The big difference being everyone is still on their free trial..... Once the free trials are up then the numbers will mean something.
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.
Tim Cook and Eddy Cue Receive Combined $94 Million in Apple Stock
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The big difference being everyone is still on their free trial..... Once the free trials are up then the numbers will mean something.
RSUs become taxable when they vest; typically vesting is in stages on the anniversaries of the award.
That's actually not how RSUs work. The tax hit comes at vesting time, not at award time.
It brings me pleasure to see how everyone ignored your comment thus far. The truth is too much for people to handle on this forum. Well done.
I can't speak for others but I ignored it because it's an ignorant statement. The people at the top will always have all the perks and riches and as long as they don't abuse it, the masses will allow it in exchange for their services/leadership.
Not only that, without those iPhone factories, those "poor" Foxconn workers would be making a tenth of the wages or none at all.
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.
Maybe they pull a J.J. Watt and Google "what do you do with $100 million?" That's what J.J. did when he signed his new contract with the Houston Texans.
God, you are so self-indulgent! I ran out of things I wanted at just over $200M.
OK, I'm just messin' with ya'.
Naw, this is how they settle disputes at the Apple campus in the usual way. Here is a leaked documentary on apple trying to decide emoji colors:
The stuff sold thru Eddy's division alone (including apps and Apple Music) mints more money than about 400 of the companies on the Fortune 500 list. Only a handful of CEO's do better running entire huge companies.
Do realize that people who work for a publicly traded company are not allowed to trade their companies shares several days before "materially relevant information" is made public. RSU's also can't be sold before they are vested, and the fact that he didn't sell them means your comment is irrelevant.
You see the same thing in video games. Once you get over a certain "hump" in assets, you can't spend the money fast enough. The inverse is also true, where you can certainly get into enough debt where you could never get out of the death spiral. For many real people, having more than 10,000$ in debt is impossible to get out of, because they have to spend 90% of their income on rent.
With real money, there are always people you could just completely donate unlimited money to, but few charities are actually "donate-all-of-my-worldly-money-worthy" , it's better to put the money in a trust and have the (interest) proceeds fund all the causes you want without the principal being diluted.
Last edited:
God, you are so self-indulgent! I ran out of things I wanted at just over $200M.
OK, I'm just messin' with ya'.
haha
I'm not convinced of your premise and would want to test this out for myself....
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.
I wish I could join that club
I check the Forbes list of billionaires every day. If I'm not on it, I go to work.
So Tim will be CEO through 2021? Good for him. I hope he stays awhile longer.
Well they don't give any of it to their retail employees. "The faces of Apple" are vastly underpaid considering what's expected of them. One of threading I left.
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 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
Unfortunately, people doing jobs that require little to no skills or schooling expect to be paid the same. It's not about having a fancy degree, either. Labor intensive, but higher-skilled jobs make great pay and can easily make as much per year as someone like an Engineer with a bit of overtime pay. Everyone expects to make $15/hour doing nothing but flipping burgers or putting the same screw through the same type of hole a million times day.
Agreed, however, the current system of the government getting first cut is the moral objection I have, not that taxes must be paid.
The current system says, "the money is ours, and we let you keep what we deem is sufficient." I prefer a system that says, like it did for 180 years (until WW II), "That money is yours, and we're taxing you x%, and you have to pay it to us."
It's just a change in accountability of how the taxes are collected, and the whole idea that makes tax cheats out of us all when we have a garage sale, or want to go into business for ourselves. It also creates a cottage industry of tax accountants and such, where these people could actually be producing something other than a TPS report.
An argument that can be taken either way: Al Capone wasn't put in jail for murder. It was tax evasion. Having a tax code that is (now) 74,000 pages is almost impossible to be compliant with everything, and the innocent man cannot be guilted into bending to corruption.
To the point of income (Current) versus sales (FairTax) taxes is that it takes care of the underground economy as well, as that underground money eventually comes to the surface.
You know they aren't voting for Bernie Sanders. He'd take 90% of it.
US had a top marginal tax rate of 91% during the 1950s through the early 1960s. Most people would agree the nation and the economy worked pretty well for everyone during that era.
Making a relative handful of people billionaires shouldn't be the objective of an economy. The measure of a society shouldn't be how well do the wealthiest live, the wealthiest will be fine. But rather how well do the poorest live. Objectively things are much worse for a huge slice of society since policies of tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans were established.
The Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts did give the economy a big boost that it needed, because people weren't investing, businesses weren't expanding. Going back to Reagan or Kennedy post-cut levels is a discussion that can be held. Pre-Kennedy, never happen and would be a disaster if it did.
RSU are taxed only when they vest. On that day they *ARE* real money (you can sell).
Receiving real stock is receiving money.
I see your points, and they are legitimate..
However, without periodic and regular withholding, enforcement by the IRS and the Treasury I think would almost certainly be impacted. Revenue would almost assuredly go down. In regards to a fair tax, in theory, it may make sense, but there is considerable debate as to whether enough revenue would be brought in to support government functions. It is also potentially a more "regressive," instead of progressive tax system.
I have everybody quotes RSUs on the entry price. It is actually delta that matters. They only make money out of RSUs if the price goes up. And they only get a delta between the entry price and the final one.
Although it is a very good idea to vest RSUs when there is a drop
Although it is a very good idea to vest RSUs when there is a drop
It actually does. Lower the entry price, more the profit. It is all about delta. They are only making money if the shares go up.