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.