Shareholders Advisory Group Doesn't Want Tim Cook to Get $99 Million Pay Package

[Allyance]

As Apple largest shareholder, Berkshire Hathaway has this to say:
"Billionaire investor Charlie Munger is singing Apple’s praises. While the Berkshire Hathaway (BRK-A, BRK-B) vice chairman, and Warren Buffett, Berkshire chairman, regularly point to their relative lack of knowledge of the tech industry, Apple (AAPL) is now Berkshire’s largest stock holding.


The reason? Apple’s management.


“I think Apple is one of the strong companies and will stay a strong company,”

BTW: "UFC fighter Conor McGregor lands at No. 1 in the ranking with $180 million", so you still think $99 million too much to run a company with a 3B market cap?

 

[Thebrochure]

Only if one believes innovation at apple died with Steve Jobs I suppose.

That's contorting what I said. I didn't say innovation died. I said the company was less innovative than it was under Jobs's leadership.

After all, without Jobs, Apple doesn't even exist lol.

 

[Realityck]

$10 million is way too much, but $99 million is out of this world obscene. Is he worth it, 100% not. The US is slowly being destroyed with absolute greed from within.

You're a little late on this theory, there has been people that setup and run a business that get paid way more then most of the population for a very long time.

John Jacob Astor (born Johann Jakob Astor; July 17, 1763 – March 29, 1848) was a German-American businessman, merchant, real estate mogul, and investor who made his fortune mainly in a fur trade monopoly, by smuggling opium into China, and by investing in real estate in or around New York City.

Born in Germany, Astor emigrated to England as a teenager and worked as a musical instrument manufacturer. He moved to the United States after the American Revolutionary War.

Seeing the expansion of population to the west, he entered the fur trade and built a monopoly, managing a business empire that extended to the Great Lakes region and Canada, and later expanded into the American West and Pacific coast. Seeing a decline in demand due to changing European tastes, he got out of the fur trade in 1830, diversifying by investing in New York City real estate. Astor was highly wealthy and became a famed patron of the arts. In proportion to GDP, he was one of the richest people in modern history.

He was the first prominent member of the Astor family and the first multi-millionaire in the United States.

 

[AdonisSMU]

He led the company to 1T and now 3T. $99m is a tiny price to pay for the privilege of being a $3T company.

 

[AdonisSMU]

ITT: a bunch of people who love tim cook because of their profits as shareholders.

They don't pay the lower employees. Now they want the CEO of a $3T company to work for relative peanuts too. Since that's the case, the rest of the employees certainly have no hope of ever getting a decent pay increase.

 

[AdonisSMU]

Yep -- Really wealthy folks touting that they will "donate it all" (or a large portion of "it") is just a smokescreen to distract from the heavy taxation and distribution that needs to occur.

(I'm talking at the top top top end of things -- nothing anybody on this forum would be hit by)

the government should be taxing it heavily. over 50 million and it should be taxed at 55% no matter what.

 

[ZaniCWB]

I guess people underestimate how difficult it is being a CEO. Tim Cook is obviously great, a strong GOAT candidate. To the one’s questioning Apple’s BoD and its compensation policy, would love to have your perspective on this: https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-highest-paid-ceo-6-7-billion-in-2020-2021-8?amp

Everything Apple does makes headlines. For good, for bad.

 

[I7guy]

That's contorting what I said. I didn't say innovation died. I said the company was less innovative than it was under Jobs's leadership.

Fair enough. I don’t agree that apple has been less innovative.

After all, without Jobs, Apple doesn't even exist lol.

By the same token, without cook, apple, imo, wouldn’t be where it is today.

 

[Thebrochure]

Fair enough. I don’t agree that apple has been less innovative.

By the same token, without cook, apple, imo, wouldn’t be where it is today.

All right. I'll bite.

Under Jobs, we got the Apple company, the Macintosh, the Macintosh mouse, Mac OS, iMac, iTunes, iPod, iPhone, Apple TV, iCloud, iOS, the App Store, iPad, Siri, FaceTime, iBooks and on and on and on.

There is nothing that launched under Cook that rivals even the Macintosh, let alone something as societally-shifting as the iPhone. But feel free to list away.

As for your last comment; it's easier to stir a wheel than it is to invent one.

 

[steve333]

Good for them, they're right. No one is worth that kind of money, specially someone who killed the iPod

 

[I7guy]

All right. I'll bite.

Under Jobs, we got the Apple company, the Macintosh, the Macintosh mouse, Mac OS, iMac, iTunes, iPod, iPhone, Apple TV, iCloud, iOS, the App Store, iPad, Siri, FaceTime, iBooks and on and on and on.

There is nothing that launched under Cook that rivals even the Macintosh, let alone something as societally-shifting as the iPhone. But feel free to list away.

As for your last comment; it's easier to stir a wheel than it is to invent one.

All right I'll bite.

- wearables, new services, m1 chip (which arguably was the single most important innovation to the mac line ever and maybe even the chip industry), new phone sizes, apple pencil, apple monitor, neural processor and I'm sure there is a slew of things I'm leaving out. Those are all innovations and if you want to play the "let's grade the innovation from not important to most important), sure we can do that.

And you're playing semantics with regards to who was more important to Apple. To get from Apple in 2011 to Apple in 2022 was no small feat and it wasn't done by not innovating.

 

[Thebrochure]

All right I'll bite.

- wearables, new services, m1 chip (which arguably was the single most important innovation to the mac line ever and maybe even the chip industry), new phone sizes, apple pencil, apple monitor, neural processor and I'm sure there is a slew of things I'm leaving out. Those are all innovations and if you want to play the "let's grade the innovation from not important to most important), sure we can do that.

And you're playing semantics with regards to who was more important to Apple. To get from Apple in 2011 to Apple in 2022 was no small feat and it wasn't done by not innovating.

lol. That's a list, I suppose.

And I'm not trying to short change Cook. What he was expected to do is what he did, which was to keep the ship upright and sailing on smooth waters. The value of the company is at an all-time high, and everything seems to be running well. No complaints there.

But I think its time to get a visionary at the helm again. I'm tired of seeing better cameras and smaller notches as selling points. I want to tune into an event and be blown away like I was when Jobs showed us the iPhone, or when he took the cover off the first Macintosh and the thing said hello. Those are iconic, societal-changing products that brought the world to a stand-still and altered the fabric of mankind.

That's what Apple should be.

 

[Naraxus]

Cue the “bUt He MaKeS tOo MuCh MoNeY!” cries

That might have been funny about 200 posts ago......

 

[I7guy]

lol. That's a list, I suppose.

And I'm not trying to short change Cook. What he was expected to do is what he did, which was to keep the ship upright and sailing on smooth waters. The value of the company is at an all-time high, and everything seems to be running well. No complaints there.

But I think its time to get a visionary at the helm again. I'm tired of seeing better cameras and smaller notches as selling points. I want to tune into an event and be blown away like I was when Jobs showed us the iPhone, or when he took the cover off the first Macintosh and the thing said hello. Those are iconic, societal-changing products that brought the world to a stand-still and altered the fabric of mankind.

That's what Apple should be.

AirPods and Apple Watch were game changers in and of themselves. And sure we can debate the type of ceo that should be at the helm. If all cook did was keep the ship afloat , apple would have looked like it did in 2011.

 

[sidewinder3000]

They looked at compensation of executives at “comparable companies”?
There are not comparable companies.

 

[Flight Plan]

When you are big enough to need a CEO, you are not paying for "just another" employee. You are paying for leadership and vision. Once it is shown that you HAVE a leader with vision, then you should damned well be ready, willing, and able to pay up for that. Stop all the whining about "nobody needs that much" and stop all the moaning about the differences between the CEO's pay and that of the goofs working in shipping and receiving.

You and I have worked with goofs in shipping and receiving. Last week they wrapped one of their co-workers up in packing tape and now the company might get sued because that employee lost skin when they ripped the tape off of her.

Most employees, maybe even some that you work with, can't even match their own damned clothing in the morning, and some haven't even mastered personal hygiene yet. And you think they're going to have the vision to lead a company into the future?

Apple has been incredibly lucky. Or incredibly smart. To have two visionaries at the helm. In sequence! Do any of you realize just how rare that truly is? Most companies don't even get one in a hundred years and yet Apple has had lightning strike twice!

Count your blessings and hope to God that Apple has been developing future leaders and visionaries, and not just technical talent or book-smarts. Because one day, Tim Cook's time will come to an end. And if you put some bean-counter in his place, you'll get exactly what you pay for. Beans.

 

[Thebrochure]

AirPods and Apple Watch were game changers in and of themselves. And sure we can debate the type of ceo that should be at the helm. If all cook did was keep the ship afloat , apple would have looked like it did in 2011.

AirPods are just wireless ear buds. There is nothing game-changing about them at all imo. Apple Watch gets a few more points, but still--did it have the impact that Macintosh and iPhone did? When I go out on the street, almost everyone is carrying around a smartphone. Not so with watches.

And yes, all he did was keep it afloat. When Jobs died, the trajectory was already set, thanks to his genius. Cook did a fine job keeping that trajectory going.

 

[paulovsouza]

It could also get better with more product focused management -- from the top down.

Apple is sorely missing really great product people right now.

A renewed focus on actual quality and real product innovation, not just rent seeking and spamming your users for more services leeching revenue would be nice..

....to say nothing of the disdain and disregard Apple show for developers at this point.

Apple is on autopilot. We’re hoping for VR/AR, Apple Car to mix things up. But what you’re suggestion is a mass firing and mass hiring of people, not just leadership. Apple and every other tech company is having a hard time keeping people. It’s not going to be as easy as getting rid of Tim to get the impact you’re hoping for.

 

[I7guy]

AirPods are just wireless ear buds. There is nothing game-changing about them at all imo. Apple Watch gets a few more points, but still--did it have the impact that Macintosh and iPhone did? When I go out on the street, almost everyone is carrying around a smartphone. Not so with watches.

And yes, all he did was keep it afloat. When Jobs died, the trajectory was already set, thanks to his genius. Cook did a fine job keeping that trajectory going.

We’ll if AirPods are wireless ear buds, then the iPhone was a popular cell phone; the iPad a bigger iPhone etc and the iPod a fancy MP3 player and the Mac just another computer. See it’s so easy to diminish these products to what they really are.

Cook took Apple in a way that probably Steve could not. That’s not merely keeping the ship afloat. https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...llionaire-investor-says.2335196/post-30867089

Horses for courses I guess.

 

[Blowback]

Apple shareholders are being urged to vote against a planned $99 million compensation package for Apple CEO Tim Cook, reports Financial Times. Shareholder advisory group Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) said on Wednesday that there is a "significant concern" with the stock Cook was awarded in 2021.

Cook last year was awarded stock valued at $82 million, along with a $3 million salary and a $12 million bonus, and the stock award was the first incentive package he had been granted since his 2011 package was granted in full for his tenure at Apple.

According to ISS, Cook's 2021 compensation "significantly exceeded" that provided by comparable companies last year. It has been seven years since ISS last objected to Apple's pay packages.

Shareholder votes on the compensation that Apple provides to executives are advisory, and the board is not required to take action. Financial Times says that if there is backlash over Cook's pay, it could potentially sway Apple's board. In its proxy statement, Apple says that it will "continue to consider shareholder feedback and the results of say-on-pay votes when making future compensation decisions."

Under Cook's 10-year leadership, Apple has seen continued success and in January, briefly became the first company to hit a $3 trillion valuation. Apple executive compensation is tied to company performance, and Apple has regularly hit its targets.

Article Link: Shareholders Advisory Group Doesn't Want Tim Cook to Get $99 Million Pay Package

I've owned shares for many years and will vote to give him that and more. The 'group' can always do what Warren Buffett tells owners of Berkshire who complain of no dividends to do : Sell.

 

[Realityck]

lol. That's a list, I suppose.

And I'm not trying to short change Cook. What he was expected to do is what he did, which was to keep the ship upright and sailing on smooth waters. The value of the company is at an all-time high, and everything seems to be running well. No complaints there.
But I think its time to get a visionary at the helm again. I'm tired of seeing better cameras and smaller notches as selling points. I want to tune into an event and be blown away like I was when Jobs showed us the iPhone, or when he took the cover off the first Macintosh and the thing said hello. Those are iconic, societal-changing products that brought the world to a stand-still and altered the fabric of mankind.

That's what Apple should be.

Let's not forget that not everything Apple brought into existence was great. There were failures of sorts. While creating products based on existing technology, doesn't imply that any of that has staying power just because Jobs said it was useful. Comparing the ability to innovate existing products with Cook is just as important. if we look at todays Apple, they are still pushing what technology can provide, it's just far less likely that altogether new product can be created.

Its commonly said that Steve Jobs was an entrepreneur, marketer, and inventor who was the co-founder, chairman, and CEO of Apple Inc.

Now some articles try to associate Steve Jobs as an inventor, but he was not that.

From The 5 “inventions” of Steve Jobs - BBVOpenMind

His name appears as the author of 346 patents in the US registry, but his actual role in all these innovations has been challenged, as he really had no skills as a designer or engineer. In fact, his official biographer, Walter Isaacson, describes him as a tweaker: someone who, rather than invent, was devoted to tweaking and refining already-invented devices and technologies in order to simplify their use.

So when we are comparing Steve Jobs to Tim Cook, I think both are certainly fine examples of someone that tweaks and refines existing devices to make them more useful. Yes Steve did more product introductions, but like anything you sell, if original product concept popularity doesn't have staying power. If you don't constantly innovate/improve upon you will loose as a technology based company. Obviously Apple's management since 1997 when Jobs returned has been phenomenal. The transition of Steve Jobs to Tim Cook has been working well. Would just someone that is a visionary be helpful, not sure. At this point in time you need a whole army of visionaries to poke into areas not yet mined for potential, not necessary one at the helm IMHO. That fellow just needs to be a good listener and coordinate the necessary decisions to allow whats next to happen and the company not loose value.

 

[coolchris101]

give him the money. Seesh.
99mil ain’t nothing in todays inflation anyways. He’s earned it.

 

[sudo-sandwich]

Please tell me how boring is bad. Outside of shareholder metrics, boring is good. Boring is tried and true. Boring works.

There’s a lot of excitement going on in the world right now. In almost every sphere, I’d gladly settle for boring.

As a user, boring means the big players are settling and semi-monopolizing rather than competing vigorously. Instead, they adopt copycat tactics then introduce artificial lock-in measures instead of working with each other, like how everyone has a streaming service and a smart speaker now. It's worse for us than if they'd each focus on doing something great and different while being compatible with each other. In 2008-2014 it was more like that. There will always be tried and true stuff to fall back on too.

Btw, was old compatible Intel CPU the boring path you wanted the Mac to stick with? M1 sounded crazy before it happened.

As a shareholder, I've got no reason to invest in a single company that doesn't excite me. Yeah AAPL is doing great now, but if there's no more water in the boiler, I don't know when it's going to run out of steam. Imagine holding IBM stock back when they were dominant. When I want boring, I park my money in SPY. Manages itself, and if it drops too quickly, the US president and JPow go fix it for me.

 

[Abazigal]

As a user, boring means the big players are settling and semi-monopolizing rather than competing vigorously. It's bad. There will always be tried and true stuff to fall back on. Apple has always been at least a little edgier than the rest. Do you wish they stuck with Intel CPUs? M1 sounded crazy before it happened. I'm not on the bleeding edge, but when the M1 mini came out, it replaced my 2009(!) MacPro.

As a shareholder, it spells trouble for future growth. Yeah AAPL is doing great now, but if there's no more water in the boiler, I don't know when it's going to run out of steam. When I want boring, I park my money in SPY. Manages itself.

I don’t see how anyone can think that Apple is going to run out of steam anytime soon. They have over a billion active iPhone users, and many of them only have an iPhone as their sole Apple device. There is still a huge untapped user base that haven’t purchased accessories like the Apple Watch or AirPods, or subscribed to services, or complementary products like the iPad and Mac.

The biggest risk is whether Apple can make enough products to sell, not whether there will be a shortage of people queueing up to buy their wares or not.

Trust me when I say that even at this point, Apple is still only just getting started.

 

[sudo-sandwich]

All right. I'll bite.

Under Jobs, we got the Apple company, the Macintosh, the Macintosh mouse, Mac OS, iMac, iTunes, iPod, iPhone, Apple TV, iCloud, iOS, the App Store, iPad, Siri, FaceTime, iBooks and on and on and on.

There is nothing that launched under Cook that rivals even the Macintosh, let alone something as societally-shifting as the iPhone. But feel free to list away.

As for your last comment; it's easier to stir a wheel than it is to invent one.

Cook took away our headphone jack and gave us AirPods (pls pay $100) to make up for it. It was brave.