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



Apple CEO Tim Cook and Senior Vice President Eddy Cue received 560,000 and 350,000 restricted stock units respectively this week, worth a combined $93.8 million based on AAPL's closing price of $103.12 on Monday, according to a pair of filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Tim-Cook-Eddy-Cue-800x532.jpg

Tim Cook and Eddy Cue at an Apple Store in 2014 (Image: Bloomberg)

Cook was awarded with 280,000 performance-based restricted stock units in full based on Apple's performance relative to the other companies in the S&P 500 over a two-year period ending August 24. Apple needed to achieve a total shareholder return (TSR) of at least 41.36% to place in the top third of companies in the index, and Apple's TSR for the two-year period was 76.76%.

Cook and Cue did not sell any of their RSUs, although 290,836 and 171,853 shares were withheld by Apple respectively to satisfy the minimum statutory tax withholding requirements on vesting of RSUs. Cue transferred his remaining 178,147 shares that vested to a family trust, and he has now been awarded all 700,000 shares granted to him on September 2, 2011.

Cook has a remaining 4.76 million RSUs scheduled to vest as follows per the SEC filing: Cook must remain employed at Apple to receive his unvested RSUs on their applicable vesting dates.

Article Link: Tim Cook and Eddy Cue Receive Combined $94 Million in Apple Stock
 

Attachments

  • big_1409618710_1382541016_image.jpg
    big_1409618710_1382541016_image.jpg
    102.4 KB · Views: 179
we can nitpick Eddy's direct involvement in specific projects, but at the end of the day, Apple is seeing record revenues and profits regularly while he's there. Board of directors must believe he is entitled to bonus awarded.

I dunno. I'm not on the board :p.

But I have a very VERY strong dislike for Stock based awards and bonuses because of their tax avoidance implications.

And why is tax avoidance an issue?
 
I understand company stock is to make money, or raise it for the company in its infancy, but I don't like them.

For starters, many of the publicly traded companies owned by shareholders (or stockholders) are some of the greediest in the world, for example: Bank of America, Apple, Walmart, and Exxon Mobile.

Compare this to some private or family owned companies that don't have shareholders and see how much better the customer service is, how the prices are more affordable, and how they aren't looking to squeak every penny out of you. Examples include Wegman's, credit unions, and others.

This country would be much better off without stockholders. How about starting a company with your OWN money and not with money raised by thousands of other people?
 
And why is tax avoidance an issue?

Why do you think tax avoidance isn't an issue?

What we have happening, more and more in the recent years is that the very wealthy are using loopholes and other avoidance methodologies to pay significantly less percentage of tax than everyday income earners are capable of. They can do this because they already have money. In regards to this.

The burden of a progressive tax system is to put the burden on those who can afford it easily. And that is the already wealthy. Using stock, because it is not taxed at income tax rates is a common methodology of rewarding such people in a way that they benefit from the most tax avoidance.


It has put an imbalance, and a work around, for paying "fair share" of their burden on tax since the rate at which it's taxed (27% of the profit at sale if held for at least a year)

I do get that not everyone shares my ideals on taxation and social programs. I'm just stating that IMHO, using stock as a bonus and pay structure is manipulative with purpose of providing tax avoidance benefits.

A better structure would be, that any bonus paid, must be taxed as income, and then the remaining value of stock can be issued.
 
Obviously I'm not involved in the day to day operations of the company, so I really don't fully know what Eddy Cue's "real value" is, and it could be something substantial, but can someone please not allow the guy near the stage anymore during keynote presentations..

Do we really need a mafia boss in a large pink shirt being one of the faces of the company? I don't understand how it any of it could possibly be a net positive.. And, frankly, his "arrogance" seems to be getting worse and worse during each subsequent keynote. The shirts will just become "bolder," if you get my drift.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JS77
Obviously I'm not involved in the day to day operations of the company, so I really don't fully know what Eddy Cue's "real value" is, and it could be something substantial, but can someone please not allow the guy near the stage anymore during keynote presentations..

Do we really need a mafia boss in a large pink shirt being one of the faces of the company? I don't understand how it any of it could possibly be a net positive.. And, frankly, his "arrogance" seems to be getting worse and worse during each subsequent keynote. The shirts will just become "bolder," if you get my drift.

Eddy Cue is a mafia boss? Quick, someone call the FBI with this key information.

No, I don't get your drift. And I suspect I really don't want to get your drift.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jstuts5797
This is why I'm for the repeal of the 16th Amendment and for the FairTax.

Also, when you look at your paycheck, who gets paid first?
The government.
There is something unholy about that.

If there was no government, then there would be no job.. Right? Infrastructure, police departments, fire departments, consumer and workplace protections, judicial system, etc. The private sector cannot replace what the government provides.. Sometimes I think that gets lost in the "debate" as to whether how much government is the right amount of government.

Taxes aren't fun to pay.. But everyone does, at least almost everyone, unless your in poverty, but thats not fun either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LordVic
If there was no government, then there would be no job.. Right? Infrastructure, police departments, fire departments, consumer and workplace protections, judicial system, etc. The private sector cannot replace what the government provides.. Sometimes I think that gets lost in the "debate" as to whether how much government is the right amount of government.

Taxes aren't fun to pay.. But everyone does, at least almost everyone, unless your in poverty, but thats not fun either.

And thats why we have a progressive tax system in the most of the west, so that those who can afford the burden do pay more.

as much as it sucks, once you start earning more money to pay more, you can afford it.

someone who earns 20k / yr, can't afford to lose 5k of that in taxes. that would mean they'd living off 15k / year.
someone who earns 500k / yr, CAN afford to live off 250k / yr if taxed at 50%.

now these are extremes obviously, but proving a point.

Does it suck, Sure as hell. But, if we want to maintain things like you mentioned above. Someone has to pay for it.

Thats why I'm against tax avoidance schemes, like paying someone in stock. it reduces your burden when you can afford it, and the rest have to pick up those pieces. That means those who can afford the burden less, end up paying more taxes and in the end, have less money to spend. which is real harm to the economy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: navaira and Reds622
Eddy Cue is a mafia boss? Quick, someone call the FBI with this key information.

No, I don't get your drift. And I suspect I really don't want to get your drift.

Yep, I meant that Eddy Cue is "literally" a mafia boss, and not that he acts with some of the caricatures of a mafia boss when he is on stage.. So please, when you call the FBI, don't attach my internet name to your ramblings because you weren't capable of understanding nuance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JS77
iPad sales almost non-existent. iPhone sales down. Apple Watch not as big a hit as anticipated (pulling an Amazon and not releasing sales numbers). Apple TV losing market share every day with continual delays of a hardware update. Apple Music looking like it will retain only 5 million paying users (compared to Spotify's 20 million). And, now China not panning out as anticipated.

iPad sales are the envy of every other tablet maker.

iPhone sales are up. Every year the new model breaks the record from last year. I just can't figure out how you think they are down in any way.

The one point I agree with you on is the Apple TV, but that never amounted to more than a millimousefart's worth of money to Apple's bottom line, and anyway will probably turn around next month when the new model comes out. Apple's products always have a hard time selling right before the model is released, but then turn around and do great--this is nothing new.

It spells doom that Apple, in its second month with Apple Music, and facing entrenched competition, already has 1/4 of Spotify's subscriber numbers? Spotify had far less competition during those 7 years than Apple does now, and even so it took them 4 years to get to the same 5 million number.

Apple Watch revenue is reported in the "other" bucket--that "other" bucket revenue shot up 49%. What other new products in the "other" category could account for that?

Recently we learned that Best Buy's trial run with the Watch was successful enough to warrant it's inclusion in every store. Best Buy wouldn't do that out of the goodness of their hearts. In brick and mortar retail, floorspace is very valuable--making space for something that doesn't sell when you could have used that space for something that does sell, makes no sense. The Apple Watch trial must have gone well.

Furthermore, US retail watch sales plummeted 14%--a drop not seen since the economic/housing/jobs collapse in 2008. Timex and Guess in particular reported a whopping 24% reduction in watch sales in the US. Why, in the months since the Apple Watch has gone on sale, have so many of Apple Watch's competitors seen unusual and massive 1/4 drops in US sales? Everyone just coincidentally stopped buying watches all at the same time?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jstuts5797
I bet they could even retire if they wanted.:rolleyes:o_O

Judging by the slow pace of innovation coming out of Apple's services division, I think Eddy Cue retired a few years ago when he joined Ferrari's board. Either that or he's on a semi-permanent vacation. ;)
 
Yep, I meant that Eddy Cue is "literally" a mafia boss, and not that he acts with some of the caricatures of a mafia boss when he is on stage.. So please, when you call the FBI, don't attach my internet name to your ramblings because you weren't capable of understanding nuance.

Define "acts like a mafia boss". I don't recall Eddy ever threatening any's life, offering deals they can't refuse, etc. Yes, he's a bit boistrous. But I suspect if he looked less Italian and more, say, Japanese, you wouldn't use that comparison. Don't worry, I don't think you're racist, I'm sure some of your best friends are Italian.
 
Heh, in one of my college classes we had to create a spreadsheet of all things we wanted in life if money was no object.

Lets just say after 1.43 billion, I couldn't find anything else to spend on.

This included 76 cars (classic and exotics), a house or condo in Cali, NYC, Paris, Tokyo, and few scattered elsewhere on private islands. A private jet and yacht. A baseball and football team. And a bunch of gadgets and so forth.

The interest and income generated from some of the stuff would make me so much richer that I couldn't keep the spend up. So spending a few hundred million is easy to prove. Spending billions is a LOT harder. I mean, you literally have to buy a hammer for 100 grand to blow through money faster.

This did not take into account any taxes paid on the properties.

The result proved that after a certain point a single person can not spend fast enough the income earned.
I'm not convinced of your premise and would want to test this out for myself.... ;):D

On a more serious note, some of the über-wealthy have come to the same conclusion and that's no doubt the reason behind "The Giving Pledge", where Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, and roughly another 150 super-rich individuals and couples have committed to give most of their wealth to philanthropic causes, either during their lifetime, or after their death.

A heart-warming commitment I think, that should dislodge some of the undeserved cynicism out there towards more than a few of those on that list.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Jstuts5797
Define "acts like a mafia boss". I don't recall Eddy ever threatening any's life, offering deals they can't refuse, etc. Yes, he's a bit boistrous. But I suspect if he looked less Italian and more, say, Japanese, you wouldn't use that comparison. Don't worry, I don't think you're racist, I'm sure some of your best friends are Italian.

Please, take your nonsense some place else. Accusing someone of being racist because they don't like the opinion of another in regards to an individual's conduct during a keynote presentation is really the cheap way out.

Italian is also not a race. Italians are classified as "caucausians," by the way, and so am I. So by your logic I hate my own race.

Nice job.
 
Please, take your nonsense some place else. Accusing someone of being racist because they don't like the opinion of another in regards to an individual's conduct during a keynote presentation is really the cheap way out.

Italian is also not a race. Italians are classified as "caucausians," by the way, and so am I. So by your logic I hate my own race.

Nice job.

You still haven't said what the behavior you're seeing that makes you say is "like a mafia boss"
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jstuts5797
There hasn't been born a single person who can't think of something to do with 94 million dollars. If you had it, you'd have no trouble finding a use for it. The lottery has proven that time and time again, although the key is to know when to stop spending. ;)


True. There are Manhattan condos going for that price. There are paintings that sell for far more than that.
 
I knew something like this was coming when Cook put out a statement to calm the drop in Apple stock...that was so rare for Apple that it could only have been self serving

It's an RSU, so he won't see the benefits for one to five years. What the stock does this week has no impact on these new awards. It may have been self-serving (he already owns a good deal of stock), but nothing to do with this award.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.