.

 

[I7guy]

Again, you can’t fully divorce those internal decisions from the context of larger society. They’re still literally informed by the opinions of non-shareholders.

Strategy can be and is at the mercy of the FTC and other governing bodies—see the storm brewing over the App Store “monopoly”.

If the FTC/European Union decides—in all of their non-shareholding opinion—that Apple must allow alternative payment options on the App Store, guess what instantly overrides the opinion of all the shareholders?

A good portion of Cook’s compensation—the topic of this thread, as you say—package is stock options. How those options can be exercised are at the mercy of the SEC, who’s regulatory decisions are shaped by non-shareholders.

All of these things made up of non-shareholder opinions precede all of Apple’s “internal decisions”, so, as I said in the first place: there is no bubble. The opinions of non-shareholders matters with regard to every single aspect of this company, any company.

To me it's a red-herring to interpet non-shareholder as regulatory agencies (which are acting as Monday morning quarterbacks). It's an abstraction or distinction that is far removed from the context of the OP was intending to say, imo.

 

[Silverstring]

What sad and petty commentary….

So many whine and complain about the man building the company with the highest market cap, most widely recognized branding, and among the highest levels of profit.

Some people complain about Tim Cook’s performance, but I don’t. Whether his—or anyone’s—high level of performance warrants the amount of compensation received.

Say any CEO does a literally flawless job…if the deserve 300 million, why not 700? Why not 1.5 billion? Why not a trillion? How “deserves” is calculated is the argument, separate from the performance.

Yet nobody complains about actors/actresses making obscene amounts of money for playing pretend, or sports players for playing a game!

Complaints about this are EVERYWHERE…where are you from that you don’t hear/encounter them?!?

“We pay sports stars/entertainers x, but only pay teachers/doctors y” is such an overused cliche basis for comparison, it rivals using cups of coffee to contextualize software costs

You’d be using Windows Phone if it wasn’t for Tim Apple….

I think Tim’s done fantastic. I think this is a stretch.

 

[DanTSX]

Some people complain about Tim Cook’s performance, but I don’t. Whether his—or anyone’s—high level of performance warrants the amount of compensation received.

Say any CEO does a literally flawless job…if the deserve 300 million, why not 700? Why not 1.5 billion? Why not a trillion? How “deserves” is calculated is the argument, separate from the performance.


Complaints about this are EVERYWHERE…where are you from that you don’t hear/encounter them?!?

“We pay sports stars/entertainers x, but only pay teachers/doctors y” is such an overused cliche basis for comparison, it rivals using cups of coffee to contextualize software costs



I think Tim’s done fantastic. I think this is a stretch.

I’m praising Tim. But the board of directors is responsible for his pay. The BoD doesn’t get involved in pay of engineers or managers, so perhaps that is a source of disconnect? I accept that compensation can often be lopsided, and would rather have it that way than regulated so that I can take advantage of lopsided compensation.

I don’t spend much time paying attention to film/sports people, so admittedly missed it. But ceo pay seems to stand out for derision while Tom Cruise or sportsball pay gets celebrated. If I’m wrong I’m not going to research to correct myself in this case 🙃

 

[I7guy]

What sad and petty commentary….

So many whine and complain about the man building the company with the highest market cap, most widely recognized branding, and among the highest levels of profit. Not to mention the dividends paid to huge numbers of stock holders , and value of their securities…

Yet nobody complains about actors/actresses making obscene amounts of money for playing pretend, or sports players for playing a game!

Yep.

You’d be using Windows Phone if it wasn’t for Tim Apple….

The post was really strong until this.

 

[I7guy]

Personally no one should be paid so much money. So many problems in the world yet we still allow money to be the centre of it.

So what is your line in the sand for compensation? What is the upper compensation that should be allowed? $10/hr, $100,000 ye, $1m yr etc.

 

[Silverstring]

To me it's a red-herring to interpet non-shareholder as regulatory agencies (which are acting as Monday morning quarterbacks). It's an abstraction or distinction that is far removed from the context of the OP was intending to say, imo.

Regulatory agencies are made up of people.

I gave several non-regulatory agency examples of non-shareholders impacting internal decisions. Customers absolutely have an influence on strategy, management, and compensation, so how could their opinion not matter?

My premise was and is that what OP said—that the opinions of of non-shareholder don’t matter to every single aspect of a company—is an illusory distinction, a fantasy.