Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Ugh. This study is worthless. It's like saying, "CEOs in new York get paid more than CEOs in South Dakota! They should get paid the same because they have the same title! New York CEO pay is way out of line!"

Did you know that Boeing 747 Airliner salesmen get paid more than car salesmen? That aircraft mechanics are paid more than auto mechanics?

CEOs in the US are paid more because they are paid on commission. And US companies make more money than other countries.

I absolutely detest these statistical comparison pieces that have ZERO mention of the obvious and most relevant causational reason for the disparity.

Interesting that Italian CEOs are the second highest though. I would never have guessed that. But yes, US companies are in general much bigger than the companies in other countries, so it would make sense that the guy at the top would make more in the US. Also the US has higher wealth disparity than most first world countries and this CEO study is just another indication of that.
 
Notable. Now lets see the "99%" folks try to spin that badly.

I think you might have a very acute misapprehension of what the 99% folks believe and how they view the world.

I personally believe this speaks voumes about Mr. Cook... and everything it says is positive. I like this guy a lot.

I very much doubt there are any "99%ers" who would spin this into something bad. On the other hand, I'm willing to bet there are more than a few rabid right-wingers would just might...

By the way... the history of Apple is very liberal, and very left wing... it amuses me that since they've opened up to the Windows world, the number of right-wingers has increased dramatically... and are now acting as if they were always here. ;)

----------

Steve Jobs worked for $1 a year for (at least) most of his tenure with perks like a Gulfstream V. I'm sure that someone here knows the details without a specific search, but to me it gives context to how much Apple meant to him and his legacy.

Yes, $1 was his salary at Apple nearly from the get-go... but he was already extremely rich by the time that happened. In fact he was one of the youngest billionaires in history... and he got millions upon millions in stock compensation even when the company was floundering terribly in the 90s. The $1 was probably more for tax reasons than anything.

This has all been public knowledge for a very long time.

BTW, almost all of Steve's wealth is from the sale of Pixar to Disney for stock, at the time some $7 Billion,

Not even a little bit true.

and he and his family lived a relatively modest lifestyle for a billionaire.

Also not really true.

I'm always surprised when people make quite despicable comments based on his first tenure at Apple, not accounting for his maturation at Next and Pixar, and certainly not at his second tenure at Apple.

>_> You don't seem to know a lot about their actual history....
 
It gets reported on Form 4 (Changes in Beneficial Ownership) and Form 14A (Proxy Statement).

Mr. Cook's newly vesting stock is typically sold immediately (i.e. the RSUs are settled in stock as soon as they vest and that stock is then sold), as is that of some other Apple executives (e.g. Messrs. Oppenheimer and Schiller).

In light of a rule adopted some years ago by the SEC regarding what constitutes insider trading, many executives now establish plans which specify ahead of time when, or under what circumstances, they will sell stock. That's to protect themselves from insider trading accusations. Those plans often dictate that stock is sold as soon as it vests (sometimes only enough to cover the tax implications of the vesting is sold). When we hear that a particular insider sold a large chunk of stock, often it doesn't reflect a decision recently made by that person. It's something that happened (effectively) automatically in accordance with a plan they had set up and the timing of the sale was dictated by when the RSUs happened to vest.

So, yes, Mr. Cook has received (and exercised) a number of RSU awards in recent years. But the resulting stock has, for the most part, been sold. In March he sold nearly 240,000 shares which had just vested, leaving him with the approximately 14,000 shares that he previously owned.

Color me surprised. I am not surprised that he's on a trading plan (SOP these days), but I am surprised that it's essentially a no-accumulation trading plan. Not sure how I feel about that.

----------

Also not really true.

Actually true. Unlike many billionaires Steve drove his own car, and did not live in a huge home on a gated estate and as far as we know did not own multiple homes in various locations around the world. The house he was planning on building in Woodside was actually going to be smaller than the one previously on the property. The only super-rich activity that Steve seemed to indulge was the plan to build a yacht.
 
Actually true. Unlike many billionaires Steve drove his own car, and did not live in a huge home on a gated estate and as far as we know did not own multiple homes in various locations around the world. The house he was planning on building in Woodside was actually going to be smaller than the one previously on the property. The only super-rich activity that Steve seemed to indulge was the plan to build a yacht.

Relative is, of course, the key word. You can make it stand on either side of the line. He did some ridiculous things like constantly lease new cars to avoid having to drive with a license plate (I assume that story is true but let me know if it isn't). But I do agree that he was probably one of the more reasonable billionaires (i.e. didn't live his life just to get more money).
 
The difference is how much value does a particular employee bring to the owners. It is not just tangible skills, there is a lot more to being an effective leader than "skills". Tim is effective and the shareholders make more money because he is CEO. What do you think the skill gap was between Scully and Jobs?

Honestly, at this time, a dead horse could run Apple and Apple would still have a 50% profit margin.

It's called momentum and good, past decisions.

When the iPhone and the iPad are no longer flagship products for Apple, then we will see how good Tim can be. (the iTV was probably conceived and vetted by Jobs, but I'll give Cook credit if he successfully brings it to market)
 
A better comparison would have been Aubrey McClendon of Chesapeake, who seemingly used his CEO position for personal advantage at the expense of shareholders.

And before you give Tim Cook too much credit, the paying of dividends on RSUs would never have been enacted without Cook's ultimate approval. For Mr. Cook to benefit personally to the tune of $75M from the decision would have been unseemly, so I don't give him too much credit on this.

I know it is fashionable to bash bankers these days, but if I've got a bank to run, Jamie Dimon is the man I want running it.


To each his own. I'm skeptical and find it hard to believe that any CEO is totally in the dark regarding an over $2,000,000,000 loss. Greed has shown time after time that individuals with the opportunity to rake in that kind of cash have done so regardless of how unseemly anyone might think it is. That being said, I agree that we disagree and will move on.
 
Relative is, of course, the key word. You can make it stand on either side of the line. He did some ridiculous things like constantly lease new cars to avoid having to drive with a license plate (I assume that story is true but let me know if it isn't). But I do agree that he was probably one of the more reasonable billionaires (i.e. didn't live his life just to get more money).

I know people who are certainly not billionaires who buy or lease a new car every year or two. I don't know if Steve did that because he didn't want to register it, but it's true that he never had license plates on his cars. I suspect that was because he thought they were aesthetically unpleasing. Which they are, especially on European cars designed to display a different shape of plates.

Honestly, at this time, a dead horse could run Apple and Apple would still have a 50% profit margin.

Be careful. That's what Microsoft got. A very sweaty dead horse, but just the same.
 
I suggest you do some basic fact checking before you try insulting me
http://www.verisi.com/resources/us-ceo-compensation.htm

That is just one of many links showing how out of line it is. CEO pay in general world wide is way out of line but the US is even worse.

I suggest you stop cherrypicking. I read the report. It says US CEO pay is TWICE as high as non-US CEOs, not TRIPLE as you claimed. Also, the report mentioned the concept of risk-adjusted pay, that is, the cash equivalent of the compensation that CEOs would receive if the options in their package were replaced with cash. US isn't really that much higher than other countries in terms of risk-adjusted pay. Also, US CEOs' pay packages have a larger portion of equity. For US CEOs the equity (options, stock, etc.) represented 39% of the total pay package, versus 22% for non-US CEOs.

So yes, US CEOs are paid more but the differential can be explained by the fact that stock represents a larger portion of the package. I know that the minute you read the above sentence, you will say that US CEOs do it so that they'll pay less taxes (stock sales are taxed as capital gains), but it also means that CEOs have to make sure the company does well or else their pay will get docked.

And also, on what basis are you saying that CEO pay is out of line? I'll agree with you if you mean that CEO pay is out of line based on the value they create for their shareholders but nothing more.
 
And also, on what basis are you saying that CEO pay is out of line? I'll agree with you if you mean that CEO pay is out of line based on the value they create for their shareholders but nothing more.

It is out of line big time for both what they create for shareholders and massivily compared to their line workers.

There average pay raise at well north of 10% when the average worker pay raise was 3% or less. That has been year end and year out.

If minum wage has kept pace with CEO pay minimum wage at 40 hours a week would have people bring home 50+k a year.

Sorry but The average CEO pay vs average worker should not be pushing to break 500 to 1. It is REALLY out of line when you compare it to those numbers. They should get their pay cut by a min of 80% just to bring them down to a still rather insane number of 100 to 1 but much better than the 500 to 1 and rising number we have today.

If a company is having trouble the first place should be CUT EXECUTIVE PAY before you start doing lay offs. Not this lets do layoff and give the Executives bonuses and a pay raise. I say their pay cuts should equal at min 2x the % of lay offs they do.
http://creativeconflictwisdom.wordp...tion-of-ceo-pay-to-average-worker-by-country/
 
Notable. Now lets see the "99%" folks try to spin that badly.

What? Huh? Why would you bring that up?

Edit: I was legitimately confused as to why "The 99%" would be brought up in this thread without context or provocation.
 
Last edited:
What? Huh? Why would you bring that up?

My comment seems to be a displaced sense of my displeasure, though it appears I should have done so in a different manner and, obviously, a different place. So I apologize for my waste of space comment. I'm not even sure why I targeted that particular movement anyways.

Now, an explanation of the source of my comment, since you indirectly asked...

I remember reading a nytimes article of apple's success/growing cash-hoard and in the comments there were hundreds of people just slandering apple left and right under some belief that they are flat-out greedy and just stole their money. (yes, I'm aware of which direction the Times leans politically) For goodness sakes, they create, most of the time, innovative products that manage to be competitive in a market chock full of other companies all fighting for their share.

I guess that I read the opinions of those folks and fail to understand them and just get bothered. Is any company blameless and the perfect example? No. But I think that just because apple has earned all that money, does not mean that they should be obligated to hand it all directly to the government of california. (a state in which they employ numerous people)

I suppose I am more making a point and this is obviously opinionated.

Yet, I also do believe that their money could be well used by philanthropic causes, but I just don't understand how people arrogantly act like the company that earned the money is not entitled to be the ones that decide it's fate.

end rant; thanks for listening.
 
Last edited:
I know it is fashionable to bash bankers these days, but if I've got a bank to run, Jamie Dimon is the man I want running it.

If I have a Bank I want run, I'm head hunting the CEO's of Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, Toronto Dominion Canada Trust, Bank of Nova Scotia and the Royal Bank of Canada. None of which have had financial issues in decades, or sub-prime mortgage collapses ever.
 
Notable. Now lets see the "99%" folks try to spin that badly.

Are you kidding? Te Money he Turned down was made on the backs of Chinese workers.
Can't believe how easily some people get caught by corporate propaganda.
 
God, I can't even read a MR article without the occupiers spewing nonsense. Don't you people have a park of some sort to trash?

“It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.”
― Murray N. Rothbard
 
Steve Jobs worked for $1 a year for (at least) most of his tenure with perks like a Gulfstream V. I'm sure that someone here knows the details without a specific search, but to me it gives context to how much Apple meant to him and his legacy.

BTW, almost all of Steve's wealth is from the sale of Pixar to Disney for stock, at the time some $7 Billion, and he and his family lived a relatively modest lifestyle for a billionaire.

I'm always surprised when people make quite despicable comments based on his first tenure at Apple, not accounting for his maturation at Next and Pixar, and certainly not at his second tenure at Apple.

http://www.redmondpie.com/steve-jobs-annual-salary-at-apple-1997-2011-was-less-than-yours/

No, Steve Jobs got his money from dividends on Apple. That way, he wouldn't have to pay the insane tax for CEO salary. Dividends are only taxed at 15%.
 
What an idiot.

Who said he had to keep the money?

He could have donated it.

It's the clear the majority don't understand this (as 99% of posts prove, to paraphrase another poster from another thread the level of leftist idiocy on MacRumors borders on the unbelievable).
 
No, Steve Jobs got his money from dividends on Apple. That way, he wouldn't have to pay the insane tax for CEO salary. Dividends are only taxed at 15%.

How do you earn dividends on a stock that doesn't pay any dividends in the first place? When Tim Cook declared a dividend in March, Apple had not paid a dividend in 15 years.
 
How do you earn dividends on a stock that doesn't pay any dividends in the first place? When Tim Cook declared a dividend in March, Apple had not paid a dividend in 15 years.

Apple did always pay very small dividends, didn't they? I remember getting a tiny bit of money from AAPL dividends when I had their stock in 2010, but I don't remember if that's exactly what Steve Jobs did. I wonder if it's possible to pay specific people higher dividends for owning AAPL?

There was a MacRumors (or some other site) article about how Steve was using his ownership in AAPL stock in some way or another to get paid at reduced tax rates. Believe me, I don't blame him at all for doing that.

----------

Are you kidding? Te Money he Turned down was made on the backs of Chinese workers.
Can't believe how easily some people get caught by corporate propaganda.

People here either support or hate Apple too much. Tim Cook's refusal to take the dividends is probably a publicity stunt and has little or no meaning, but Apple is not an evil company in the way people accuse them of being. The "99%" people are all brats who use iPhones and complain about Apple taking advantage of them and taking their money. All companies use Chinese workers, and if it weren't for Apple, those workers would be unemployed (and therefore starving, unlike the unemployed Americans).
 
Even if the shares were to drop to $1 each, he has enough of them to live quite comfortably for the remainder of his days.

Except they would actually be worthless, since no one would buy them. I guess the paper could be used in the bathroom. So that's not quite...worthless.
 
No, Steve Jobs got his money from dividends on Apple. That way, he wouldn't have to pay the insane tax for CEO salary. Dividends are only taxed at 15%.

After Steve was booted from Apple, he only held on to a single share. AFAIK, Apple after Steve's return and up until recently, Apple never returned any money as dividends to shareholders.

He paid a substantial portion of his vested stock (10M shares after the split) in taxes, leaving him 5.4M shares that neither he nor his family have ever sold. Between his investments, Laurene's pay, Disney stock from the Pixar sale, and their modest lifestyle, I suspect that it wasn't that hard to live without touching the Apple stock, which is worth some $3B today.

If you can show me that he received dividends from Apple stock, I be happy to view whatever you post.
 
After Steve was booted from Apple, he only held on to a single share. AFAIK, Apple after Steve's return and up until recently, Apple never returned any money as dividends to shareholders.

He paid a substantial portion of his vested stock (10M shares after the split) in taxes, leaving him 5.4M shares that neither he nor his family have ever sold. Between his investments, Laurene's pay, Disney stock from the Pixar sale, and their modest lifestyle, I suspect that it wasn't that hard to live without touching the Apple stock, which is worth some $3B today.

If you can show me that he received dividends from Apple stock, I be happy to view whatever you post.

I can't find that article I originally saw, but I found this: "The basis of the AP's compensation formula was an entirety of "salary, perks, bonuses, preferential interest rates on pay and company estimates for the value of stock options and stock awards." at http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/226816/20111007/steve-jobs-1-annual-salary-thought-ceos.htm

I don't understand this much, but this is what he was doing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Options_backdating
 
Honestly, at this time, a dead horse could run Apple and Apple would still have a 50% profit margin.

It's called momentum and good, past decisions.

When the iPhone and the iPad are no longer flagship products for Apple, then we will see how good Tim can be. (the iTV was probably conceived and vetted by Jobs, but I'll give Cook credit if he successfully brings it to market)

Tim has been running Apple for quite a while and was responsible for day to day operations since long before Steve left.

----------

All companies use Chinese workers.....

Please. Some companies using South American workers. Some use Indians. Others are starting to turn to Africa. Not all companies make their money on Chinese workers.


;)
 
I can't find that article I originally saw, but I found this: "The basis of the AP's compensation formula was an entirety of "salary, perks, bonuses, preferential interest rates on pay and company estimates for the value of stock options and stock awards." at http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/226816/20111007/steve-jobs-1-annual-salary-thought-ceos.htm

I don't understand this much, but this is what he was doing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Options_backdating

Steve was given the use of a Gulfstream V (a nice bonus) and his travel expenses were paid, I mentioned those earlier. The backdating scandal was to give Steve a more favorable option date but the SEC determined that he wasn't involved. No one is saying that Steve wasn't given long term compensation, but he arguably created that value for his options.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.