Apple's Steve Jobs tops list of highest paid CEOs

[AppleInsider]

Despite a $1 yearly salary, Apple chief executive Steve Jobs still managed to top Forbes' list of highest paid CEOs for 2006, raking in more than $646 million through stock-based compensation -- more than twice that of the next highest paid boss.

The financial publication reported that chief executives of America's 500 biggest companies got a collective 38 percent pay raise last year, to $7.5 billion; an average $15.2 million apiece.

Jobs' $646.6 million came in the form of restricted stock options that vested during the year, bringing his 5-year compensation total for work done at Apple to $650.17 million.

While some components of executive compensation have changed over the years, Forbes noted that exercised stock options are still the main component of pay. Based on the 200 bosses tracked by the publication, stocks accounted for 48 percent of executive pay, or an average gain of $7.3 million per CEO.

Following Jobs as the second highest paid chief executive was Occidental Petroleum boss Ray Irani, who earned $321.64 million. He was followed by IAC/InterActiveCorp chief executive Barry Diller ($295 million), Fidelity National Finl CEO William P Foley II ($179 million), and Yahoo chief Terry Semel ($174 million).

Michael Dell, founder of Apple rival Dell, came in as the 6th highest compensated chief executive with a paycheck of $153 million.

It should be noted that Forbes counts compensation when it turns into cash or marketable stock but does not value or count options until the executive exercises them.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[Splinemodel]

Stock options: in other words, Steve kicked ass because Apple kicked ass. I see nothing wrong with this.

[solipsism]

Forbes placed Jobs at #140 with $4.4 billion in 2006, up from #193 with $3 billion in 2005.

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by Splinemodel

Stock options: in other words, Steve kicked ass because Apple kicked ass. I see nothing wrong with this.

I could have sworn I saw a story that said that Apple doesn't issue options for their top people anymore, rather, they just issue stock. It may be that Jobs is still exercising outstanding options issued before they changed their policy.

[SpamSandwich]

He's worth every penny.

[nagromme]

"Jobs' $646.6 million came in the form of restricted stock options that vested during the year, bringing his 5-year compensation total for work done at Apple to $650.17 million. "

So if he made 650 mil in 5 years, and of that, 646 was this year... I assume that means he made far less for the previous years, and this is a one-time event not expected to be duplicated each year?

[ajhill]

Hey, as an apple stock holder I believe that Steve Jobs is worth every penny. Just take a look at what Apple stock has done over the last 3 years vs. what DELL stock has done for it's investors. If we are making money Steve Jobs deserves a cut as well. When Steve Jobs came back to Apple it was a 5 billion dollar company. Now it's a $80 Billion company. Enough said.

That said, shareholders in Dell should be sending Michael Dell a bill for their losses.

Any article about excessive CEO pay that does not include stock value appreciation during the same time, is simply irresponsible journalism. It's sad to see the standards for journalist sliding so far downhill. Try reporting the real story, with some balance, people...

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by ajhill

Any article about excessive CEO pay that does not include stock value appreciation during the same time, is simply irresponsible journalism. It's sad to see the standards for journalist sliding so far downhill. Try reporting the real story, with some balance, people...

I have a couple theories about your post: Your rant is either a generalized statement about other journalistic sites or you misread 'executive' as 'excessive'.

[ouragan]

I have said it before and it bears repeating:

At Apple, compensation for the CEO and his pet Vice-Presidents is insane, demented, unwarranted and the reason why Apple will NEVER succeed in the market place beyond its paltry 5% or 6% US market share.

I am sooo glad that I don't own any Apple stock. I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole.

It is somewhat reassuring to see that Steve Jobs has been exposed for what he is, greedy and insecure to the point of endangering the company he should lead. Others question his lack of leadership, see:

"Will Steve Jobs have to leave Apple?"

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/31868/128/

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by ouragan

I have said it before and it bears repeating:

At Apple, compensation for the CEO and his pet Vice-Presidents is insane, demented, unwarranted and the reason why Apple will NEVER succeed in the market place beyond its paltry 5% or 6% US market share.

I am sooo glad that I don't own any Apple stock. I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole.

It is somewhat reassuring to see that Steve Jobs has been exposed for what he is, greedy and insecure to the point of endangering the company he should lead. Others question his lack of leadership, see:

"Will Steve Jobs have to leave Apple?"

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/31868/128/:

That is just incorrect on so many levels.

Steve gets paid a $1 salary. Therefore, in order to make a profit for himself he has to make a profit for the company and it's stockholders. It's a reflection of his commitment and ability to bring Apple to where it is today.

I wish more CEOs would do this.

It's too common for a new chief executive to come in with a huge bonus on top of a huge salary and then leave 6 months to a couple years later with a huge severabce package after furthur ruining a company.

Originally Posted by ouragan

I am sooo glad that I don't own any Apple stock. I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole.

Because steadily increasing stock value offends you?

Originally Posted by ouragan

...why Apple will NEVER succeed in the market place beyond its paltry 5% or 6% US market share.

You're right, Apple may never get past 5 or 6^ marketshare. With more and more cheap PCs being being sold everyday it's harder for Apple to maintain marketshare. But we all know that marketshare means nothing if not put into proper context.

Apple is the fastest growing OEM in the US. Apple has record profits and is selling twice as many machines as it did just 3 years ago. The stock is soaring and upcoming Apple releases indicate Apple's frowth to improve even more in the years to come.

I love how the best argument against Apple is to compare its specialized OS to the sale of WIndows, despite it running on pretty much any x86 architecture. Would it not be more prudent to compare the sale of Macs to other OEMs. If we do that, then your argument becomes less effective as Apple is shown as the 5th largest computer maker in the US. If we then compare the areas in which Apple competes in (IOW, negating all crappy $500 PCs sold by HP and Dell that contain 3yo HW) we see that Apple is actually at or near the top of the pack.

[DeaPeaJay]

Originally Posted by ajhill

Hey, as an apple stock holder I believe that Steve Jobs is worth every penny. Just take a look at what Apple stock has done over the last 3 years vs. what DELL stock has done for it's investors. If we are making money Steve Jobs deserves a cut as well. When Steve Jobs came back to Apple it was a 5 billion dollar company. Now it's a $80 Billion company. Enough said.

That said, shareholders in Dell should be sending Michael Dell a bill for their losses.

Any article about excessive CEO pay that does not include stock value appreciation during the same time, is simply irresponsible journalism. It's sad to see the standards for journalist sliding so far downhill. Try reporting the real story, with some balance, people...

I'm with solipsism, what article were you reading? It was in no way dissing Jobs or calling it excessive. It was a fact reporting article. In fact, the article made me feel proud of Apple for being able to make Steve Jobs #1 on the list. It shows where they've come as a company.

[webmail]

ouragan, "Yeah steve jobs is endangering the company", blah, blah, blah.. You don't have a clue... Apple has huge cash reserves, Apple just paid $100million to creative over patent issue, which doesn't even show UP on it's quarterly report because they are making so much in profit. Steve jobs probably got those GRANTS at a high price, which means for them to be worth anything he would half to sell them (which he has not) or he would have to continue to make the companies stock price go hiring.

Seriously $640million isn't a big deal for a CEO who posts 30% over their earnings and has HAD the record quarter every quarter for nearly the last year.

Just because you make $30,000 don't be upset ;-) When you run a huge empire, and still have the ability to focus on small details and see an entire project through while answering to hundreds of millions of people, we'll talk about your raise.

ouragan, I'm very glad you don't own Apple stock either.. because it helps me sleep better at night, knowing I don't have to share the 1.3 million dollars I reported in earnings on Apple stock this year :-)

[zunx]

That is OBSCENE with people not having even to eat each day in the world. But unfortunately the capitalist economy is the only one that works. Give comunism to people and they will become extremely lazy and collapse the economy and productivity becoming all poor. History has demonstrated that in all instances. A shame for the human kind!

[aiapdn]

I'm not bothered at all by what Jobs makes. What worries me is that there isn't a _visible_ succession plan. Apple seems to be a 'one man show' at the top, and Jobs won't live forever...

[lostkiwi]

Originally Posted by aiapdn

I'm not bothered at all by what Jobs makes. What worries me is that there isn't a _visible_ succession plan. Apple seems to be a 'one man show' at the top, and Jobs won't live forever...

Good point. Where are we going to find someone with a similar RDF?
But, I am sure that we will find out soon enough...

[digitalclips]

Originally Posted by ouragan

I have said it before and it bears repeating:

At Apple, compensation for the CEO and his pet Vice-Presidents is insane, demented, unwarranted and the reason why Apple will NEVER succeed in the market place beyond its paltry 5% or 6% US market share.

I am sooo glad that I don't own any Apple stock. I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole.

It is somewhat reassuring to see that Steve Jobs has been exposed for what he is, greedy and insecure to the point of endangering the company he should lead. Others question his lack of leadership.

Go back to your PC and Troll elsewhere
p.s. My AAPL stock is running at 300% + increase ~

[digitalclips]

Originally Posted by DeaPeaJay

I'm with solipsism, what article were you reading? It was in no way dissing Jobs or calling it excessive. It was a fact reporting article. In fact, the article made me feel proud of Apple for being able to make Steve Jobs #1 on the list. It shows where they've come as a company.

Absolutely correct. I love Apple products and I love watching my AAPL soar. Steve's large 'take home compensation' is due to 100% performance not, as with many CEOs, a huge salary regardless of company success. Let's hope he earns ten times as much in a few years based on stock.

[eAi]

I'm sure Jobs is training someone to use the RDF... They don't announce future projects, so its hardly likely they're going to announce future leaders, is it?

[vinney57]

Originally Posted by ouragan

I have said it before and it bears repeating:

At Apple, compensation for the CEO and his pet Vice-Presidents is insane, demented, unwarranted and the reason why Apple will NEVER succeed in the market place beyond its paltry 5% or 6% US market share.

I am sooo glad that I don't own any Apple stock. I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole.

It is somewhat reassuring to see that Steve Jobs has been exposed for what he is, greedy and insecure to the point of endangering the company he should lead. Others question his lack of leadership, see:

"Will Steve Jobs have to leave Apple?"

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/31868/128/

[jamezog]

Originally Posted by Splinemodel

Stock options: in other words, Steve kicked ass because Apple kicked ass. I see nothing wrong with this.

Couldn't agree more. Steve has earned it - let's just hope he uses it as wisely as he's earned it.

[jamezog]

Ouragan, have you studied Apple's business strategy recently? 5% to 6% market share with a system that defies the Windows juggernaut is nothing to criticize, especially when it's consistently rising. Apple would rather make a quality product that appeals to a select few who are willing to pay a little extra for it than become the next Wal-Mart computer company (er, Dell).

And I'm pretty sure that iPod+iTunes has a bit more than 6% market share.

I don't mean to insult a fellow Canuck, but be careful around here. Most of us know how deliberate Apple's strategy is, and how successful it's been to date. If you've got a valid criticism, do share, but raving controversies don't help much.

[purpleshorts]

A tear-down of Steve Jobs revealed that his component parts are worth only $38.95.

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by ouragan

At Apple, compensation for the CEO and his pet Vice-Presidents is insane, demented, unwarranted and the reason why Apple will NEVER succeed in the market place beyond its paltry 5% or 6% US market share.

I think you are talking out of your posterior. The iPod has something like 30% global market share, 80% in much of the developed world, and that's about half of Apple's business now.

In a business sense, market share is irrelevant if it's not profitable. Apple makes (very roughly) about as much net profit as HP and Dell does, with generally about twice the profit margin.

Heck, most companies in most industries don't have a 5% market share in anything.

As much as I'd like Apple to have a bigger market share for computers, I think they are going to do better being a consumer electronics company than they did as a computer company.

[Abster2core]

Originally Posted by solipsism

That is just incorrect on so many levels.

Re Ouragon

This guy should be ignored. (See his previous posts).

Obviously, he's just trying to stir up shit. Responding to him just increases his ignorance and for any one of us to do so may be construed as contibuting to juvenile or mental cruelty.

[JupiterOne]

[whysoblue]

He's definitely worth every penny, seeing how much the AAPL market cap has risen, how influential the company and it's products have been in the markets they enter since Amelio was ousted, and how much better off the company is with Jobs. They definitely need to make public the succession plan within the next couple years. Would Steve be any more of a valuable asset if he made half? Would he even consider leaving?

After reading the shareholder books that were just released, I agree it's excessive, but worth it.

But, being an employee of a company with a CEO who's on the list, I think full CEO pay packages MUST be directly tied to company performance. Company profits go down, CEO pay goes down. Company profits go up, share the wealth (especially so in this case because Apple doesn't issue a dividend).

[scottiB]

Originally Posted by nagromme

"Jobs' $646.6 million came in the form of restricted stock options that vested during the year, bringing his 5-year compensation total for work done at Apple to $650.17 million. "

So if he made 650 mil in 5 years, and of that, 646 was this year... I assume that means he made far less for the previous years, and this is a one-time event not expected to be duplicated each year?

Exactly. The four previous years Jobs made $3.57 million - an average of $892,500.

Over 5 years her averaged $130 million/year.

Over 5 years, here's how AAPL tracked. With the stock splitting 2:1, the value is actually $200/share for anyone who purchased 5 years ago at the share price of $11.675 (market open May 3, 2002): 1713.06% gain.

[Swift]

There are two ways of looking at this: one is from the shareholder's value, where Jobs is obviously worth every bit of what he took. From 11.00 to 100. in five years, with a split in there, means the owner of Apple stock in May 2002 who bought at $11.00 now has $200. The uproar over paying off in options and stock came when CEOs with poorly-performing companies were getting huge awards anyway. That defeated the purpose of paying off only in stock, or tying compensation to performance. This obviously doesn't really set off alarm bells, as long as his stock, awarded near $11, is paid off at $200. If he had just kept the company level, he would have gotten, what, $34 million for five years? My math is terrible. Or if the company had gone lower, he'd have been shown the door by now.

On the other hand, executive compensation in general has gone too high in comparison with the average worker, in general. In the greatest boom our in history, the postwar expansion from 1945-1971, Jobs would have made a salary, maybe up to, oh, a couple of million dollars. And his lowest-paid worker would have made about $10,000 -- both when those sums had much larger buying power than they do now.

[coremonkey]

Originally Posted by ouragan

Apple will NEVER succeed in the market place beyond its paltry 5% or 6% US market share.

As Jobs has said in the past, BMW and Mercedes Benz combined have less market share in the US than Apple. Which, to me says that you not only get what you pay for, but that there are few US consumers with enough taste, style, and originality to think outside the box.

On that note, if Apple had a 80% market share it means they'd be producing crap much like Microsoft and I would look elsewhere for my computing needs.

So with that, go do something productive like defrag your hard drive, scan for viruses, or reinstall your OS. Enjoy!

[superkaratemonkeydeathcar]

Eisner and every other CEO should have their pay tied inextricably to stock performance. Steve rocks and has done amazing things in a truly tough, tough business.

[hypoluxa]

Hmmm....Why not distibute the enmorous pay back to the company employees and buyers (as really discounted prices) who really made Apple "kick ass" Not just the head person... I know there has been argument on this before here on the forums.. but damn, do CEO's really need that much pay for what they they do? Stock options or pay...that is a shit ton of money. I think salary caps are practical, thay way the company as a whole get to benefit from the good business. just my 2cents.

[quinney]

Originally Posted by webmail

I don't have to share the 1.3 million dollars I reported in earnings on Apple stock this year :-)

So you're the one who has been doing all the selling

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by hypoluxa

Hmmm....Why not distibute the enmorous pay back to the company employees and buyers (as really discounted prices) who really made Apple "kick ass" Not just the head person... I know there has been argument on this before here on the forums.. but damn, do CEO's really need that much pay for what they they do? Stock options or pay...that is a shit ton of money. I think salary caps are practical, thay way the company as a whole get to benefit from the good business. just my 2cents.

Have salary caps ever been effective? It causes other problems last I heard, causes more problems then it is supposed to fix.

Redistributing the money is probably not effective in any way. Let's say that we wanted to redistribute $100M to all iPod owners, if you owned an iPod, then you get $1. Redistributing $100M to all Mac owners would be about $5.

[hypoluxa]

Originally Posted by JeffDM

Have salary caps ever been effective? It causes other problems last I heard, causes more problems then it is supposed to fix.

Redistributing the money is probably not effective in any way. Let's say that we wanted to redistribute $100M to all iPod owners, if you owned an iPod, then you get $1. Redistributing $100M to all Mac owners would be about $5.

WelI wouldn't actually want distribute the earnigs back to mac owners persay, more like using the profit somewhat to cut prices on stuff, therefore inabling new users etc to be able to afford a new Mac, hence Apple selling more HW, SW etc.

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by hypoluxa

WelI wouldn't actually want distribute the earnigs back to mac owners persay, more like using the profit somewhat to cut prices on stuff, therefore inabling new users etc to be able to afford a new Mac, hence Apple selling more HW, SW etc.

So, instead of a $1099 price on a Mac Book, a $1094 price would be seen as significantly better? Would the difference between $1049 and $1099 be a significant turn-off? That's part of the point I am driving at.

[SuperMacGuy]

A 34% pay raise? No one in the middle class (or lower class) ever gets that much of a pay raise. It's obscene that Jobs gets paid that much. I'm all for Apple doing well but the reality is the growing gap between employee pay and CEO pay is directly related to overpayment of CEOs, like this. Jobs isn't necessarily the guilty one, its the boards that vote on giving so much away. Really, nearly all of that pay raise should go to the hardworking Apple employees, the grunts doing hard programming and product development.
Say what you will to me, when was the last time any of YOU got a 34% pay raise? ... Didn't think so.

[hypoluxa]

Originally Posted by SuperMacGuy

A 34% pay raise? No one in the middle class (or lower class) ever gets that much of a pay raise. It's obscene that Jobs gets paid that much. I'm all for Apple doing well but the reality is the growing gap between employee pay and CEO pay is directly related to overpayment of CEOs, like this. Jobs isn't necessarily the guilty one, its the boards that vote on giving so much away. Really, nearly all of that pay raise should go to the hardworking Apple employees, the grunts doing hard programming and product development.
Say what you will to me, when was the last time any of YOU got a 34% pay raise? ... Didn't think so.

My point exactly.. I could'nt have said it better.

[anantksundaram]

Originally Posted by aiapdn

I'm not bothered at all by what Jobs makes. What worries me is that there isn't a _visible_ succession plan. Apple seems to be a 'one man show' at the top, and Jobs won't live forever...

Wow.... great first post. I agree wholeheartedly. This is a "poison put" on Apple's stock value. Hopefully, the succession process has started, and in earnest.

My one other slight issue is: Steve Jobs is now at a wealth level ($4+ or $5+ billion?) at which he should be starting to talk about what he is going to do with it all -- i.e., he should not just start his succession planning, but also planning his non-Apple/post-Apple legacy.

[bwik]

Tell me who contributed more to the prosperity of the USA in the last 5 years than Steve Jobs. He truly built Apple with his own mind. Everyone in America should thank him. He made my life better. He also made me richer thanks to AAPL stock. To me, he created this money so he deserves it, and more. And as a stockholder, my opinion counts.

[ouragan]

Apple's Steve Jobs tops list of highest paid CEOs

Despite a $1 yearly salary, Apple chief executive Steve Jobs still managed to top Forbes' list of highest paid CEOs for 2006, raking in more than $646 million through stock-based compensation -- more than twice that of the next highest paid boss.

As a comparison, the CEO of Canada's largest bank, The Royal Bank of Canada, earned the unprecedented compensation of $6.5 millions in 2006.

Compare that to the top 4 Vice-Presidents of Apple who earned a combined $64.5 million in 2006. See "Top four Apple execs net $64.5 million in 2006 as Jobs earns just one dollar" at:

http://notes.thinksecret.com/secretn...cpaynote.shtml


A balanced Stock Market place is made in equal parts with investors who have a positive outlook of the future and, in equal numbers, individuals who are pessimistic about the future of a company.

In the case of Apple, there are a number of red flags which have been ignored for far too long. Beware of when the sky comes falling in. Or the SEC. Or the class action lawsuits of shareholders who consider that a plublicly traded company doesn't exist for the sole benefit of its CEO and his pet Vice-Presidents.

As a corporate and business lawyer, it has been my view that a company belongs to its shareholders who are entitled to share in the profits without undue interference by management who wants to keep all the profits to itself.

Computer buyers have been asked to overlook the Steve Jobs premium they pay for the privilege of owning an Apple computer. Investors have been asked to overlook the outrageous and illegal compensation paid to the CEO and top management of Apple. Why is that?

How is Apple different from any other company listed on the NASDQ Stock Exchange?

There needs to be a balanced outlook on the prospects of Apple. Apple will not break away from its niche market so long as:

1- Steve Jobs is the CEO of Apple;
2- Steve Jobs asks for such a demented compensation for himself and the 4 Vice-Presidents he chosed to lead Apple (no amount of money can ever compensate the insecurity and feeling of rejection of an adopted child);
3- Steve Jobs doesn't see the need for Apple to market an inexpensive "no frills, no remote control" office computer for consumers and businesses who just want to do word processing, simple accounting, emails and basic internet surfing (during office hours);
4- Steve Jobs refuses to allow Dell, HP, Gateway and Lenovo to install Mac OS X on a minimum of 20% of their computers.


It's high time for shareholders to revolt and demand that Tim Cook take over the CEO position at Apple. Does the SEC need to intervene and ask for jail time for Steve Jobs or will Apple shareholders wake up?

Rob Enderle summed it up best when he described the legal problems of Steve Jobs in "Will Steve Jobs have to leave Apple?" at:

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/31868/128/


The only open question is whether Apple could have adopted and developped Mac OS X without Steve Jobs as its CEO. Maybe not. But Steve Jobs has served his purpose and must now leave to open up the future of Apple.