Jobs: 'I make fifty cents for just showing up'
After being put on guard at his company's shareholders meeting, Apple chief executive Steve Jobs fired back with a defense of his controversial stock options.
Jobs quickly became the primary focus of the Q&A session at the end of the annual event, which created the first challenge for the Apple boss after otherwise rolling smoothly through the meeting agenda, in which his Board of Directors saw reelection and all shareholder resolutions were voted down.
Brandon Reese, a shareholder working on behalf of the AFL-CIO union federation was the most eager to grill Jobs on the matter, firing off a string of questions about the many elements surrounding the now-ended stock options scandal at Apple.
"What did you know and when did you know it?," the union spokesman asked.
Rather than answer the question directly, however, Jobs instead pointed to the SEC exoneration issued late last month -- at one point deliberately re-reading the government body's statement to underscore his view that the firm's cooperation spoke for itself. The implication that there could be more to the story was rejected as irrelevant.
"Unless you think there's a conspiracy with the SEC too, I don't know what to say," Jobs replied.
The CEO also dismissed suggestions that he should compensate his company for the questionable profits he made from his late 2001 stock options. He took care to note that one grant he received in October of 2001 had in fact been approved in August, when shares were significantly lower and ultimately shortchanged him on potential gains. "I didn't ask the company to pay me back," he said.
Apple has already dealt with an $84 million options expense late in 2006 to make amends for questionable grants handed out between 1997 and 2002.
Jobs was further keen to correct notions of a bitter feud between himself and former CFO Fred Anderson in the wake of Apple's official statement. He rebuffed the departed executive for his criticisms regarding the financial controversy. "Fred Anderson is an awfully good guy," said Jobs. "I thought his comments were a little wrong."
While those investors posing the questions were seldom pleased with the response from Jobs, the Apple co-founder's charisma appeared to have the intended effect of pleasing most of the investors gathered at the company's Cupertino-based campus.
At points during the meeting, Jobs even triggered laughter uncharacteristic of the normally sober occasions. He drew a particularly warm response when deflecting a Teamsters Union agent's question about how Apple linked executive pay and performance, referring to his now legendary $1 annual salary.
"I get 50 cents a year for showing up," he quipped. "And the other 50 cents is based on my performance."
Jobs quickly became the primary focus of the Q&A session at the end of the annual event, which created the first challenge for the Apple boss after otherwise rolling smoothly through the meeting agenda, in which his Board of Directors saw reelection and all shareholder resolutions were voted down.
Brandon Reese, a shareholder working on behalf of the AFL-CIO union federation was the most eager to grill Jobs on the matter, firing off a string of questions about the many elements surrounding the now-ended stock options scandal at Apple.
"What did you know and when did you know it?," the union spokesman asked.
Rather than answer the question directly, however, Jobs instead pointed to the SEC exoneration issued late last month -- at one point deliberately re-reading the government body's statement to underscore his view that the firm's cooperation spoke for itself. The implication that there could be more to the story was rejected as irrelevant.
"Unless you think there's a conspiracy with the SEC too, I don't know what to say," Jobs replied.
The CEO also dismissed suggestions that he should compensate his company for the questionable profits he made from his late 2001 stock options. He took care to note that one grant he received in October of 2001 had in fact been approved in August, when shares were significantly lower and ultimately shortchanged him on potential gains. "I didn't ask the company to pay me back," he said.
Apple has already dealt with an $84 million options expense late in 2006 to make amends for questionable grants handed out between 1997 and 2002.
Jobs was further keen to correct notions of a bitter feud between himself and former CFO Fred Anderson in the wake of Apple's official statement. He rebuffed the departed executive for his criticisms regarding the financial controversy. "Fred Anderson is an awfully good guy," said Jobs. "I thought his comments were a little wrong."
While those investors posing the questions were seldom pleased with the response from Jobs, the Apple co-founder's charisma appeared to have the intended effect of pleasing most of the investors gathered at the company's Cupertino-based campus.
At points during the meeting, Jobs even triggered laughter uncharacteristic of the normally sober occasions. He drew a particularly warm response when deflecting a Teamsters Union agent's question about how Apple linked executive pay and performance, referring to his now legendary $1 annual salary.
"I get 50 cents a year for showing up," he quipped. "And the other 50 cents is based on my performance."
Comments
hehe
"I'm not here to talk about he past, I'm here to talk about the future." -Mark McGwire on steroids use in baseball.
I thin they should raise his salary to $1.10.
"I get 50 cents a year for showing up," he quipped. "And the other 50 cents is based on my performance."
I hope Jobs is not misquoted, as it's gold!
Steve always gives 110%.
I think they should raise his salary to $1.10.
Yes they should.
I hope Jobs is not misquoted, as it's gold!
No it's not misquoted (it's everywhere now) and yes it is gold.
Sebastian
Educational Foundation of America, the company with the waste take back proposal - 1900 shares - purchased for less than $190,000.
Trillium especially made me mad when they were referring to it as 'our' company. If you don't like how Apple is being run, sell your relatively paltry stake and invest in a company that you do like. You will not be missed or even noticed.
It is too easy for some bunch of jerks to make a scene at important meetings of important companies just because they can scrape together a few bucks to buy a few shares.
Trillium Asset Management Corporation sounds big and impressive right? How many shares do they own? 200 which they purchased for less than $20,000.
Educational Foundation of America, the company with the waste take back proposal - 1900 shares - purchased for less than $190,000.
1. " For twenty-five years, Trillium Asset Management Corporation has been the leader in socially responsible investing. We are guided by a belief that active investing can offer good returns to the investor, while also promoting social and economic justice." Source: http://www.trilliuminvest.com/
Visiting their website I can not determine how much money they manage.
2. "EFA focuses on four different types of socially responsible investing....
Shareholder Activism: Taking, or holding onto, small investments in the companies that have policies and practices which the investor opposes for the express purpose of changing those policies through proxy mechanisms." Source: http://www.efaw.org/Responsible%20Investments.htm
It is too easy for some bunch of jerks to make a scene at important meetings of important companies just because they can scrape together a few bucks to buy a few shares.
1 share = 1 vote. If you have shares, use them to vote the way you like. If you have an idea, propose it. For example, you could propose that shareholder proposals get one word for every 100 shares behind it.
I'd rather there were people looking at the long view than flipping shares and wringing their hands over each quarter's numbers.
These shareholder proposals piss me off in the fact that some of the proposers don't even own that much stock. For instance, the company with the environmental proposal Trillium Asset Management Corporation sounds big and impressive right? How many shares do they own? 200 which they purchased for less than $20,000. The amount of AAPL I have is very close to that, but I don't think that I should be able to name myself MacCentric Narcissistic Asset Management Corporation, pull any stupid idea out of my ass, require Apple to make a few million copies of it, mail it out and then waste Steve's time talking to me about it and preparing a rebuttal.
Educational Foundation of America, the company with the waste take back proposal - 1900 shares - purchased for less than $190,000.
Trillium especially made me mad when they were referring to it as 'our' company. If you don't like how Apple is being run, sell your relatively paltry stake and invest in a company that you do like. You will not be missed or even noticed.
It is too easy for some bunch of jerks to make a scene at important meetings of important companies just because they can scrape together a few bucks to buy a few shares.
This is only because you don't want to see Apple put in an embarrassing position. Why not?
If this were a company dumping radioactive waste you wouldn't be bothered by these shareholder actions, would you?
It's all relative.
But he knows his market better than anyone in the world, and is worth every penny of the $1, plus the money he makes from options or whatever.
This is all happening the way it should. People have questions and objections, and the management responds. Keep it going, Apple.
I think the SEC deal is just about over. I think the Greenpeace objection is pretty much gone, and Steve therefore got a chance to lecture them a bit. And I think they all get the sense that the rest of the year for Apple has a good chance of getting even better.
This is all happening the way it should. People have questions and objections, and the management responds. Keep it going, Apple.
I'd have to agree with this.
This is all happening the way it should. People have questions and objections, and the management responds. Keep it going, Apple.
Agreed. It's part of being a publicly traded company. Some people are bound to waste time with their proposals, but it is a matter of opinion. If shareholders have questions, Apple has to answer them. Personally, I like Steve Jobs vision, but I think he can be a real ass to people that he should be thankful to. He would have more support if he was nice instead of arrogant, as funny (and sometimes correct) his statements may be.
2. "EFA focuses on four different types of socially responsible investing....
Shareholder Activism: Taking, or holding onto, small investments in the companies that have policies and practices which the investor opposes for the express purpose of changing those policies through proxy mechanisms." Source: http://www.efaw.org/Responsible%20Investments.htm
There are many groups like this. Also individuals who make a career out of yanking the chains of big corporations through shareholder proxies.
Which is one of the reasons I rarely vote my shares in any way other than as per the director's recommendations. I buy stock for the purpose of making money on the deal, and I despise those people who are actively trying to reduce the value of my shares, no matter what their reason is.
If this were a company dumping radioactive waste you wouldn't be bothered by these shareholder actions, would you?
If a company is doing something I actively oppose, then I wouldn't go buying their shares.
And if you think there is some moral equivalence between an accusation of stock fraud (which was already investigated and settled by the SEC) and dumping nuclear waste, then you need to rethink your priorities. No amount of financial shenanigans is going to produce a generation of genetically deformed animals.
I think if the union bosses don't like the situation, they should just sell their stock and shut the ____ up. I'll give em $95/share. All they got.
Yeah, why aren't they investing in unionized companies?
Oh thats right, because they are all in the toilet thanks to the unions.
There are many groups like this. Also individuals who make a career out of yanking the chains of big corporations through shareholder proxies.
Which is one of the reasons I rarely vote my shares in any way other than as per the director's recommendations. I buy stock for the purpose of making money on the deal, and I despise those people who are actively trying to reduce the value of my shares, no matter what their reason is.
If a company is doing something I actively oppose, then I wouldn't go buying their shares.
And if you think there is some moral equivalence between an accusation of stock fraud (which was already investigated and settled by the SEC) and dumping nuclear waste, then you need to rethink your priorities. No amount of financial shenanigans is going to produce a generation of genetically deformed animals.
We were talking about environmental issues.
This is a problem for not only this entire industry, but almost every other industry as well, including almost every individual who lives anywhere.
For that reason, it isn't a matter of not buying a companies stock.
You do have a responsibility to attempt to get the world back in shape.
No it's not misquoted (it's everywhere now) and yes it is gold.
I hope Jobs is not misquoted, as it's gold!
I get 50 cents a year for showing up," he quipped. "And the other 50 cents is based on my performance."
That is brilliant!
Trillium especially made me mad when they were referring to it as 'our' company. If you don't like how Apple is being run, sell your relatively paltry stake and invest in a company that you do like.
Or, they could keep their investment, and let the company know how they feel -- as they're entitled to do.
Did it really make you "mad"?
Let me guess...you're one of those "love it or leave it" people.