or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Investors › AAPL Investors › Apple rewards finance chief with $69M pay in 2012, highest of any CFO
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple rewards finance chief with $69M pay in 2012, highest of any CFO

post #1 of 37
Thread Starter 
Apple Chief Financial Officer Peter Oppenheimer was the highest paid among all CFOs in 2012, as the Cupertino company rewarded him immensely for its financial performance.

iMacs


Oppenheimer, under whose watch Apple's cash pile grew to roughly $120 billion in 2012, saw a compensation package of $68.6 million for the year, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. That figure is more than 16 times Apple CEO Tim Cook's compensation for the year.

Stock grants issued to retain top executive talent comprised almost the whole of Oppenheimer's pay for the year, which was the fifth-highest among all S&P 500 executives, including CEOs.The $68.6 million figure far outstripped the $51.7 million earned by tech's next-highest compensated CFO, Oracle's Safra Catz. Google's Patrick Pichette was No. 3 at $38.7 million.

Oppenheimer's financial stewardship has allowed Apple to amass cash holdings in excess of many companies' yearly earnings. By keeping two-thirds of Apple's holdings outside the United States, Oppenheimer saved the company billions in corporate tax payments.

Apple's financial chief also architected the company's recent bond offering, which will allow it to avoid $9.2 billion in taxes by borrowing against its cash position instead of repatriating its overseas holdings. The debt Apple takes on will allow it to fund its $100 billion capital return program, which is at least partially credited with putting a bottom under Apple stock after it briefly dipped below $400 in April.

Oppenheimer assumed the CFO role in 2004, having previously served as corporate controller and vice president and worldwide sales controller.
post #2 of 37
Ridiculous
post #3 of 37

The another moral hazard case. Apple should be ashamed. irked.gif

post #4 of 37
Larry Ellison would be proud.
post #5 of 37

That is not pay for performance.

 

For 2012, the guy deserved a pay cut.

post #6 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by decondo View Post

Ridiculous

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MiddleGuy View Post

The another moral hazard case. Apple should be ashamed. irked.gif

 

It's only "ridiculous" if you try to tie in someone's salary with what they "deserve", whatever the hell that means. That's never been the case, and never will be. Apple pyas him according to what they're willing to pay him to KEEP him, and also according to the financial benefits he afford the company (tax breaks, etc) which numbers in the billions of dollars. It's simply a math equation, and if you look at it that way, what they're paying him is a "steal" compared to what he's making them. He's considered one of the best CFOs in the world. and since he's been with Apple for so long and knows their operations intimately, it's in Apple's best interest to make sure he goes nowhere else. I'm sure there's a shitload of other companies who would love to have him, and clearly Apple wants to keep him happy. 

 

That being said, is $69million in salary ludicrous for any one individual? Of course it is. Do I blame Apple for paying him that much, or him for accepting it? No, because I understand the dynamics of the situation. 

post #7 of 37

I'm very disappointed.  With Steve gone, the executives at Apple are going to do what all executives at large corporation do: abuse the system because they can.  What a dirt bag.  $69 M a year for a CFO.  There are thousands of talented people out there that could do just as good of job at CFO and they would do it for $1M/year.

post #8 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

 

 

It's only "ridiculous" if you try to tie in someone's salary with what they "deserve", whatever the hell that means. That's never been the case, and never will be. Apple pyas him according to what they're willing to pay him to KEEP him, and also according to the financial benefits he afford the company (tax breaks, etc) which numbers in the billions of dollars. It's simply a math equation, and if you look at it that way, what they're paying him is a "steal" compared to what he's making them. He's considered one of the best CFOs in the world. and since he's been with Apple for so long and knows their operations intimately, it's in Apple's best interest to make sure he goes nowhere else. I'm sure there's a shitload of other companies who would love to have him, and clearly Apple wants to keep him happy. 

 

That being said, is $69million in salary ludicrous for any one individual? Of course it is. Do I blame Apple for paying him that much, or him for accepting it? No, because I understand the dynamics of the situation. 

Why keep him?  Seriously.  The only reason these guys get paid that much is because a culture of back scratchers on boards allow it to happen.  The problem is shareholders have allowed the culture to develop.  Unwinding it will be hard to do.  Shareholders need to start somewhere.  Cut his pay to 6.9 million and see if he walks.  I assure you he is replaceable with probably even better talent for pay in the 2-10 million range.

post #9 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by ash471 View Post

  Cut his pay to 6.9 million and see if he walks

Last I checked, his base salary was less than $900k.  Like the article says "stock grants issued to retain top executive talent comprised almost the whole of Oppenheimer's pay for the year" The guy would be an idiot to turn down about 150k shares of Apple for incentive to stay and continue to do his job well.

post #10 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by ash471 View Post

I'm very disappointed.  With Steve gone, the executives at Apple are going to do what all executives at large corporation do: abuse the system because they can.  What a dirt bag.  $69 M a year for a CFO.  There are thousands of talented people out there that could do just as good of job at CFO and they would do it for $1M/year.

And obviously you are not one of them. Thank God!

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." Douglas Adams

Reply

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." Douglas Adams

Reply
post #11 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by ash471 View Post

Why keep him?  Seriously.  The only reason these guys get paid that much is because a culture of back scratchers on boards allow it to happen.  The problem is shareholders have allowed the culture to develop.  Unwinding it will be hard to do.  Shareholders need to start somewhere.  Cut his pay to 6.9 million and see if he walks.  I assure you he is replaceable with probably even better talent for pay in the 2-10 million range.

Armchair "experts"... gotta love 'em!
post #12 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by ash471 View Post

There are thousands of talented people out there that could do just as good of job at CFO and they would do it for $1M/year.

 

Instead of spending time being jealous what other people make, why don't you take that misplaced energy and aim it at improving your own situation.

 

-kpluck

Do you use MagicJack?

The default settings will automatically charge your credit card each year for service renewal. You will not be notified or warned in anyway. You can turn auto renewal off.

Reply

Do you use MagicJack?

The default settings will automatically charge your credit card each year for service renewal. You will not be notified or warned in anyway. You can turn auto renewal off.

Reply
post #13 of 37

Until and unless the naysayers are able to prove how much more suitable they are to take this person's position, at a much lower salary (plus benefits,) then they should really keep to themselves. This guy has done an amazing job at saving the company ridiculous amounts of money. What they're offering him to keep him there is chump change in the scheme of things. Plus, the majority of that compensation appears to be stock; it's not like he's getting a check for $5,750,000 each month.

post #14 of 37

Only one word: obscene... Hope he soon leaves. Unethical Douchebag... I am sorry for the strong word

post #15 of 37
post #16 of 37
Originally Posted by decondo View Post
Ridiculous

 

Okay. You do better.


Originally Posted by ash471 View Post
With Steve gone, the executives at Apple are going to do what all executives at large corporation do: abuse the system because they can.

 

Prove it.


There are thousands of talented people out there that could do just as good of job at CFO and they would do it for $1M/year.

 

Okay. You do better.


Originally Posted by ash471 View Post
The only reason these guys get paid that much is because a culture of back scratchers on boards allow it to happen.

 

Prove it.


Cut his pay to 6.9 million and see if he walks.

 

Why do you think you get to decide this? Maybe your pay should be cut to 20,000 a year. Notice I haven't specified a currency yet. I'll get to that once I've determined your worth.


Originally Posted by osewisewose View Post
Only one word: obscene...

 

Prove it.


Unethical Douchebag... I am sorry for the strong word

 

No, you're not. You're not intelligent enough to have an actual argument, so I'm not surprised you're not sorry for what your ignorance has borne.

post #17 of 37
A lot of anti-capitalists and anarchists in this thread... just sayin'....!
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #18 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

.
Prove it.

Prove it.

Prove it.
Where's the evidence that Oppenheimer is worth $69m to the company, what value did he bring last year that is over and beyond what any other more modestly paid CFO could have brought?

You prove it.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #19 of 37
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
You prove it.

 

Okay, you can't. Thanks.

post #20 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

Where's the evidence that Oppenheimer is worth $69m to the company, what value did he bring last year that is over and beyond what any other more modestly paid CFO could have brought?

You prove it.

The burden of proof is on the accuser.
post #21 of 37
No it isn't. There is no burden of proof on expressing an opinion on an internet forum. There is a credibility question, but when Apple are so secretive about this stuff then equally if you're going to credibly defend a position then you should eat your own dogfood and prove your assertions.

I haven't asserted anything.
Edited by Crowley - 5/10/13 at 7:23am

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #22 of 37

@ Talles skill: It seems to me that you are very fast on you conclusions. Keep us informed on your progress :-)

post #23 of 37
Originally Posted by osewisewose View Post
@ Talles skill: It seems to me that you are very fast on you conclusions. Keep us informed on your progress :-)

 

What right do you have to say how much someone else makes? 

 

Answer that and you'll be on your way to actually having an argument.

post #24 of 37
Shareholders have the right and the responsibility to monitor executive remuneration.

Everyone has the right to an opinion and the freedom to express it.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #25 of 37
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
Shareholders have the right and the responsibility to monitor executive remuneration.

 

Well, when the shareholders complain about this, then we can say it's "too much".

post #26 of 37
Have no idea what point you're trying to prove now. You think all discussion needs to stall until a shareholder meeting? How dull.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #27 of 37
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
Have no idea what point you're trying to prove now. You think all discussion needs to stall until a shareholder meeting? How dull.

 

He's being compensated. You said the shareholders can change that. They're not. End of discussion.

post #28 of 37
Congress could have changed gun laws. They didn't. End of discussion?

Nonsense you speak.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #29 of 37
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
Congress could have changed gun laws. They didn't. End of discussion?

 

I didn't think I would have to spell it out even further for you, but if you want to be obstinate I may as well embarrass you completely.

 

Shareholders are the ones with the "right and responsibility to monitor executive remuneration". They didn't. They obviously believe he's receiving an acceptable amount of money. End of discussion, until such time as his compensation changes as a percentage of the revenue stream.

 

Get. Over. Your. Self. Your beliefs don't matter. If you want them to matter, buy more stock and whine louder, but when you start telling people how much they're allowed to earn, it goes both ways.

post #30 of 37

You can't end a discussion by saying "end of discussion".  Even if you say it repeatedly.  Doesn't work that way bro.  If you don't want to discuss it then toddle on, that's your choice.

 

Maybe the majority of shareholders are happy with the pay package, it's not immediately clear, and certainly not "obvious" that they are.  It's not unheard of for the mechanisms for renumeration oversight in large companies to be absent, and overlooked due to inertia.  That doesn't mean that shareholders would be individually happy with the level of pay.  It also doesn't help that institutional ownership distorts these things, as that kind of shareholder tends not to be concerned with things like executive pay.  Doesn't mean they approve, it means they don't care either way.

 

Moreover, even if the majority do approve, so fucking what?  That doesn't mean all do, that doesn't mean they're right to approve and that doesn't mean there can't be independent comment on whether $69m is an amount of money that a person can reasonably earn.

 

Also, "get over your self"? What are you talking about?  Discussing things in a sensible way is not arrogance, and certainly not whining.  Cutting off discussion for no reason other than you don't like it on the other hand...

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #31 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

I may as well embarrass you completely.

Didn't even notice this on first read lol.gif

 

What a grade A jerk you aspire to be.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #32 of 37
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

Maybe the majority of shareholders are happy with the pay package, it's not immediately clear, and certainly not "obvious" that they are.

 

Do you see shareholders calling for a formal inquiry into his pay? 


Doesn't mean they approve, it means they don't care either way.

 

Apathy is acceptance as much as it is rejection. 


Moreover, even if the majority do approve, so fucking what?

 

So then you're wrong?


That doesn't mean all do, that doesn't mean they're right to approve and that doesn't mean there can't be independent comment on whether $69m is an amount of money that a person can reasonably earn.

 

It just means that the people who think they can tell others how much they earn don't matter, therefore are irrelevant.


Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
Didn't even notice this on first read 

 

That pretty much shows you don't bother even reading responses to your comments. 

post #33 of 37

Ah, multi quoting. I can do that too.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Do you see shareholders calling for a formal inquiry into his pay? 

 

Do I see them?  Maybe, maybe not.  What has that got to do with anything?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Apathy is acceptance as much as it is rejection. 

 

No it isn't.  Apathy is apathy, and neither acceptance or rejection.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

So then you're wrong?

 

There's always a chance that I'm wrong, but no that's not an obvious implication, I just have more than one string to pluck.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

It just means that the people who think they can tell others how much they earn don't matter, therefore are irrelevant.

 

Newsflash braniac, there is nothing, nothing that is said on this message board that is going to have any effect on anything Apple does.  Oppenheimer is not reading this.  It's all irrelevant.  Doesn't mean it can't be interesting.  Not having the conversation at all however, is definitely uninteresting.

 

As I said before, if you don't find it interesting, don't click in, no one's forcing you to engage.  You're the one trying to close down conversation.  You're the one imposing yourself.  You're the one demanding to be heard as relevant.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

That pretty much shows you don't bother even reading responses to your comments. 

 

It really doesn't at all.  Laughable attempt to discredit.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #34 of 37
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
Do I see them?  Maybe, maybe not.  What has that got to do with anything?

 

It's your argument. Don't play stupid; people will start to think you are.

 

I'm ignoring the rest. You're smart enough to see where you went wrong quite a while ago.

post #35 of 37

You're arguing with arguments that you've made up.  Where did I say I saw shareholders doing anything?  Where did I say that shareholders were the only people allowed opinions?

 

You take dogmatism in your refusal to brook any criticism of Apple or its practices to a ludicrous extreme.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #36 of 37
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
You're arguing with arguments that you've made up.  Where did I say I saw shareholders doing anything?  Where did I say that shareholders were the only people allowed opinions?


Okay. Play stupid, then. *shrug*

post #37 of 37

Fine, getting bored of you anyway.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AAPL Investors
AppleInsider › Forums › Investors › AAPL Investors › Apple rewards finance chief with $69M pay in 2012, highest of any CFO