Apple CEO Tim Cook Set to Reap Nearly $100 Million in Vesting Stock This Quarter

[vitzr]

Everything I know about Tim Cook reveals he's earned it.

Despite the image as painted by Apple, of his "warm & fuzzy" relationship with Jobs, insiders I know within Apple share about how he too, has been the target of many of Jobs relatively juvenile & vicious attacks. It only makes sense if you consider the truth about how close they were. Therefore Cook has certainly paid his dues, and proven how tough he is.

I have a very high degree of confidence in him, combined with massive respect. Apple is in good hands

 

[wizzerandchips]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

How much money does a man of his age need, however who knows what he will do with it, all I know is if I was Tim cook, a lot of not so fortunate people would be benefiting from such a windfall as I'd give most of it away.

 

[Glideslope]

Pfft, Mandella shmandella. He never gave me an antenna with spatial diversity. Besides, I'm more concerned with the next Angry Birds.

#firstworldpriorities

Agreed.

Nice job Tim.

 

[eye]

Brush those haters off, Tim! Everyone should be thankful Tim Cook is getting that money instead of someone fun like me or the next day there'd be an island somewhere filled with monkey butlers, a basketball court plated in palladium, a castle filled with packing peanuts, and Dr. Dre as a personal assistant.

 

[Kaibelf]

Honestly, the only stock grant that i find objectionable is the 1,000,000 shares. Giving the guy $400 Million bucks in shares, plus everything else, regardless of performance is unbelievable. That is a rediculous amout of money that comes right out of the pockets of the shareholders.

Those are vested for years in the future with a value directly affected by performance. If he leaves or does badly the stock won't be worth as much, so exactly why are you complaining? Ah, yeah, you are acting as if future money should all be yours also....

 

[Abazigal]

Nobody _deserves_ $100 million. But he earned it, legally, so more power to him. Hopefully he finds something humanitarian to do with the excess $90 million he doesn't actually need. But hey, SJ wasn't exactly a giving person either and everyone wants to be like him, right?

The point is, he earned his money fair and square. Apple got rich through honest means by making quality products people wanted, not by tricking people into sub-prime mortgages or ponzi scams.

I feel that what he wants to do with his money is really his own business, even if he just uses it to fluff his bed or wipe his buttocks or something. I am an elementary school teacher and I don't feel bothered at all that there are people earning a million times more than me. I just focus on doing my own job, draw my paycheck at the end of the month and live my life.

Seriously, what is with all the people these days who feel like they have a right to interfere in how a person ought to spend their money?

It's more difficult, sure.. but it isn't several orders of magnitude more difficult. I have to admit the way people like you deify the work of people like Cook is fairly amusing... what they do isn't all that difficult; you just need to be intelligent, diligent, and well-versed in your area of expertise.

There are hundreds of thousands (likely millions) of Americans who could do what Tim does.

Perhaps, but there are also millions of americans who are not doing what Tim does. Just as how in theory, any of a number of millions of Americans could have won the lottery had the result been just that little bit different.

 

[Kaibelf]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

How much money does a man of his age need, however who knows what he will do with it, all I know is if I was Tim cook, a lot of not so fortunate people would be benefiting from such a windfall as I'd give most of it away.

Who put you in charge of how much money anyone should earn, and who based it in age? Are you Kim Jong Il?

----------

The reason people are concerned about the growing wealth imbalance is that wealth leads to power. It isn't that Cook (and from what I know I like this guy, so this could be any very rich guy) has taken money away, it is now that he is very rich he has become more powerful. The rich have more power in politics (they can hire lobbyists) and they have more power in the market (they can outbid me for goods and services). This isn't the end of the world or even of democracy, but it does effect my and your day to day life. Sometimes in obvious ways. For example, I'd like to have a nice apartment that overlooks Central Park in New York City. I cannot have that because the rich can out bid me for that item. They haven't "taken" this away from me in some sort of immoral way, but I cannot have that thing. This is a pretty good example because 40 years ago when there was less wealth disparity a guy like me (I'm fairly successful) could have bought such an apartment. But those days are over, the 1% is a lot richer than they were 40 years ago. Real estate is the best example of this, but it happens in other markets when you try to compete with the very well to do. The middle class really can't compete and this is different than it was in America 40 years ago.

So you are complaining that a man has succeeded after a lifetime of hard work? Or that you didn't as much, so you by default should get others' money? Supply and demand. More people than 40 years ago. Central Park didn't get bigger. Too bad.

 

[vrDrew]

The thing that people ought to be concerned about is that Apple will be able to reap a huge tax windfall because of this: They get to deduct from their earnings the present value of the stock grant, not that of when it was made.

Companies ought to be able to deduct legitimate business expenses. But a huge non-cash "expense" like the increased value of a stock grant is one of those loopholes that make it possible for so many US companies to effectively pay zero tax - despite being very profitable.

I ought to note that, in general, Apple is very far from being the worst offender in the tech world (hint, hint, Google...) People can debate all day long whether or not anyone "deserves" $100 million in pay. But we are never going to solve some of our country's problems until we deal with the issue that many of the wealthiest and successful businesses and individuals here pay far less of their income in taxes than most ordinary Americans. Call it "socialism" or "class warfare" if you want - but don't turn around and wail about how terrible deficits and Government spending are. Some of that terrible "Government spending" paid for Tim Cook's (and Steve Jobs) education.

 

[palmerc2]

Damn that, uh, capitalist that uh, creates all those jobs. He doesn't deserve it, he doesn't work hard or anything. He should be punished and uh, taxed beyond belief. Help those people that chose to work at grocery stores. Yeah, uh, damn rich people.

/sarcasm

 

[jasonbremen]

Billionaire

You can have billions and billions and billions and billions – nothing prevents you from having cancer and suffer and die like any other poor human out there.
That is the one and only final justice!

 

[nylonsteel]

re original article

100 mil = alot of life options

 

[Frisco]

If I was him I would just retire and enjoy my millions. Business sucks!

 

[Les Kern]

Cha-ching!

I guess the drinks are on Tim tonight then!

IMO he deserves it - he's made notable change for the good over the last few months.

Wow, a few months and 100M.
No he doesn't deserve it, nobody does.
Eff-Ing obscene.

 

[Glideslope]

If I was him I would just retire and enjoy my millions. Business sucks!

Not when you love what you do and can barely wait to get to the office the next day, are single, and "want" to devote 101% of you to your goals.

Like Tim.

----------

Wow, a few months and 100M.
No he doesn't deserve it, nobody does.
Eff-Ing obscene.

Too bad you hate your job.

 

[msm859]

I think the real disconnect here is that people like you don't understand the difference between salary and stock grants and options. Salary is a guaranteed amount of money for a set period of time. Stock grants are worthless ledger entries unless the stock granted is worth something at the time it vests, typically years after the grant was made. If the execs screw up in the interim the value of the company's stock is going to plummet and so is the value of the grant. It very well could have been worthless if Cook had been unable to lead Apple the past year. (See old stock charts of Lucent, 3COM, or even Cisco).

Another disconnect is that people do not understand the difference between salary (pay for work) and investments (risk of one's capital which one has already paid various taxes on) which can end up as either capital LOSSES or capital gains. How do you propose to encourage investment if the tax rate negates any worthwhile gain?

Sorry, I do understand the difference -- your claim is a difference without a distinction. Even if you believe he deserves the options, in reality he is receiving a "performance calculated bonus" -- it should still be taxed as ordinary income -- not a lower amount. I don't have an objection to bonuses tied to performance -- that is how they should be. I have a problem with one of the most profitable companies of all time squeezing dollars out of their employees by paying low wages and insuring many are part time to avoid paying benefits so that they can afford to pay exorbitant salaries to their executives. This is an endemic problem that has taken hold in this country.
As to your last question, in the last 50+ years we have ALWAYS done better when the capital gains rate was higher than they are now. A good start would be to go back to the tax rates we had under Clinton -- they seemed to be the right balance and caused NO problem encouraging investment.

 

[Frisco]

I guess I am bitter working for big business. Jobs I can understand working to his death--Apple was his baby. Cook is a different story.

 

[Amarth]

Honestly, the only stock grant that i find objectionable is the 1,000,000 shares. Giving the guy $400 Million bucks in shares, plus everything else, regardless of performance is unbelievable. That is a rediculous amout of money that comes right out of the pockets of the shareholders.

Agreed. 100 million, 400 million, 1 billion.... No matter how well a CEO and his/her company performed, these amounts are obscene - considering how much poverty exists - even here in the US. How about using some of that money to pay your fair share of taxes instead of moving it to offshore tax havens. Or how about using some of that money to move - just a little - manufacturing back here. It's not capitalism at it's best, it is at it's worst.

 

[Dmunjal]

I think that Jobs and Cook have done more for the country by creating thousands if not millions of jobs tied to the mobile industry than if they were taxed at 100% and the government tried to create jobs with that money. They've earned it. Apple is the very best example of capitalism.

 

[Dmunjal]

Sorry, I do understand the difference -- your claim is a difference without a distinction. Even if you believe he deserves the options, in reality he is receiving a "performance calculated bonus" -- it should still be taxed as ordinary income -- not a lower amount. I don't have an objection to bonuses tied to performance -- that is how they should be. I have a problem with one of the most profitable companies of all time squeezing dollars out of their employees by paying low wages and insuring many are part time to avoid paying benefits so that they can afford to pay exorbitant salaries to their executives. This is an endemic problem that has taken hold in this country.
As to your last question, in the last 50+ years we have ALWAYS done better when the capital gains rate was higher than they are now. A good start would be to go back to the tax rates we had under Clinton -- they seemed to be the right balance and caused NO problem encouraging investment.

Clinton raised taxes on ordinary income and lowered taxes on capital gains.

 

[Big D 51]

Must be nice.....

 

[Cartaphilus]

Sorry, I do understand the difference -- your claim is a difference without a distinction. Even if you believe he deserves the options, in reality he is receiving a "performance calculated bonus" -- it should still be taxed as ordinary income -- not a lower amount. I don't have an objection to bonuses tied to performance -- that is how they should be. I have a problem with one of the most profitable companies of all time squeezing dollars out of their employees by paying low wages and insuring many are part time to avoid paying benefits so that they can afford to pay exorbitant salaries to their executives. This is an endemic problem that has taken hold in this country.
As to your last question, in the last 50+ years we have ALWAYS done better when the capital gains rate was higher than they are now. A good start would be to go back to the tax rates we had under Clinton -- they seemed to be the right balance and caused NO problem encouraging investment.

The fair market value of the shares Cook receives when he acquires full ownership rights to them is taxable to him in that tax year as ordinary income. If he doesn't sell the shares until long enough after they vest to satisfy the holding period he will be taxed at capital gain rates on whatever increase in the value of the shares occurs between vesting and sale.

I believe that there is no logical connection between the level of wages paid to those who produce Apple products--direct Apple employees or the employees of independent contractors--and the deferred stock grants and other compensation awarded to senior officers. I would think that Apple's board would direct its managers to pay the least amount possible to workers that ensures the receipt of the benefit of qualified labor for the long term, no more and no less. I would also think that the board and its compensation committee would want to compensate its senior managers the least amount possible that ensures their continued dedicated services and attracts the best talent. There is no reason to expect that more demanding senior officers would result in cheaper labor costs or that cheaper labor costs would persuade the board to increase the compensation to its senior managers. Each group is subject to their own independent levels of supply and demand.

I do, however, agree with you that those who benefit the most from the infrastructure created by government should contribute the most to the costs of maintaining and improving the environment that has contributed to their success. Apple would never have succeeded but for the robust capital markets which are supported and rendered trustworthy by government supervision, nor would it have prospered without an education system that produced highly- productive engineers, technicians, and other specialists. Their products are distributed over transportation systems which are largely publicly funded, and sold over communications systems which have been created and or regulated by the government--and which also are essential to creating the demand for Apple products that are most useful when connected to those systems. There is a reason why Apple, Microsoft, IBM, Oracle, and many other highly-profitable companies were founded in and are headquartered in America. The highly-compensated employees and the profiting shareholders of successful companies ought to pay taxes sufficient to ensure the continuation of productivity increases that along with natural resources are the only real basis for sustaining a successful economy. Whether that tax contribution includes favored rates on capital gains ought to be decided based on the state of the economy. When there is too little private capital investment activity due to a liquidity trap, risk aversion, or marginal demand, low capital gains tax rates and investment tax credits are powerful tools that ought not be eschewed as a matter of policy.

 

[ChrisTX]

If everyone else could really do what Tim Cook does, they would be doing it. Way to go Tim!

 

[~Shard~]

Whenever I come across these types of reports involving Executives and how much they have earned in a bonus, payout, etc., I always think that if that was me, I would just frickin' retire. Why keep working, or move onto another company? I realize in this case Cook is obligated to stay on as CEO to receive the full deal, but in general, if I had more money than I could possibly need or want I would quit, just live life 100% of the time without having work get in the way, and make a difference in so many other people's lives. That being said, I suppose if your profession is your passion, that's a different story.

Still though, I alway say that I work to live, not live to work. And to that end, I don't think anyone ever gets to the end of their life and says, "Gosh, I wish I would have worked more..."

 

[marksman]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)

I don't think anyone deserves that much money. Now matter how good of a job they do, or what they do. It's simply too much for one person.

So if someone is key in making me 10 billion dollars a year I would not pay them 30 million dollars?

I know if someone could make me 10 billion dollars a year I would be more than happy to pay them that kind of money. I realize some people have business or financial sense but even the layman can understanding paying 10s of millions to create billions is a no brainer.

What if your best friend wanted to start a business and told you he would make 300000 a year for you if you paid him 1000. Would you not do it?

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)

How about helping out the schools in California and creating a foundation to increase the adoption of high speed wireless internet in schools along with updated equipment?

How much have you put towards that cause?

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)

Honestly, the only stock grant that i find objectionable is the 1,000,000 shares. Giving the guy $400 Million bucks in shares, plus everything else, regardless of performance is unbelievable. That is a rediculous amout of money that comes right out of the pockets of the shareholders.

That is over 10 years and it could be worth 100 million or 2 billion. At the current rate it is a steal for the shareholders. 400 million with the expectation of 100 billion plus profits?

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)

The shareholders implicitly approve of the board's decision to hand out these sort of compensation offers.

Remember that the primary function of a publicly traded company is increasing shareholder value. Steve Jobs and the rest of the senior management team has executed for many consecutive quarters.

If you -- as a shareholder -- do not agree with the board's compensation offers, you are free to withhold your vote in re-electing any/all of the directors at the next annual meeting.

I'm well aware of the corporate governance at issue here. First, shareholders don't "implicitly approve" the board decisions. Rather, generally speaking, shareholders delegate their power to control the day to day operations, except for those matters expressly reserved under the governance documents (i.e. articles of incorporation/bylaws/etc).

Clearly the management team has executed over the previous years, but this stock grant isn't supposed to reflect prior performance. It is for his service as CEO--and as a CEO, he hasn't done anything yet. Sure, he MAY end up earning this grant (as I believe he earned those grants that vest soon), but he is unproven at the helm as CEO. He should have reveived OPTIONS with a strike price at the current stock price. His compensation should be tied to performance of the stock, especially if no dividends are made.

There is a major problem in the corporate world. Board members are elected by the institutional shareholders (not the small unit owners) who all "swim in the same pool". It's an old boys/girls club and they all appoint each other to various boards, set enormous, ever-rising compensation levels and they win regardless of whether the company succeeds. Meanwhile the incomes of those they set for those working for them are all under downward pressure, benefits are reduced, jobs outsourced, etc. In 1978, the average CEO to average employee pay was 35 to 1. Now? 475 to 1. Sorry, I'm all for rewarding success and am pro-capitalist, but greed has taken over.

Actually the money here is for work already done not as a CEO and a small fraction for interim CEO. He has other options going forward for being CEO. If he makes the company successful he is rewarded. Stock options are how these CEOs should be paid.

Giving 1 million options over 10 years to the largest public company in the world that is also hyper profitable is totally reasonable.

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)

When Apple awarded the stock options to Tim, they were purchased and set aside at the current market price at the time. Steve and Tim's phenomenal work since 2008 rose the value of the stock to today's value.
Average stock price for AAPL in 2008 was ~$140/shr; today its worth $415, a 3x fold increase in value.
Love it or hate it, American publicly traded companies reward high level executives with stock options to encourage them to hang around and raise the value of the company. Tim clearly is doing that and I wouldn't fault him for it.
If you have a beef with how much he gets, talk to the board.

They weren't stock options. This was a GRANT. And i don't believe they were "purchased and set aside". Either way, they used $400,000,000 in cash to purchase them or they diluted the shareholders.


And if anyone thinks regular shareholders, as opposed to the institutional shareholders, have ANY chance of affecting Apple's compensation board or anything else at a corporate level, they are woefully naive.

They haven't been given to him yet. It does not work that way. By the way granting stock options is better than just giving him cash.

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)

It's CEO's like this in this country getting way overcompensated with millions and millions, that is crippling our ecomomy and country. There are so many more key people at Apple, that do a bang-up job daily, but will never be compensated a thousandth of what this guy is getting in one sha-bang.

I've always said, that whatever the CEO, COO, or CFO, or whomever is at the top of a corporation, if he gets a bonus of so many dollars, the lowest peon in the company should at least get a small % of what the CEO is awarded, as long as he/she is doing his/her job to the best of his/her ability as well. So if this top dog gets a $100 million bonus, the lowest peon on the totem pole at Apple should at least get a $500 bonus as well. Hell, maybe a $1000 bonus!

Overpaid CEO's and overpaid board of directors in this country are killing all of us!!

You don't think anyone else at apple gets bonuses? The money cook is getting now is not even, mostly, for being CEO. I am sure the total amount of bonuses and compensation apple pays out is significant.

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)

Teachers don't own and run companies that yield millions of dollars in profit. That's their choice, and it's their choice to do what they do. I know public school teachers who live fine off of what they make and love what they do.

That is true. It is also true that we had teachers 40 years ago and CEOs of companies that made millions in profits as well. 40 years ago the CEO's compensation wasn't nearly as many multiples of the teachers compensation as it is now. Things have changed, lots of people don't think that this is for the better.

That is not true. Hughes, rockefeller and others made way more money compared to the average person than today. It is not even close.

 

[Goratrix]

Why can't we be happy for someone doing good in this country right now??

By "this" I assume you mean China, Korea, etc...? Because that's where most of the real work and added value on all the Apple products happens. Apple at this not point is basically an asian company with a retail network in the US. Just as Dell and many others. The fact that the leaderships of those companies live in the US does not change that.