Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
65,932
34,706


Apple will not have to face an investor lawsuit accusing it of overpaying CEO Tim Cook and other top executives by tens of millions of dollars, after a federal judge on Wednesday dismissed the case (via Reuters).

Tim-Cook-WWDC-Stage.jpeg

The plaintiff, a pension fund affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, said Apple in 2021 and 2022 awarded a respective $92.7 million and $94 million to Cook and four other executives by improperly calculating the value of performance-based stock awards. The plaintiff argued its compensation committee intended to award just $77.5 million each year.

The alleged error was attributed by the pension fund's lawyers to the committee's improper calculation of the restricted stock unit's "fair values" at the time of the grants, and said it misled shareholders who would be casting advisory votes on executive compensation, known as "say-on-pay."

U.S. District Judge Jennifer Rochon disagreed, however, saying Apple described its pay methods in detailed compensation tables in its 2023 proxy statement "precisely," as securities laws and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission rules require.

The Manhattan judge also found no proof that Apple's board of directors acted improperly in awarding pay, and said the plaintiff did not give the board enough time to consider its objections before suing.

Apple proxy filings show Cook's compensation totaled about $99 million in both 2021 and 2022, including more than $82 million of stock awards each year. Cook's total pay declined to $63.2 million for 2023.

Article Link: Apple Defeats Lawsuit Claiming It Overpaid Tim Cook and Other Execs
 
Tim Cook makes a lot less money compared to many other CEOs of Fortune 50 companies.



Apple’s stock price was less than $14/share when Tim Cook took over as CEO in August 2011 (and Steve Jobs died in October 2011). Today, it is over $180/share.

IMG_8254.jpeg


He has also pledged “to donate $800m fortune to charity before he dies”.

 
Last edited:
He makes to much money because everybody keeps buying his sales pitch.
Isn’t a CEO supposed to run a company and sell things? It sounds like Cook is doing his job. Are you criticizing Apple for being a successful company that makes products and runs services people spend money on?

How do you define too much money? Is that more than you make? Is it more than X times the median salary of company employees? Is it a percent of total revenue? Is it relative to other CEOs?
 
Last edited:
Tim Cook makes a lot less money compared to many other CEOs of Fortune 50 companies.



Apple’s stock price was less than $14/share when Tim Cook took over as CEO in August 2011 (and Steve Jobs died in October 2011). Today, it is over $180/share.

View attachment 2347191

He has also pledged “to donate $800m fortune to charity before he dies”.

800Million is like 50 cents to cookie sounds like his nephew is going to get one heck of an education .
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: bondr006
I know in certain threads about Apple Retail people comment and ask why execs are paid so much and store employees paid so little in comparison. I agree that store employees deserve more since they deal with a LOT of shxt.

but imagine being an exec, especially CEO?! even if they delegate a lot of responsibilities to lower level employees, execs have to know and oversee a lot.

they aren’t the face of the company retail-wise, but they are faces of the company still. what Tim and the other execs paid is warranted for the most part IMO.
 
Tim Cook makes a lot less money compared to many other CEOs of Fortune 50 companies.



Apple’s stock price was less than $14/share when Tim Cook took over as CEO in August 2011 (and Steve Jobs died in October 2011). Today, it is over $180/share.

View attachment 2347191

He has also pledged “to donate $800m fortune to charity before he dies”.

The stock didn’t go from $14 to $180 despite what that chart says. The stock split 7:1 in 2014 and 4:1 in 2020. The difference is WAY more than $166. It’s more like $166 but you’d have 28 times the shares.
 
Last edited:
The worst thing about CEO pay is, it is depends on the stock not how the company is actually doing. And yeah, CEOs earn too much, no CEO is worth being paid millions per year while some workers are making barely minimum wage. The idea of "underpaid CEOs" was spread by consulting companies like McKinsey which CEOs loved of course, so McKinsey is essentially a CEO trade union.
 
It makes no material difference to their investment outcomes, so what conceivable purpose did this lawsuit have?
 
It reminds me of the compensation of the former "Porsche" CEO. In the past compensation of most CEOs in Germany was independent from the success. So even if the company made a huge loss, the CEO received millions. So Porsche wanted to change that an made the compensation proportional to the success of the CEO. The "problem" was that he was successful, that Porsche had to pay him more that 100 million Euros for a whole year. So again people complained that he was overpaid, although he has proven to be worth every penny.
 
1. Executive compensation is out of control across the board. I’m not suggesting a salary cap by law, rather, I believe that compensation, even if tied to stock performance, need not reach the 100 M level.

2. In Good to Great, Jim Collins performed an analysis on executive compensation and found that once you pay an executive enough, additional compensation has no correlation to company success. Meaning, you have to pay enough to be in the ball park. Some Great was companies paid less and some paid more.

3. While retail workers may do a difficult job, there are far more people qualified to work the counter than lead the corporation. The determining factor in salary is the same as for anything else: supply and demand. This is also why there is a considerable divergence in worker salary based on zip code. A plumber in Indiana may earn $25 per hour and be content he is paid well, while a plumber in NYC may be paid twice that and feel unappreciated.

4. Additionally, changing executive compensation does not necessarily lead to higher pay for entry-level workers. There are over 160,000 Apple employees of which 65,000 work the retail store. If each retail employee was given just a $5K raise, that increase would result in an additional $325M before employer taxes and insurance (tied to payroll): much more than Tim’s entire salary. This would also have an effect on the other 100K employees who would feel slighted.

5. The world isn’t fair and we’d better get used to it. I’m not suggesting we treat people differently based on irrelevant factors, such race or religion, which is both immoral and bad for business, but a guy like me, under 6 foot with a Daddy belly isn’t cut out for the NFL or even the NLB. People have different comprehension abilities and different physical abilities, and you can’t expect an employer to pay more because life is expensive. Good employers do reward those who show dedication and commitment with higher pay and benefits, but only to a level appropriate within industry norms.

I don’t believe this is a fault of society, rather, this is the way the world was created.

We are different, though a better term is unique. We can choose celebrate our uniqueness or we can vilify it but either way we must all deal with it.

Choose wisely, your life (expectancy) depends on it.
 
Last edited:
Can people please stop attributing Apple's stock price increase to Tim Cook. You could have put a monkey in charge of Apple after Steve died and the stock still would have risen. Steve left the company when it was years ahead of the competition, it simply carried on momentum. Even to this day Apple's decade old software which has seen minimal improvements still has the usability edge on the competition. It's not a compliment to Tim, it's a nod to the incredible company Steve left behind.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.