Apple executives net more than $13M each in vested stock

Posted:
in AAPL Investors edited April 4
Eight Apple executives, including senior vice presidents Eddy Cue and Craig Federighi, saw batches of restricted stock units vest last week, six of which were worth some $13.6 million.




According to multiple U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings made public on Tuesday, the stock vested on April 1 originate from Apple RSU incentive plans meted out on March 3, 2014, and Oct. 17, 2014. The two awards included 53,056 and 40,955 RSUs, respectively.

Six executives -- Apple COO Jeff Williams, SVP and General Counsel Bruce Sewell, SVP of Worldwide Marketing Phil Schiller, SVP of Internet Software and Services Eddy Cue, SVP of Software Engineering Craig Federighi and SVP of Hardware Engineering Dan Riccio -- received grants from both plans, meaning their awards converted into 94,010 common stock units. At the end of trading on Tuesday, the shares were worth just over $13.6 million.

In addition to the statutory stock grant, Cue purchased 236 shares of Apple common stock on Jan. 31, 2017, under the company's Employee Stock Purchase Plan (ESPP).

Apple SVP of Retail Angela Ahrendts and CFO Luca Maestri also saw RSUs vest as part of the October 2014 incentive plan, netting each executive shares worth about $6 million.

As is standard operating procedure, Apple withheld 46,214 shares from awards received by Cue, Schiller, Federighi, Riccio, Williams and Sewell to satisfy tax laws. The company withheld 19,632 shares from Ahrendts 20,648 shares from Maestri for the same reason.

Cue and Schiller shuffled a respective 48,032 and 47,796 shares to family trusts following last week's vesting. Schiller ultimately sold those shares at a price of $143.32, netting $6.9 million.

The vested stock awards arrive after Apple's executive team missed out on bonus pay last year due to the company's comparatively poor fiscal 2016 results. Apple generated $215.6 billion in net sales and operating income of $60 billion, but the performance was not up to standards set by Apple's compensation committee.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 16
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 26,168member
    Hey, they're all still doing outstanding work for the most part. This is what happens when you succeed.

    Tip o' the cap to continuing that success.
    edited April 4 MisterKitbaconstangDilirXradarthekatpatchythepiratewatto_cobrajony0
  • Reply 2 of 16
    baconstangbaconstang Posts: 368member
    And the executives of the most valuable country in the world should be be getting a "Congratulations on Your Success" card with a $20 bill inside???

    Seems light, to be honest.
    edited April 4 radarthekatwatto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 16
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 1,684member
    Hey, they're all still doing outstanding work for the most part. This is what happens when you succeed.

    Tip o' the cap to continuing that success.
    No, you're wrong. 

    This is a clear sign that Google/Samsung/Microsoft/Dunkin' Donuts have won! The executives are bleeding the cash from this bealeagured husk and are running for the hills!

    Apple is finished! Blessed is the Pixel/ExplOding Note/Surface/Two for the price of one on the Iced Donuts with Raspberry Filling. 


    radarthekatwatto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 16
    DilirXDilirX Posts: 10unconfirmed, member
    Let us hope they continue doing the good work for decades.
  • Reply 5 of 16
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 26,168member
    Of note, AAPL just rocketed past the all-time high for the stock, previously hit about 5 years ago.

    Intraday high of $145.19 as of this writing.
    edited April 5 watto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 16
    spice-boyspice-boy Posts: 314member
    I guess insane bonuses are okay when it comes from a company that you like, right?  I mean if it were a drug company that tripled it's prices so the head honchos could  bump profits then that would be okay too. I mean unleashed capitalism always trickles down to the masses with: great paying jobs, excellent benefits for all employees and a system that takes care of the elderly and weakest. Robber Barons 2.0
  • Reply 7 of 16
    spice-boy said:
    I guess insane bonuses are okay when it comes from a company that you like, right?  I mean if it were a drug company that tripled it's prices so the head honchos could  bump profits then that would be okay too. I mean unleashed capitalism always trickles down to the masses with: great paying jobs, excellent benefits for all employees and a system that takes care of the elderly and weakest. Robber Barons 2.0
    It's always nice how ppl get so knee-jerky when it comes to their blind ideology. You know that Apple vs drug companies is a terrible comparison, in numerous ways, right?
    baconstang
  • Reply 8 of 16
    paxmanpaxman Posts: 4,409member
    spice-boy said:
    I guess insane bonuses are okay when it comes from a company that you like, right?  I mean if it were a drug company that tripled it's prices so the head honchos could  bump profits then that would be okay too. I mean unleashed capitalism always trickles down to the masses with: great paying jobs, excellent benefits for all employees and a system that takes care of the elderly and weakest. Robber Barons 2.0
    It's always nice how ppl get so knee-jerky when it comes to their blind ideology. You know that Apple vs drug companies is a terrible comparison, in numerous ways, right?
    It is ideology that drives these bonuses, and you have to admit that ideology aside, bonuses like these are crazy no matter what the company is. The last thing these people need is more money. Maybe a more worthwhile ideology to direct bonus payments would be one that dictates performance based payments to a charity of the recipient's choice, in the recipient's name. That would be a win win for the charity, the recipient and the company. Alternatively the bonuses could be distributed to the workforce within the department of the executive. All in the name of the executive, of course. Both these methods of rewarding performance are as valid as the one that actually happened. All are ideologically based but only the first one guarantees that the money goes to the people who really do not need it.
    jony0
  • Reply 9 of 16
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 26,168member
    ^^^ I'm blocking this guy.
  • Reply 10 of 16
    paxmanpaxman Posts: 4,409member
    ^^^ I'm blocking this guy.
    Not that I care who blocks me, but why? What is unreasonable with what I said?
  • Reply 11 of 16
    carnegiecarnegie Posts: 137member
    paxman said:
    spice-boy said:
    I guess insane bonuses are okay when it comes from a company that you like, right?  I mean if it were a drug company that tripled it's prices so the head honchos could  bump profits then that would be okay too. I mean unleashed capitalism always trickles down to the masses with: great paying jobs, excellent benefits for all employees and a system that takes care of the elderly and weakest. Robber Barons 2.0
    It's always nice how ppl get so knee-jerky when it comes to their blind ideology. You know that Apple vs drug companies is a terrible comparison, in numerous ways, right?
    It is ideology that drives these bonuses, and you have to admit that ideology aside, bonuses like these are crazy no matter what the company is. The last thing these people need is more money. Maybe a more worthwhile ideology to direct bonus payments would be one that dictates performance based payments to a charity of the recipient's choice, in the recipient's name. That would be a win win for the charity, the recipient and the company. Alternatively the bonuses could be distributed to the workforce within the department of the executive. All in the name of the executive, of course. Both these methods of rewarding performance are as valid as the one that actually happened. All are ideologically based but only the first one guarantees that the money goes to the people who really do not need it.
    These aren't bonuses. These vesting shares are part of the executives' base compensation packages, they don't depend on performance.

    There are performance-based portions of those stock awards. But that portion, which is based on relative total shareholder return over a set period of time, doesn't vest until this October in the case of the October 2014 award. In the case of the March 2014 award, the performance based portions vested in October of 2015 and 2016.
  • Reply 12 of 16
    spice-boyspice-boy Posts: 314member
    paxman said:
    ^^^ I'm blocking this guy.
    Not that I care who blocks me, but why? What is unreasonable with what I said?
    There was nothing unreasonable about what you said, it was just more than some American's can get their heads around.
  • Reply 13 of 16
    paxman said:
    spice-boy said:
    I guess insane bonuses are okay when it comes from a company that you like, right?  I mean if it were a drug company that tripled it's prices so the head honchos could  bump profits then that would be okay too. I mean unleashed capitalism always trickles down to the masses with: great paying jobs, excellent benefits for all employees and a system that takes care of the elderly and weakest. Robber Barons 2.0
    It's always nice how ppl get so knee-jerky when it comes to their blind ideology. You know that Apple vs drug companies is a terrible comparison, in numerous ways, right?
    It is ideology that drives these bonuses, and you have to admit that ideology aside, bonuses like these are crazy no matter what the company is. The last thing these people need is more money. Maybe a more worthwhile ideology to direct bonus payments would be one that dictates performance based payments to a charity of the recipient's choice, in the recipient's name. That would be a win win for the charity, the recipient and the company. Alternatively the bonuses could be distributed to the workforce within the department of the executive. All in the name of the executive, of course. Both these methods of rewarding performance are as valid as the one that actually happened. All are ideologically based but only the first one guarantees that the money goes to the people who really do not need it.
    Ideology is usually only positive on a personal level; extrapolating ideology to larger groups usually works out terribly.

    What drives bonuses (speaking in general terms)* is self-interest, not ideology. In terms of populations, self-interest is the most consistent, predictable, and most powerful force in society, which is why capitalism, which best harnesses this aspect of human nature, is the most productive mechanism for economic growth and general prosperity. In turn, capitalism should also not be viewed in a narrow, simplistic, ideological fashion; capitalistic systems need practical guidelines to prevent fraud and exploitation, as well as mechanisms to fill in the gaps where personal needs don't directly correlate to societal needs (e.g. programs that reduce the personal penalty/risk for doing something that benefits society as a whole).**

    The examples you cite, while they sound nice at a surface level, are full of problems and are generally unrealistic, which is a perfect example of why it's a terrible idea to govern a population based on ideology. What becomes problematic is when people decide they want to put unrealistic controls on other people to the extent that it corrupts the foundational rules of the economy (e.g. Who are you to decide how "these people" spend their money? Maybe they want to reinvest, thus bolstering the economy as a whole, because they think they can be more productive that way, and give even more in the future?).

    In conclusion, ideologies are a convenient, cheap shortcut to trying to understand the world, which is never that simple. So, don't get caught up in being a 'conservative' or a 'liberal' because both are stupid positions to take.

    *I feel that Apple's execs are very far from the antisocial/materialistic stereotype we often see in other businesses and wall street.
    **E.g. Recycling; personally, it is easier to just throw everything in the trash, but incentives and programs that facilitate recycling are a positive overall investment for society.

    Kinda veered off into full rant mode; guess I was trying to skip ahead to the core issue(s).
    edited April 5 SpamSandwich
  • Reply 14 of 16
    paxmanpaxman Posts: 4,409member
    carnegie said:
    paxman said:
    spice-boy said:
    I guess insane bonuses are okay when it comes from a company that you like, right?  I mean if it were a drug company that tripled it's prices so the head honchos could  bump profits then that would be okay too. I mean unleashed capitalism always trickles down to the masses with: great paying jobs, excellent benefits for all employees and a system that takes care of the elderly and weakest. Robber Barons 2.0
    It's always nice how ppl get so knee-jerky when it comes to their blind ideology. You know that Apple vs drug companies is a terrible comparison, in numerous ways, right?
    It is ideology that drives these bonuses, and you have to admit that ideology aside, bonuses like these are crazy no matter what the company is. The last thing these people need is more money. Maybe a more worthwhile ideology to direct bonus payments would be one that dictates performance based payments to a charity of the recipient's choice, in the recipient's name. That would be a win win for the charity, the recipient and the company. Alternatively the bonuses could be distributed to the workforce within the department of the executive. All in the name of the executive, of course. Both these methods of rewarding performance are as valid as the one that actually happened. All are ideologically based but only the first one guarantees that the money goes to the people who really do not need it.
    These aren't bonuses. These vesting shares are part of the executives' base compensation packages, they don't depend on performance.

    There are performance-based portions of those stock awards. But that portion, which is based on relative total shareholder return over a set period of time, doesn't vest until this October in the case of the October 2014 award. In the case of the March 2014 award, the performance based portions vested in October of 2015 and 2016.
    Yes, you are right. These are not bonuses, strictly speaking.
  • Reply 15 of 16
    paxmanpaxman Posts: 4,409member

    paxman said:
    spice-boy said:
    I guess insane bonuses are okay when it comes from a company that you like, right?  I mean if it were a drug company that tripled it's prices so the head honchos could  bump profits then that would be okay too. I mean unleashed capitalism always trickles down to the masses with: great paying jobs, excellent benefits for all employees and a system that takes care of the elderly and weakest. Robber Barons 2.0
    It's always nice how ppl get so knee-jerky when it comes to their blind ideology. You know that Apple vs drug companies is a terrible comparison, in numerous ways, right?
    It is ideology that drives these bonuses, and you have to admit that ideology aside, bonuses like these are crazy no matter what the company is. The last thing these people need is more money. Maybe a more worthwhile ideology to direct bonus payments would be one that dictates performance based payments to a charity of the recipient's choice, in the recipient's name. That would be a win win for the charity, the recipient and the company. Alternatively the bonuses could be distributed to the workforce within the department of the executive. All in the name of the executive, of course. Both these methods of rewarding performance are as valid as the one that actually happened. All are ideologically based but only the first one guarantees that the money goes to the people who really do not need it.
    Ideology is usually only positive on a personal level; extrapolating ideology to larger groups usually works out terribly.

    What drives bonuses (speaking in general terms)* is self-interest, not ideology. In terms of populations, self-interest is the most consistent, predictable, and most powerful force in society, which is why capitalism, which best harnesses this aspect of human nature, is the most productive mechanism for economic growth and general prosperity. In turn, capitalism should also not be viewed in a narrow, simplistic, ideological fashion; capitalistic systems need practical guidelines to prevent fraud and exploitation, as well as mechanisms to fill in the gaps where personal needs don't directly correlate to societal needs (e.g. programs that reduce the personal penalty/risk for doing something that benefits society as a whole).**

    The examples you cite, while they sound nice at a surface level, are full of problems and are generally unrealistic, which is a perfect example of why it's a terrible idea to govern a population based on ideology. What becomes problematic is when people decide they want to put unrealistic controls on other people to the extent that it corrupts the foundational rules of the economy (e.g. Who are you to decide how "these people" spend their money? Maybe they want to reinvest, thus bolstering the economy as a whole, because they think they can be more productive that way, and give even more in the future?).

    In conclusion, ideologies are a convenient, cheap shortcut to trying to understand the world, which is never that simple. So, don't get caught up in being a 'conservative' or a 'liberal' because both are stupid positions to take.

    *I feel that Apple's execs are very far from the antisocial/materialistic stereotype we often see in other businesses and wall street.
    **E.g. Recycling; personally, it is easier to just throw everything in the trash, but incentives and programs that facilitate recycling are a positive overall investment for society.

    Kinda veered off into full rant mode; guess I was trying to skip ahead to the core issue(s).
    Ideology does work on a societal level. When we vote in a democracy we vote for an ideology. Self interest may be a more consistent, predictable and powerful force, I won't argue with that, and it is a core part of being human, but ideology is an overriding guiding principle designed by groups of individuals to intellectually shape a system and set of rules, morals, guiding principles  etc, by which we can live together as a society. It is the only way we can decide upon the kind of world we want to live in. It is through ideology that we can contain and rein in self interest (as you point out). 

    When you say that problems arise when 'people' place unrealistic controls on other people you seem to suggest that there should be no regulation, nor governance. I absolutely believe in regulation and governance and I also believe you can't have either without ideology. Unrealistic control placed upon other people is always bad, but the question is if by saying unrealistic you mean unreasonable. If my neighbour wants to turn his house into a sweatshop, and invest money into enlarging his house to that end, is it unreasonable for any authority to forbid the project in spite of its likely monetary success and the added employment opportunities? Obviously, yes, there are many possible reasons, and they are all based in ideology. So I don't understand what you mean when you say ideology is a shortcut to understanding the world. The way I see it is much more of a way to create a world, for better or worse.

    I also feel that Apple's executives are far from the antisocial/materialistic stereotype often seen, and I think that Apple is better (much) company for largely adhering to and promoting its relatively liberal social ideology, 
  • Reply 16 of 16
    "But what about the starving kids in Africa?"
Sign In or Register to comment.