Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I think most people would agree the executives pay should be based on the stock value and not a fixed annual salary that doesnt rise or fall based on company performance. All that matters is total compensation and Tim Cook certainly is being rewarded with significant compensation.

I don't agree with it... It's a major reason why some companies are poorly run. Execs are motivated to manipulate the stock price so they get a bigger payout by making decisions with short-term stock price benefits instead of long-term benefits. Many execs' long-term view is limited to the current financial quarter.

If pay is going to be tied to stock performance it should be on a long-term basis so they aren't compelled to do things like firing employees in order to obtain a short-term stock price boost.

----------

uh no they don't. You assume that stock price is a direct function of how well a company is being run and that is ridiculous. Look at the different financial ratios and compare say google and apple. You will see that the stock price can move quite independently of good management by executives and objective measures of performance.

Also, lets say my compensation is all tied to stock performance. Let's see... How could i quickly pump up my stock price so i could sell and make a bunch of money. I could cut expenses. What is really expensive to companies? Oh yeah, people! They cost a lot. I'll layoff 5000 employees, cut expenses pump up my stock and make a fortune. Guess what? This has happened more times than you would like to know. I would rather have a ceo draw a huge salary than give him compensation that he has the direct ability to manipulate for his own selfish desires.

+1
 
He gets all his money from stocks anyway, since I believe they're taxed a lot less.

The big rich scam is that you're taxed 15% on stocks no matter what your income.

You're taxed at 0-35% depending on income. Once you earn $388,000, every dollar ABOVE $388,000 is taxed at 35%.

Actually, every dollar above $8,700 is taxed higher than 15% for normal people.

So, even a person earning 50K (which is taxed at 28%) would love to have the 15% tax bracket instead of 28%.
 
At Citigr**p if you don't put all of your 401K into Citi you will be denied promotion or transfer.

Oh how a love Corporate America :(
 
At Citigr**p if you don't put all of your 401K into Citi you will be denied promotion or transfer.

Oh how a love Corporate America :(

I don't think its a problem saying CitiGROUP. :D. But what do you mean by putting all of your 401k into Citigroup? I'm a financial advisor, that doesn't make sense what you're saying. Also I would think it would be against the labor board to deny a person a promotion or transfer if they don't...do what you said they have to do...which I'm not understanding. :confused:
 
I don't think its a problem saying CitiGROUP. :D. But what do you mean by putting all of your 401k into Citigroup? I'm a financial advisor, that doesn't make sense what you're saying. Also I would think it would be against the labor board to deny a person a promotion or transfer if they don't...do what you said they have to do...which I'm not understanding. :confused:

No comment. I need to feed my family.
 
The big rich scam is that you're taxed 15% on stocks no matter what your income.

Sort-of. It gets complicated.

But yes, you are taxed 15% on long-term capital gains (any investments you hold for longer than one year). You are taxed income rates on short-term gains.

The catch is how capital gains gets calculated on the stock. It's not cut and dry, and that's where the games are played. If I buy stock through an employee purchase plan, the amount I spend is considered the 'cost basis' for determining capital gains. Thus, the difference in what I spend and what I receive when I sell the stock is the capital gain (or loss), simple enough. When I'm awarded a sum of stock by my employer, income tax needs to be paid on the cost basis. Some companies may simply withhold some portion of the stock to cover the income tax involved. So I do pay tax on stock I'm awarded as part of my performance review, at income tax rates.

Now, because I'm not an executive, I don't get personalized stock options, which is where I could cut how much I owe in taxes. This is done via back-dating of the options. Usually to make the cost basis lower, and thus less of the value is taxable under income tax rules. Leaving more of the stock's value under the long-term capital gains tax rules.

And once you are getting paid this much money to begin with, holding onto a stock for a year to get the long-term tax rates is absurdly easy. The idea was to encourage longer-term investment, and punish folks like day traders, but it also means that stock awards are a way you can pass more wealth onto a high-ranking employee while letting them keep more of it rather than having it taxed. From the company's perspective, it is the right thing to do, since to pay X post-tax dollars to an exec, it is cheaper to the company this way. Doesn't mean it's the right approach when it comes to trying to tie tax burden to "income", which I agree with you on.

You're taxed at 0-35% depending on income. Once you earn $388,000, every dollar ABOVE $388,000 is taxed at 35%.

Actually, every dollar above $8,700 is taxed higher than 15% for normal people.

So, even a person earning 50K (which is taxed at 28%) would love to have the 15% tax bracket instead of 28%.

The starting pay for the 28% bracket is around 85k, not 50k. Although the 25% bracket starts at around 35k, and isn't much lower as a percentage. The 15% tax bracket ends at 35k, not 8700$. You are thinking of where the 10% bracket ends. Note that this is for the 2012 tax year in the US. The 2013 brackets are edged up a little higher, and adds a 39.6% bracket at 400k.
 
So if Steve Jobs was still here, his $1 salary would mean....

It would mean $1.4 million more per year for the company (minus a dollar). Tim Cook's salary is still well below the CEO average for comparable companies in the tech industry (and is called out in the shareholder meeting document). Sure it is all relative, I'm not comparing his pay to a shelf stocker working at Walmart.
 
Yeah, but he's just selling people a million copies of something they make.

???

----------

It would mean $1.4 million more per year for the company (minus a dollar). Tim Cook's salary is still well below the CEO average for comparable companies in the tech industry (and is called out in the shareholder meeting document). Sure it is all relative, I'm not comparing his pay to a shelf stocker working at Walmart.

Not that. Steve Jobs had a $1 salary and relied on something else for income from Apple to lower the ridiculous tax rate it would be taxed at. So he would be required to own at least $3 in AAPL...
 
I really think you need to move on, let Steve go buddy. We have Tim and Jonny and the team now. I know bereavement is tough. However you got to let it go.

What are you talking about? He's just pointing out an interesting scenario that would exist if Steve Jobs was still alive and had his $1 salary that he had before.

----------

AAPL = Apple Stock
AAPL Stock = Apple Stock Stock

I think AAPL = Apple, not Apple stock. Not sure how options and other setups work, but I'm pretty sure their options would be AAPL options ≠ Apple stock options.

----------

I think most people would agree the executives pay should be based on the stock value and not a fixed annual salary that doesnt rise or fall based on company performance. All that matters is total compensation and Tim Cook certainly is being rewarded with significant compensation.

I highly doubt most people think that. The stock has to do with company success but also a whole lot more. For example, AAPL and pretty much everything else dumps whenever there's a European financial crisis even if the US companies are doing well and the executives working well. Besides, this would encourage too many CEOs to just do whatever it takes to pump up excitement and raise the stock price with gimmicks.

Speaking of that, this seems like a desperate attempt to raise AAPL. Forcing executives to hold AAPL stock? Eh...
 
The big rich scam is that you're taxed 15% on stocks no matter what your income.

You're taxed at 0-35% depending on income. Once you earn $388,000, every dollar ABOVE $388,000 is taxed at 35%.

Actually, every dollar above $8,700 is taxed higher than 15% for normal people.

So, even a person earning 50K (which is taxed at 28%) would love to have the 15% tax bracket instead of 28%.

Actually, it's 15% if long-term (>1 year) or "qualified" dividend income and 0% if you are in the 15% or under tax tier, normal income tax tier rates if short-term or non-"qualified" dividend income: http://taxes.about.com/od/capitalgains/a/CapitalGainsTax_4.htm

I think it's a good system. It rewards the rich for holding onto stocks long-term, promoting stability and company growth. Short-term investors aren't that beneficial and can even be harmful to the economy.
 
Last edited:
This is a stupid policy. Executives at a company like Apple already have their salaries, bonuses, stock-based compensation, and their individual reputations all tied to how well their company does. You'd think those factors alone would be sufficient for managers to take a rooting interest in the company's future.

It's just foolish to not diversify enough so that a court case, an accident, or the CEO's picture on the front page with an altar boy and a sheep doesn't take you from riches to rags overnight. We've seen stock prices plummet for all sort of reasons that have little or nothing to do with the performance of managers, and certainly not with the performance of every manager.

Whether it's a money-center bank, a Fortune 50 company, or some pink sheet outfit, there is always some idiot who thinks it's a demonstration of loyalty and dedication if you tie yourself to the mast. My view is that any executive foolish enough to wager everything his family has on the financial future of a single company is too foolish to be trusted with a responsible role in corporate management or direction.

Nor should we neglect the wisdom of those who have recognized that a short-term focus on stock price can lead to lousy decisions, or overlook the fact that a senior manager or board member who is set for life with company stock at its then current value is very likely to be more reluctant to support bold initiatives that present some risk than an objective decision-maker ought to be.

I thought Apple was better than this.
 
Now, for big money, go into healthcare... the CEOs really make out blackmailing people to pay to save their lives.

The alternative is death.

Nobody would play roulette if it didn't pay off big when your number comes up. Somebody's got to provide the nice huge pile of chips for a big payoff for a company to bet a billion dollars to develop, test and get FDA approval for some new unknown drug (most fail), or no company would make that really stupid bet.

----------

So he would be required to own at least $3 in AAPL...

Steve sold all his millions of shares of Apple stock except for 1 share at somewhere around $3 per share. So he meets the ownership requirement.
 
Uh no they don't. You assume that stock price is a direct function of how well a company is being run and that is ridiculous. Look at the different financial ratios and compare say Google and Apple. You will see that the stock price can move quite independently of good management by executives and objective measures of performance.

Also, lets say my compensation is all tied to stock performance. Let's see... how could I quickly pump up my stock price so I could sell and make a bunch of money. I could cut expenses. What is really expensive to companies? Oh yeah, people! They cost a lot. I'll layoff 5000 employees, cut expenses pump up my stock and make a fortune. Guess what? This has happened more times than you would like to know. I would rather have a CEO draw a huge salary than give him compensation that he has the direct ability to manipulate for his own selfish desires.

Agreed. At the same time, as has been shown, almost all of the CEO's are unbelievable y selfish and could give two *****'s about the regular employees.
 
... how could I quickly pump up my stock price so I could sell and make a bunch of money. I could cut expenses.....

The stock performance based compensation is to put the CEO in the shoes of the shareholder... so if the shareholder doesn't make money, neither does the CEO. They want management to 'eat their own cooking'. Sometimes 'they should be forced to invest 5% of their net worth into the company as an entry fee' sentiment is used (but obviously hard to employ).

As for 'pumping a stock', that's a problem with the compensation package. It rewards CEO for short term gains. If they want to avoid this, reward them with 3-year, 5-year, 10-year restricted shares, options or other *long term* incentives. Another method where their compensation is based on the average trading over a lengthy period of time. (which means the stock price has to be *sustained*, not just spiked/pumped) ... this if often done with employee share purchase plans.

One reason why CEO compensation package are often out-of-whack is because their friends sit on the BoD, which determines their compensation.
And, the compensation sub-committee on the BoD use the industry as gage to determine a competitive compensation... so if one CEO gets a crazy compensation, all the competitors feel that it must be the their market value and give their own CEO the same, creating cyclic salary hike ... sort of like athletes in professional sports.

.
 
But then how do you account for a decreased in performance due to factors which are out of your control. A CEO would say it was unfair that his pay was decreased if the company takes a loss if, say, the economy went into a recession that year.

It sounds like a good idea but I think it becomes a lot more complicated in practice.

Easy. A recession effects everyone. Other workers would say it's unfair just lose their jobs in hard times cause companies need to cut costs to survive. They should be thankful they still have a gob in the hard times. So I think even in a recession the idea works.
 
Yeah, but he's just selling people a million copies of something they make.

Now, for big money, go into healthcare... the CEOs really make out blackmailing people to pay to save their lives.

Yes, I would much rather have all sick care prices advertised in full upfront. You know, like every other business ever. This "oh, insurance will cover it" mentality has drastically driven up the price of sick care. I recently discovered a local clinic would advertise their non-insurance rates, but not their insured rate. Turns out they were billing insurance companies more than twice the rate for a non-insured patient. I actually ended up paying $7 more total to file a claim against my insurance than if I hadn't told them about my insurance, and my insurance company paid more than $50 more than they said they would for the visit. I think it's partially powered by the general success of scientists and doctors: they do a good job and find solutions for lots of problems then everyone just expects them to solve everything for free. The poster I quoted above, for instance: "blackmail" people? to save their lives? Like what? The patients have committed a crime and the doctors don't tell the police and the patients walk away scott free? Or do the doctors and scientists and lab techs and nurses go to ridiculously-expensive school for incredibly long periods of time, pass ungodly complicated exams, use large amounts of highly-precisioned-engineered, fanatically tested, and sterily-manufactured & delivered resources, spend more than most folks' salaries on malpractice insurance, and still do dangerous, risky things for the chance that we might live just a few more years? I tend towards the latter. I don't treat doctors like slaves: he doesn't owe me my life; I owe him every time he saves it. But I would like the prices up front.
 
Last edited:
The starting pay for the 28% bracket is around 85k, not 50k. Although the 25% bracket starts at around 35k, and isn't much lower as a percentage. The 15% tax bracket ends at 35k, not 8700$. You are thinking of where the 10% bracket ends. Note that this is for the 2012 tax year in the US. The 2013 brackets are edged up a little higher, and adds a 39.6% bracket at 400k.

This is interesting, although completely off topic. How much would you pay in tax for $50000 income? Not the marginal tax for the last dollar earned but the percentage of the total?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.