Well, it would appear SJ wanted them too.
----------
Hey, my cost basis on my first 500 shares is $12.00 and change so I'd say they are performing and perfuming quite well. ($421.73 close today)
Gottta pay to make them play
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Releases 2012 Proxy Statement to Investors
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well, it would appear SJ wanted them too.
----------
Hey, my cost basis on my first 500 shares is $12.00 and change so I'd say they are performing and perfuming quite well. ($421.73 close today)
Gottta pay to make them play
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)
William V. Campbell once worked with Steve Jobs at Apple, but Intuit/Quicken on the Mac OSX platform is an embarrassment of colossal proportion.
I would encourage all fellow shareholders to *not* retain him on the board of directors.
William V. Campbell once worked with Steve Jobs at Apple, but Intuit/Quicken on the Mac OSX platform is an embarrassment of colossal proportion.
I would encourage all fellow shareholders to *not* retain him on the board of directors.
Please, enlighten us on who YOU think should trump the choice of Steve Jobs himself. And explain why this person taking Steve's old job shouldn't have the same position and responsibilites Steve wanted. Also, please cite the multinational supercompany you built that makes your opinion viable to anyone who wasn't fished out of an urban storm drain.
THIS
I own a single share of Apple stock simply because it affords me an annual opportunity to vote against Gore again.
I asked this on another thread recently Does anyone know why Jony Ive is the only SVP not listed as an executive officer in Apple's SEC filings? *For compensation you're only required to disclose the CEO, CFO and top three highest-paid executives. *Somehow though I have a hard time believing Ive's base salary is less than Scott Forstall's or Eddy Cue's. *But if he's not an executive officer then I'm assuming Apple doesn't have to disclose anything about him in their SEC filings. Just seems odd he's the only SVP not listed, unless SVP of Industrial Design is not at the same level (salary grade/pay wise) as the others?
he's not the only exec left off the proxy. williams (svp ops, i.e., coo), mansfield (svp hw eng), schiller (svp ww mkting), sewell (svp gen counsel) were all left off the proxy but are all members of the executive team.
only top 5 (ceo, cfo, + top 3) required to be listed. cue got a hefty equity grant as part of his promotion so he likely had to be on the proxy because of total comp numbers. since the rest of svp level are all paid equally (see paragraph "team-based approach and performance expectations"), it likely came down to the "all other comp" column that represents perqs (misc perqs, retirement contributions, insurance premiums, etc). simply could be a matter of a couple hundred bucks representing the difference in the cost of life insurance premiums or a matching contribution to the exec's 401k (which ive might forgo participating in in favor of the british pension scheme).
I wondered if it was something like that. Back in 2003 in a Guardian profile they listed his salary at £1M. No idea where they got that figure from and it's probably BS as I doubt he' ever had a higher salary than Tim Cook.
Anyway he's obviously not hurting if he can drive around in a Bently Brooklands which is priced around $340,000.
Image
Wonders...
if it would be more comfortable ride in the boot or the backseat if the frontseats are taken?
Not all of them had their salaries listed - but all of them sans Ive were listed as executive officers. That's why last October when they all got stock grants whatever Ive got wasn't published. According to an Apple spokesperson because he's not an executive officer they don't have to make his information public. My curiosity is why he's not an executive director - if it's by choice or for some other reason. I have to assume his salary is similar to Forstall or Cue's and whatever stock grants they received he received as well.
This could very well be the case. He told Apple as you said, don't disclose my salary at the shareholders meetings. And Apple said sure but then we can't make you an executive officer. And Ive seems fine with this.
Some clown on apple insider said he's a designer with an honorary degree, not an executive.
Pisses me off when people treat design and designers as nothing important. I mean geez hardware design is one of the things Apple is most known and loved for. And look at all the companies who if not directly ripping off Apple certainly are heavily influenced by Apple's design aesthetic. Design may not play a prominent role at most companies but it certainly does at Apple. I'm just waiting for the UI designers to get on the same page as the hardware designers. Quit designing apps with faux leather and ripped pages. Get rid of the kitsch.
Can I attend?
Holding 75 Apple shares can I just go there and attend the shareholders meeting on Thursday, February 23, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. Pacific, in Building 4 of Apple's Infinite Loop headquarters or would I need to register in advance or is it only for shareholders with an invitation?
Holding 75 Apple shares can I just go there and attend the shareholders meeting on Thursday, February 23, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. Pacific, in Building 4 of Apple's Infinite Loop headquarters or would I need to register in advance or is it only for shareholders with an invitation?
Is this because of his performance as a member of the board, or because you disagree with his political views?
If it's the latter, then perhaps you need to think about what you are doing. Presumably you also voted against a well-known Democratic Party supporter named Steve Jobs in the past as well?
We've all had out input before...but I still think paying some CEO $376 million in stock is extremely excessive. If he OWNED and RAN the company, sure, it's 100% his and he can do what he wants. But at the end of the day, it's not his company...it's everyone's company publicly-traded.
I could see paying him $25mill in stocks...or even $50mill...but $376 is just a waste for 1 SINGLE YEAR of work (I'm not talking about how long Tim was with Apple...talking about his $376mill payout for doing a good job in 2011). If Apple paid him $25mill or even 50 mill, Apple could use the remaining $300+ mill for paying investors, or <gasp>, giving out some shares to the Apple employees who also make Apple Apple...or figuring out a way to pump that money back into R&D or <gasp> an ITUNES CUSTOMER SERVICE DEPARTMENT WITH HUMANS AND A PHONE LINE.
I could see paying him $25mill in stocks...or even $50mill...but $376 is just a waste for 1 SINGLE YEAR of work (I'm not talking about how long Tim was with Apple...talking about his $376mill payout for doing a good job in 2011). If Apple paid him $25mill or even 50 mill, Apple could use the remaining $300+ mill for paying investors, or <gasp>, giving out some shares to the Apple employees who also make Apple Apple...or figuring out a way to pump that money back into R&D or <gasp> an ITUNES CUSTOMER SERVICE DEPARTMENT WITH HUMANS AND A PHONE LINE.
How about this. You let Time Cook worry about keeping Apple in order, producing quality products that people love and keeping tens of thousands of Americans gainfully employed, and you can worry about your own money. How's that sound? And no, you don't just "give shares to the employees" because you want to. They get compensated enough, clearly, because they stay with the company.
Well, if you want to talk about ownership and argue that 100% ownership is worth 100% say, then isn't 68% ownership 68% say? Because 68% of Apple's shares are institutionally owned. So only the remaining 32% are divided up amongst however many hundreds of millions of individual shareholders.
If the average individual shareholder is sitting on 1000 shares (and if they're sitting on more than that, they're probably not the "little guy" you and I are thinking of), then by your own logic they're sitting on 0.0000003% or less say in the company's affairs, given the 929,400,000 shares outstanding. Don't forget that each share represents one vote, it's not each shareholder that gets one vote.
On what analysis of the labor market for senior managers did you base this? Warning, I'm a business analyst for a software company. Have you done a comparative analysis on this with hard numbers?
Here you either misunderstood the grant, or you're being intellectually dishonest. Look, I feel socially responsible for the bottom 50% as much money as I make in a year. BUT, I'm also a stickler for basing any argument on facts... They're not paying him merely for one year of work. His shares take ten years to fully vest... that's a very long vesting period, much longer than my RSU's. They're locking Tim in for future performance, by tying his future compensation to the outcome of that performance... rather than just giving him $376 million up front.
It's not "normal" compensation, but it's also not bogus compensation like options which encourage short term malfeasance. In order to get that huge carrot, Tim has to return many many billions of dollars of value which will benefit shareholders and 24,000 employees in otherwise economically uncertain times. Those employees do not spend evenings, nights and weekends planning and being personally accountable for the performance of the entire company. They have proportional stakes and (often) they get proportional RSU grants -- ones that don't take ten years to vest.
Like I said, even I get RSUs... and I've returned at least a few million dollars of value to my company this year, but I can tell you having seen the specific results of other employees that no, it's not fair to say that they all return even the small fraction of value that I return to a $5 billion software company... and just to be clear, I'm a business analyst, not an executive. I don't work 24 hours a day, but I do work at least 80 hours a week. How many people do you know work even 60? Should they all get paid what I get paid even if they do work 80, if they don't deliver the kind of analytical skills I do? Should I be paid purely for the hours I work and not for the intellectual capital I bring to the table? It's not an apples to apples comparison.
Again this comes down to the value proposition. This isn't a typical labor equation for two reasons:
1. Tim Cook's knowledge of Apple operations is of a different value to Apple than it is to some other company... what Apple needs to pay him to stay is different than what a competitor needs to pay to attract and retain him. Everyone has a price, because everyone has a future they are looking after and if you could make more money doing the same job for someone else, would YOU say no?
2. Even as COO of Apple, Tim's knowledge of operations reduced inventories from six months to two days. Care to do a calculation on how many billions of dollars this saved Apple? Was there any other employee you could credit with delivering that particular component of value? Even if he managed teams of operations managers who helped provide the data and then the execution plan to make this happen, coordinating the planning and execution isn't something that any monkey with a calculator can do (and I'm oversimplifying here; I write excel formulas that would make most CPA's heads spin).
Simply put, Apple has to offer Tim a reasonable incentive that will guarantee that he continues to do for them what has worked well for them. What works well for them may or may not work as well or better for someone else. It could fail but that is neither Tim's problem nor Apple's problem. Apple's problem is simply figuring out how to keep Tim.
That is why you've got it a little backward about the whole ownership thing. See, a Warren Buffett or a Bill Gates or a Steve Jobs is motivated by something very different than Tim Cook or any other successor to Steve Jobs will ever be motivated by.
As founders, they've got a kind of vested interest that no manager of Apple will ever again have. This is why the top fund managers at Berkshire Hathaway, including Ajit Jain, who headed a 30 person reinsurance unit that generated more float for Berkshire than all 25,000 of their GEICO subsidiary employees combined. So do you think the GEICO unit's employees need the kind of incentives that Ajit Jain needs to not leave? Wishful thinking aside, no, they don't. They'll stay for much less than that. Ajit Jain, on the other hand, gets paid seven times what Buffett gets paid... because it's Buffett's baby. Buffett will stay until he dies because he doesn't want to do anything for anyone else.
Are there companies that pay executives more than the market rate required to retain them? Yes. But with regard to Apple, which stands apart from its competitors substantially (their per square foot retail sales are several times that of the next nearest retailer, which is TIFFANY and Co. and yet Apple doesn't sell $400,000 wristwatches to a very small market).... What company or companies are you even comparing to when you think that $25 million over ten years would retain the guy who continues to deliver the kind of record-shattering results that keep shareholders happy, customers in a steady supply of new products, 24,000 employees employed, and so on?
The truth is, the RSU's bind Tim to doing good for all these people... if he fails, he screws himself. If he succeeds, he rewards himself. But he can't just temporarily manipulate the stock price to get there. He has to return value for ten years, and if every executive were bound to that type of long term outlook, it would be a very, very different world.
It's not like we're talking about Carly Fiorina here, who ran HP into the toilet and still got a $40 million severance package. This is the diametric opposite of that. It's absolutely outstanding performance for which there isn't hardly any comparison on all fronts: Per square foot retail sales, shareholder returns, revenue growth, profit growth, market share growth... and they ARE reinvesting in R&D, providing employee bonuses, employee match on charitable contributions, socking away billions in cash AND still able to grant Tim generously so that he stays so that Apple can KEEP doing all of the aforementioned. If he were running the company into the toilet like Angelo Mozilo and Richard Fuld, who both collected in ONE YEAR what Tim has to work his ass off for ten to secure? Then I'd totally agree with you.
Last edited:
Dick Fuld actually had about 75-85% of his compensation in Lehman Brothers stock. He sold a significant portion of that before the company's demise, but it does make one wonder if more and more stock-based compensation would make executives run their companies better.
True that. But Jobs didn't really work for 1$. He had stock and was awarded stock as well, kind of replacing a regular salary with that. (He was wealthy enough anyways)
The stock he had was prior to 2009. If you look at the annual report it will show all cash paid and all stock awarded for each year. Steve Jobs only received $1 a year from 2009 until his death.
He didn't need the money, I agree.
When he returned to Apple from Pixar he was awarded a large sum of stock in Apple. He was a major share holder in both Disney and Apple and was worth over $8 billion.
My point is if you read the annual report it will clearly show that Steve Jobs wasn't receiving stock or pay above $1 a year. So NO it isn't like "replacing a regular salary".
Steve Jobs worked his butt off at Apple and you can't deny the fact that if it wasn't for Steve Jobs Apple would have been bankrupt in the late 1990's. Steve Jobs worked until he physically couldn't work anymore. Steve's vision and drive is what made Apple what it is today and he was motivated to make great products.
In my original post I asked if Apple could stay on it's course of delivering revolutionary and great products without Steve Jobs. My fear is that the current and future board of directors at Apple will be driven by profit and will lack that artistic vision that Steve Jobs had and we will get lackluster products from Apple (kinda like Apple of 1985-1995).
STUCK!!!???
For half a billion dollars I wouldn't quit if I died. I'd have myself frozen and propped up in the Executive Board Room.
I'm not sure the word "stuck" applies to Tim Cook's situation. CEO of one of the most respected and valuable companies in the world doesn't sound like "stuck".
And the dough ain't bad, neither.
Haha not saying it's bad. Just that the way his stock plays out he'll have to be around for a while before he gets his payday