I think more CEO's should be paid this way. Pretty awesome that his pay is really based on his performance, stock goes down, he stands to lose a ton of money, for every $1, he'll lose $5,500,000....
Yeah, but aside from the one buck and stock he received, don't forget about the 90 million dollars for the Gulfstream V jet, which he received as a bonus in 1999. He didn't get much use out of it in 2009 due to his illness which I hope is now behind him, BUT, he was reimbursed by Apple $871,000 in 2008 for travels. So depreciated value of a 90 million dollar jet, plus fuel costs, maintenance costs, flight crew costs, plus stock profit or loss, plus $1.00... Steve's doing alright!
I wonder if Al Gore ever excoriated Steve for not flying commercial, first class is pretty good these days, and save the planet from all that carbon polluting that's done by corporate jets hauling a dozen people or less, going to the same airport say a United 767 hauling a hundred or two people is going?! Oh wait, Gore flies corporate too...
Yeah, you gave him a plane in 1999, but it wasn't part of his salary. It was a one-time bonus.
Ah, but it is the gift that keeps on giving... like your car there is an annual inspection, but there are also intermediate inspections, as well as equipment and system inspections like ELT (emergency locator transmitter) battery, pitot static system, altimeter checks, and don't forget AD's (airworthiness directives that must be complied to make the aircraft "airworthy", as well depending on type of aircraft and class and category as well as whether it's following FAR's Part 91 (private planes), Part 135 (corporate charter type outfits) or Part 121 (airlines). Hopefully nothing breaks... ever check out the cost of replacing a blown tire or cracked windshield... stupid bird...
Then you have flight crew salaries and incidentals such as their hotels, meals etc. for overnights.
Catering to stock the flight with food, fruit coffee, etc.* (I guess that is optional and Steve can brown bag it, but who here thinks that's happening?)
Then you have landing fees at airports and fees from FBO's (Fixed Base Operators) where you go to park since you can't go to the main terminal with the big boys.
And what's the cost of jet fuel these days?
And then there is the property taxes that the corporation has to pay to Uncle Sam...
And let's not forget the carbon credits Apple has to buy from Al Gore for all the carbon pollution Apple's Gulf Stream puts out ...
Ah, but it is the gift that keeps on giving... like your car there is an annual inspection, but there are also intermediate inspections, as well as equipment and system inspections like... (response truncated for legibility)
My guess is that some people knew all of this in advance and figured out a way to charter the plane out to get others to foot most of the total cost of ownership before they suggested to Steve that he should ask for a private jet from Santa.
i think you're really right about this. what with all the controversy at the moment about executive salaries/bonuses, you have right here a solid gold way to tie executive income to long-term company performance.
It's a contrived controversy... an attempt to create class rivalry. CEOs are no different than anyone else, they try to get payed as much as they can. There's no problem with this. There's also no problem envying or even hating those that make more than you do.
The problem is allowing envy and hate to formulate political policies to limit salaries.
If executive pay was regulated, Steve Jobs wouldn't have made a killing at Apple in the 80's and had enough money to buy Pixar from George Lucas, with change leftover to start Next (which made OS X and iPhones possible). Today's Apple is the "death blow" counter-arguement to anyone hyperventilating about CEO pay. Especially on this forum, without outrageous CEO pay, we'd all be at a Xerox typewriter club meeting, bitching about ink ribbons.
I think more CEO's should be paid this way. Pretty awesome that his pay is really based on his performance, stock goes down, he stands to lose a ton of money, for every $1, he'll lose $5,500,000....
I think more CEO's should be paid this way. Pretty awesome that his pay is really based on his performance, stock goes down, he stands to lose a ton of money, for every $1, he'll lose $5,500,000....
A big reason he's paid that way is because capital gains taxes in the US are a lot less than income tax. Even though we theoretically have progressive taxation, there are so many loopholes that the rich pay less in taxes as a percentage of earnings than the middle class.
It's a contrived controversy... an attempt to create class rivalry. CEOs are no different than anyone else, they try to get payed as much as they can. There's no problem with this. There's also no problem envying or even hating those that make more than you do.
The problem is allowing envy and hate to formulate political policies to limit salaries.
If executive pay was regulated, Steve Jobs wouldn't have made a killing at Apple in the 80's and had enough money to buy Pixar from George Lucas, with change leftover to start Next (which made OS X and iPhones possible). Today's Apple is the "death blow" counter-arguement to anyone hyperventilating about CEO pay. Especially on this forum, without outrageous CEO pay, we'd all be at a Xerox typewriter club meeting, bitching about ink ribbons.
I completely disagree. If you want to buy the notion that CEO's have a fiduciary duty to operate in the interest of their shareholders (a notion I disagree with - I think it should be balanced between shareholders, employees and customers), then you have to take issue when CEOs fail and still receive absurd amounts of compensation.
Whenever Democrats say they want to do something like increase taxes on the rich or increase capital gains taxes, Republicans cry, "class warfare". But the class distinctions have already been created by taxing capital gains at a lower rate than ordinary income and creating a society in which CEOs make 100 to 1000x what the average worker makes, a ratio that has constantly been increasing (and, by the way, is much higher in the U.S. than it is in Europe.)
America sucessfully functioned because of the middle class. But the middle class is getting destroyed because their jobs have moved overseas and other jobs that used to pay well no longer do. So we're going to have the nauseatingly rich and the "just getting by, but my kids can't afford to move out" poor. What Wall Street seems to fail to realize every time they boost the share price of a company that lays off a thousand workers is that those workers aren't going to be buying the products of other Wall Street companies.
Jobs did not "make a killing" at Apple in the 80's from salary (although he was certainly well compensated.) He made it from stock - stock that he owned primarily because he was a co-founder of the company (although there were additional grants over the years.)
Don't give me this B.S. that exec salaries in public companies shouldn't be regulated because those execs then invest in other companies to create benefits for us all. Those execs who invest in other companies NEVER use their own money. It's all loans and/or VC money. The fact is that executive compensation is driven by the "old boys club" and that "old boys club" has completely lost all sense of modesty and proportion. I don't mind a CEO getting rich. But I do mind them making more money than they could ever possibly spend, raising the price of real estate and luxury good for everyone else, and yet, doing an especially incompetent or in some cases, illegal job of running their companies. As far as I'm concerned, while I understand why the Feds bailed out the banks, most of those CEOs belong in jail.
Now having said all that, I think your premise is misguided: no one serious is talking about regulating salaries of CEOs EXCEPT for those companies still owing Federal bailout money. However, I'd be happier if they did regulate the salaries of CEOs in public companies.
However, if any exec out there deserves killer compensation, it is Jobs. While no company is perfect and there still remains a level of arrogance at Apple that is disturbing, he has batted about .900 since returning to Apple's helm. No one could have expected or asked for more than he's accomplished and although I think it's temporary, the stock hit a new record today.
And if they do indeed pull off a successful tablet - one that people purchase in addition to their iPhone and computer (and not a replacement), we could see the stock at $300 within two years.
i think you're really right about this. what with all the controversy at the moment about executive salaries/bonuses, you have right here a solid gold way to tie executive income to long-term company performance.
Not necessarily so, just look at what happened with Enron and WorldCom as examples.
Isn?t that why we now have SOx so companies, so companies can?t use wonky accounting practices?
It's what you have in the USA, remember this is the World Wide Web, some countries have equivalent but not identical legislation. I understand Sarbanes-Oxley only covers public companies in the USA and not every company.
I'm not sure that SOx would have totally eliminated Enron's shenanigans; Enron directors were manipulating their market and making bold claims to influence the share price in addition to fiddling their books.
It's essential shareholders scrutinise their companies to ensure they behave well in a profitable manner.
Apple shareholders can't complain about company performance or current share price but surely isn't it time for a dividend as a thank you?
It's what you have in the USA, remember this is the World Wide Web, some countries have equivalent but not identical legislation. I understand Sarbanes-Oxley only covers public companies in the USA and not every company.
I?m well aware of where SOx reigns but remember that Apple and Enron are/were US companies. It doesn?t matter if Apple sells outside the US they are still governed by US accounting laws.
Quote:
I'm not sure that SOx would have totally eliminated Enron's shenanigans; Enron directors were manipulating their market and making bold claims to influence the share price in addition to fiddling their books.
SOx is a joke.
Quote:
Apple shareholders can't complain about company performance or current share price but surely isn't it time for a dividend as a thank you?
No thank you! I don?t want dividends from my tech stocks. I didn?t by into Apple expecting dividends. I bought in expecting rapid growth. Tech is volatile in nature and having a plenty of cash on hand helps to sooth investors and allow the company to invest in new tech when it needs to. I have plenty of other stocks that are slower and more stable due to the nature of their business for which i get dividends. In fact, I live off my dividends and have been doing it for about 5 years now since i retired at 30 and I still don?t want Apple to issue dividends.
Having $30B USD is not as much as people think it is. Apple paid $0.5B to secure NAND last year, they?ll likely have to double it for this year. There are always other component purchases, or small or large acquisitions they have to be ready for. With tech companies have cash helps gets you lowered prices on parts and readies for the inevitable shift in technology.
I heard he still gets health benefits paid for by Apple but that he had cashed out of his Apple stock back when the crystal shard was broken and Skeksis were running Apple.
I completely disagree. If you want to buy the notion that CEO's have a fiduciary duty to operate in the interest of their shareholders (a notion I disagree with - I think it should be balanced between shareholders, employees and customers), then you have to take issue when CEOs fail and still receive absurd amounts of compensation.
It's called a job. Some people work hourly, some work for a salary. The only difference between the boss and the janitor is the rate. I think you're trying to hard to counter economic realities proven time and time again, to an abstract philosophic construct. Your "workers" screw around on the internet, make mistakes, and lose profits just as well as CEOs do. You'll find people at all strata who are overcompensated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb
Whenever Democrats say they want to do something like increase taxes on the rich or increase capital gains taxes, Republicans cry, "class warfare". But the class distinctions have already been created by taxing capital gains at a lower rate than ordinary income and creating a society in which CEOs make 100 to 1000x what the average worker makes, a ratio that has constantly been increasing (and, by the way, is much higher in the U.S. than it is in Europe.)
Let's please keep your political fan club allegiances and biases out of this. There's more to life than the two narrow perspectives as defined by the Ds & Rs you mention. Class warfare existed long before those two parties ever existed, and capital gains taxes screw poor stock holders like me, just like everyone else.
Executives are 'workers' too. It's people with a political agenda, that want to stoke envy and hate for this distinction? like I said - stoking class warfare.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb
America sucessfully functioned because of the middle class. But the middle class is getting destroyed because their jobs have moved overseas and other jobs that used to pay well no longer do. So we're going to have the nauseatingly rich and the "just getting by, but my kids can't afford to move out" poor. What Wall Street seems to fail to realize every time they boost the share price of a company that lays off a thousand workers is that those workers aren't going to be buying the products of other Wall Street companies.
The middle class is getting destroyed? Nauseatingly rich? Sounds a lot like you're a foot soldier/pawn/ideologue in some kind of, what do they call it? conflict? battle? war? between the "middle class" and these evil "rich". No?
Wall Street tries to make as much money as they can, just like a janitor or a sheet metal worker. Industries fail, and people lose jobs? movie at 11.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb
Jobs did not "make a killing" at Apple in the 80's from salary (although he was certainly well compensated.) He made it from stock - stock that he owned primarily because he was a co-founder of the company (although there were additional grants over the years.)
Yes he did, and besides? stock is compensation. He took his wealth and started two companies - Pixar and Next. Nice try.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb
Don't give me this B.S. that exec salaries in public companies shouldn't be regulated because those execs then invest in other companies to create benefits for us all. Those execs who invest in other companies NEVER use their own money. It's all loans and/or VC money. The fact is that executive compensation is driven by the "old boys club" and that "old boys club" has completely lost all sense of modesty and proportion. I don't mind a CEO getting rich. But I do mind them making more money than they could ever possibly spend, raising the price of real estate and luxury good for everyone else, and yet, doing an especially incompetent or in some cases, illegal job of running their companies. As far as I'm concerned, while I understand why the Feds bailed out the banks, most of those CEOs belong in jail.
Again you're proving my point about the class warfare? you're very worked up about "old boys' clubs" and "execs". Sounds a lot like fear mongering and scape goating.
And where do banks and VCs get their money? Do you know what percentage of VCs and startups are privately funded? Get to a library and hit the books. You're obviously oblivious to the fact that rich people are the ones who tend to invest in new companies, and they start these fancy little things called venture capital funds to do it. Duh. I take it you're not from Silicon Valley? More common than Starbucks here.
You don't mind a CEO being rich, just not too rich. What right do you have to impose your opinion on what others do or how much you think they should make?
You mind them making "more money than they can possibly spend"? How do you know what they can spend? Or plan to spend? Again, you're very self-centered to think that you know best.
I doubt you understand why the Fed bailed out the banks (I assume you're talking about he last two stimulus packages). In fact, the Fed has a hard time explaining why they bailed out the banks. Perhaps you can elaborate on the economic reasons, without the campaign pamphlet bulletin points?
*For fun:
Step 1 - Get 5 index cards,
Step 2 - Write down the total of all the unfairly payed "public" CEOs' salaries on the first card and turn it over
Step 3- Write the the total amount of money that was actually payed to banks and companies from the two recent stimulus packages on the second card
Step 4 - Write down the total price of the stimulus packages on the third
Step 5 - Subtract the number on card 2 from the number on card 3 and write down the result on card 4
Step 6 - Stare at card 4 for 1 minute without blinking.
Step 7 - Turn over card 1 and stare at it for 1 minute without blinking.
Step 8 - On card 5, write down why you think that the miniscule amount on card 1 is worth even mentioning when the amount on card 4 never went to bailout or stimulate any bank or industry.
Step 9 - Achieve enlightenment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb
Now having said all that, I think your premise is misguided: no one serious is talking about regulating salaries of CEOs EXCEPT for those companies still owing Federal bailout money. However, I'd be happier if they did regulate the salaries of CEOs in public companies.
Stocks that are "publicly traded" does not equal a "public" company. This might be the source of your difficulty. Lot's of people are seriously talking about limiting on CEO pay, you even admit your proclivity for such. It sucks when a CEO screws up, but it's unfair to renege on their pay. If you screw up all the orders at the drive-in window and get fired, you're still entitled to be payed your hourly rate. This is basic, again I think you're confusing political rhetoric with reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb
However, if any exec out there deserves killer compensation, it is Jobs. While no company is perfect and there still remains a level of arrogance at Apple that is disturbing, he has batted about .900 since returning to Apple's helm. No one could have expected or asked for more than he's accomplished and although I think it's temporary, the stock hit a new record today.
What does your perceived level of arrogance at Apple have to do with anything?
Execs deserve the amount that was agreed upon based upon their employment contract. Anything else is unfair and unjust. If there is a performance clause for part of their salary, like a car salesman's commission, then that part of their pay is affected by how well they do.
As an Apple shareholder, I don't like Gil Amelio, but he was entitled to all his pay. You see how Apple is the "death blow" to the whole CEO pay nonsense? Companies are responsible for their successes and failures, and hiring bad people happens. If the company is good, they don't keep wasting their money on bad materials and personnel. If they're a bad company, they keep hiring them, and go out of business. A number of those losers, beg the Fed to give them more money to avoid responsibility and bail them out for their failures. I'd start asking why politicians feel the need to reward these duds?
It's like asking the government to subsidize the Zune because Microsoft screwed it up. Makes no reasonable sense, but there's always a lot of very shallow, flowery political jive to sugar coat this crap. It's very easy to spend other people's money. What criminal is that the House and Senate have even stolen control over their pay raises from the people. We are their boss, and according to the Constitution - we have the inalienable right to vote on their wage increases. Pretty cute huh? Not even your greedy CEOs can just raise their pay whenever it suits them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb
And if they do indeed pull off a successful tablet - one that people purchase in addition to their iPhone and computer (and not a replacement), we could see the stock at $300 within two years.
I'm definitely looking forward to what Apple does next. However I don't think the stock prices are a big focus or motivator for Steve Jobs. My guess: he does Apple and helps create this stuff for fun - like Edison or Franklin - both made "a killing" but were driven almost exclusively by the challenges.
I'm definitely looking forward to what Apple does next. However I don't think the stock prices are a big focus or motivator for Steve Jobs. My guess: he does Apple and helps create this stuff for fun - like Edison or Franklin - both made "a killing" but were driven almost exclusively by the challenges.
There are a couple points that I?d disagree with.
1) I don?t think Jobs cares about how much money he has, per say, but I do think he cares about Apple valuation in relation to other tech companies, specifically Microsoft. They are on the heels of a profitable, yet stagnant MS. If Apple maintains their current growth rate it?s possible that Apple could overtake MS to become the tech company with the highest valuation. Considering the multi-decade intertwining rivalry while also working together, as well as the position Apple was in when Jobs returned to the helm this might be a motivator for him. It certainly would be for me in that situation.
2) Edison as a business man first and foremost. He was more about making money than making the best product. He?s scammed and cheated wherever he could to save a buck, even Nikoli Tesla, someone who was more focused on the invention than the profit to be had from it. He does work for your analogy as I see Jobs more like Edison (both are complete cocks) and Tesla more like Woz (not so much business sense, or at lest focus).
i think you're really right about this. what with all the controversy at the moment about executive salaries/bonuses, you have right here a solid gold way to tie executive income to long-term company performance.
You forget that most executives focus on short term results because of bonus/stock incentives. In fact, this was one of main reasons why bankers took such irresponsible risks leading up to the credit crisis.
Steve Jobs is a unique person. He's not greedy like most execs unfortunately are.
I do agree with you that long term results and value should be the basis for compensation. Stocks/bonuses/options are just not the way to achieve this.
Comments
I think more CEO's should be paid this way. Pretty awesome that his pay is really based on his performance, stock goes down, he stands to lose a ton of money, for every $1, he'll lose $5,500,000....
Yeah, but aside from the one buck and stock he received, don't forget about the 90 million dollars for the Gulfstream V jet, which he received as a bonus in 1999. He didn't get much use out of it in 2009 due to his illness which I hope is now behind him, BUT, he was reimbursed by Apple $871,000 in 2008 for travels. So depreciated value of a 90 million dollar jet, plus fuel costs, maintenance costs, flight crew costs, plus stock profit or loss, plus $1.00... Steve's doing alright!
I wonder if Al Gore ever excoriated Steve for not flying commercial, first class is pretty good these days, and save the planet from all that carbon polluting that's done by corporate jets hauling a dozen people or less, going to the same airport say a United 767 hauling a hundred or two people is going?! Oh wait, Gore flies corporate too...
Yeah, you gave him a plane in 1999, but it wasn't part of his salary. It was a one-time bonus.
Ah, but it is the gift that keeps on giving... like your car there is an annual inspection, but there are also intermediate inspections, as well as equipment and system inspections like ELT (emergency locator transmitter) battery, pitot static system, altimeter checks, and don't forget AD's (airworthiness directives that must be complied to make the aircraft "airworthy", as well depending on type of aircraft and class and category as well as whether it's following FAR's Part 91 (private planes), Part 135 (corporate charter type outfits) or Part 121 (airlines). Hopefully nothing breaks... ever check out the cost of replacing a blown tire or cracked windshield... stupid bird...
Then you have flight crew salaries and incidentals such as their hotels, meals etc. for overnights.
Catering to stock the flight with food, fruit coffee, etc.* (I guess that is optional and Steve can brown bag it, but who here thinks that's happening?)
Then you have landing fees at airports and fees from FBO's (Fixed Base Operators) where you go to park since you can't go to the main terminal with the big boys.
And what's the cost of jet fuel these days?
And then there is the property taxes that the corporation has to pay to Uncle Sam...
And let's not forget the carbon credits Apple has to buy from Al Gore for all the carbon pollution Apple's Gulf Stream puts out
Yeah one time bonus, life time expense...
Kind of like the acronym of owning a B.O.A.T...
Break Out Another Thousand!
Ah, but it is the gift that keeps on giving... like your car there is an annual inspection, but there are also intermediate inspections, as well as equipment and system inspections like... (response truncated for legibility)
My guess is that some people knew all of this in advance and figured out a way to charter the plane out to get others to foot most of the total cost of ownership before they suggested to Steve that he should ask for a private jet from Santa.
i think you're really right about this. what with all the controversy at the moment about executive salaries/bonuses, you have right here a solid gold way to tie executive income to long-term company performance.
It's a contrived controversy... an attempt to create class rivalry. CEOs are no different than anyone else, they try to get payed as much as they can. There's no problem with this. There's also no problem envying or even hating those that make more than you do.
The problem is allowing envy and hate to formulate political policies to limit salaries.
If executive pay was regulated, Steve Jobs wouldn't have made a killing at Apple in the 80's and had enough money to buy Pixar from George Lucas, with change leftover to start Next (which made OS X and iPhones possible). Today's Apple is the "death blow" counter-arguement to anyone hyperventilating about CEO pay. Especially on this forum, without outrageous CEO pay, we'd all be at a Xerox typewriter club meeting, bitching about ink ribbons.
doesn't he get paid a fraction of that one dollar due to his long absence from work?
No... payed sick leave.
But thanks for playing!
Your lovely parting gift is enlightenment
(& not the worthless hippy edition).
But bet he gets a few million in dividends, without even having to sell any of his shares.
I think more CEO's should be paid this way. Pretty awesome that his pay is really based on his performance, stock goes down, he stands to lose a ton of money, for every $1, he'll lose $5,500,000....
There are. http://www.paywizard.org/main/VIPPay...orporatecelebs
I think more CEO's should be paid this way. Pretty awesome that his pay is really based on his performance, stock goes down, he stands to lose a ton of money, for every $1, he'll lose $5,500,000....
A big reason he's paid that way is because capital gains taxes in the US are a lot less than income tax. Even though we theoretically have progressive taxation, there are so many loopholes that the rich pay less in taxes as a percentage of earnings than the middle class.
I'm sure that for Steve Jobs, money ceased to be a motivating factor some time ago.
It's a contrived controversy... an attempt to create class rivalry. CEOs are no different than anyone else, they try to get payed as much as they can. There's no problem with this. There's also no problem envying or even hating those that make more than you do.
The problem is allowing envy and hate to formulate political policies to limit salaries.
If executive pay was regulated, Steve Jobs wouldn't have made a killing at Apple in the 80's and had enough money to buy Pixar from George Lucas, with change leftover to start Next (which made OS X and iPhones possible). Today's Apple is the "death blow" counter-arguement to anyone hyperventilating about CEO pay. Especially on this forum, without outrageous CEO pay, we'd all be at a Xerox typewriter club meeting, bitching about ink ribbons.
I completely disagree. If you want to buy the notion that CEO's have a fiduciary duty to operate in the interest of their shareholders (a notion I disagree with - I think it should be balanced between shareholders, employees and customers), then you have to take issue when CEOs fail and still receive absurd amounts of compensation.
Whenever Democrats say they want to do something like increase taxes on the rich or increase capital gains taxes, Republicans cry, "class warfare". But the class distinctions have already been created by taxing capital gains at a lower rate than ordinary income and creating a society in which CEOs make 100 to 1000x what the average worker makes, a ratio that has constantly been increasing (and, by the way, is much higher in the U.S. than it is in Europe.)
America sucessfully functioned because of the middle class. But the middle class is getting destroyed because their jobs have moved overseas and other jobs that used to pay well no longer do. So we're going to have the nauseatingly rich and the "just getting by, but my kids can't afford to move out" poor. What Wall Street seems to fail to realize every time they boost the share price of a company that lays off a thousand workers is that those workers aren't going to be buying the products of other Wall Street companies.
Jobs did not "make a killing" at Apple in the 80's from salary (although he was certainly well compensated.) He made it from stock - stock that he owned primarily because he was a co-founder of the company (although there were additional grants over the years.)
Don't give me this B.S. that exec salaries in public companies shouldn't be regulated because those execs then invest in other companies to create benefits for us all. Those execs who invest in other companies NEVER use their own money. It's all loans and/or VC money. The fact is that executive compensation is driven by the "old boys club" and that "old boys club" has completely lost all sense of modesty and proportion. I don't mind a CEO getting rich. But I do mind them making more money than they could ever possibly spend, raising the price of real estate and luxury good for everyone else, and yet, doing an especially incompetent or in some cases, illegal job of running their companies. As far as I'm concerned, while I understand why the Feds bailed out the banks, most of those CEOs belong in jail.
Now having said all that, I think your premise is misguided: no one serious is talking about regulating salaries of CEOs EXCEPT for those companies still owing Federal bailout money. However, I'd be happier if they did regulate the salaries of CEOs in public companies.
However, if any exec out there deserves killer compensation, it is Jobs. While no company is perfect and there still remains a level of arrogance at Apple that is disturbing, he has batted about .900 since returning to Apple's helm. No one could have expected or asked for more than he's accomplished and although I think it's temporary, the stock hit a new record today.
And if they do indeed pull off a successful tablet - one that people purchase in addition to their iPhone and computer (and not a replacement), we could see the stock at $300 within two years.
i think you're really right about this. what with all the controversy at the moment about executive salaries/bonuses, you have right here a solid gold way to tie executive income to long-term company performance.
Not necessarily so, just look at what happened with Enron and WorldCom as examples.
Not necessarily so, just look at what happened with Enron and WorldCom as examples.
Isn?t that why we now have SOx so companies, so companies can?t use wonky accounting practices?
Isn?t that why we now have SOx so companies, so companies can?t use wonky accounting practices?
It's what you have in the USA, remember this is the World Wide Web, some countries have equivalent but not identical legislation. I understand Sarbanes-Oxley only covers public companies in the USA and not every company.
I'm not sure that SOx would have totally eliminated Enron's shenanigans; Enron directors were manipulating their market and making bold claims to influence the share price in addition to fiddling their books.
It's essential shareholders scrutinise their companies to ensure they behave well in a profitable manner.
Apple shareholders can't complain about company performance or current share price but surely isn't it time for a dividend as a thank you?
It's what you have in the USA, remember this is the World Wide Web, some countries have equivalent but not identical legislation. I understand Sarbanes-Oxley only covers public companies in the USA and not every company.
I?m well aware of where SOx reigns but remember that Apple and Enron are/were US companies. It doesn?t matter if Apple sells outside the US they are still governed by US accounting laws.
I'm not sure that SOx would have totally eliminated Enron's shenanigans; Enron directors were manipulating their market and making bold claims to influence the share price in addition to fiddling their books.
SOx is a joke.
Apple shareholders can't complain about company performance or current share price but surely isn't it time for a dividend as a thank you?
No thank you! I don?t want dividends from my tech stocks. I didn?t by into Apple expecting dividends. I bought in expecting rapid growth. Tech is volatile in nature and having a plenty of cash on hand helps to sooth investors and allow the company to invest in new tech when it needs to. I have plenty of other stocks that are slower and more stable due to the nature of their business for which i get dividends. In fact, I live off my dividends and have been doing it for about 5 years now since i retired at 30 and I still don?t want Apple to issue dividends.
Having $30B USD is not as much as people think it is. Apple paid $0.5B to secure NAND last year, they?ll likely have to double it for this year. There are always other component purchases, or small or large acquisitions they have to be ready for. With tech companies have cash helps gets you lowered prices on parts and readies for the inevitable shift in technology.
I think Woz still earns $1 a year.
I heard he still gets health benefits paid for by Apple but that he had cashed out of his Apple stock back when the crystal shard was broken and Skeksis were running Apple.
I completely disagree. If you want to buy the notion that CEO's have a fiduciary duty to operate in the interest of their shareholders (a notion I disagree with - I think it should be balanced between shareholders, employees and customers), then you have to take issue when CEOs fail and still receive absurd amounts of compensation.
It's called a job. Some people work hourly, some work for a salary. The only difference between the boss and the janitor is the rate. I think you're trying to hard to counter economic realities proven time and time again, to an abstract philosophic construct. Your "workers" screw around on the internet, make mistakes, and lose profits just as well as CEOs do. You'll find people at all strata who are overcompensated.
Whenever Democrats say they want to do something like increase taxes on the rich or increase capital gains taxes, Republicans cry, "class warfare". But the class distinctions have already been created by taxing capital gains at a lower rate than ordinary income and creating a society in which CEOs make 100 to 1000x what the average worker makes, a ratio that has constantly been increasing (and, by the way, is much higher in the U.S. than it is in Europe.)
Let's please keep your political fan club allegiances and biases out of this. There's more to life than the two narrow perspectives as defined by the Ds & Rs you mention. Class warfare existed long before those two parties ever existed, and capital gains taxes screw poor stock holders like me, just like everyone else.
Executives are 'workers' too. It's people with a political agenda, that want to stoke envy and hate for this distinction? like I said - stoking class warfare.
America sucessfully functioned because of the middle class. But the middle class is getting destroyed because their jobs have moved overseas and other jobs that used to pay well no longer do. So we're going to have the nauseatingly rich and the "just getting by, but my kids can't afford to move out" poor. What Wall Street seems to fail to realize every time they boost the share price of a company that lays off a thousand workers is that those workers aren't going to be buying the products of other Wall Street companies.
The middle class is getting destroyed? Nauseatingly rich? Sounds a lot like you're a foot soldier/pawn/ideologue in some kind of, what do they call it? conflict? battle? war? between the "middle class" and these evil "rich". No?
Wall Street tries to make as much money as they can, just like a janitor or a sheet metal worker. Industries fail, and people lose jobs? movie at 11.
Jobs did not "make a killing" at Apple in the 80's from salary (although he was certainly well compensated.) He made it from stock - stock that he owned primarily because he was a co-founder of the company (although there were additional grants over the years.)
Yes he did, and besides? stock is compensation. He took his wealth and started two companies - Pixar and Next. Nice try.
Don't give me this B.S. that exec salaries in public companies shouldn't be regulated because those execs then invest in other companies to create benefits for us all. Those execs who invest in other companies NEVER use their own money. It's all loans and/or VC money. The fact is that executive compensation is driven by the "old boys club" and that "old boys club" has completely lost all sense of modesty and proportion. I don't mind a CEO getting rich. But I do mind them making more money than they could ever possibly spend, raising the price of real estate and luxury good for everyone else, and yet, doing an especially incompetent or in some cases, illegal job of running their companies. As far as I'm concerned, while I understand why the Feds bailed out the banks, most of those CEOs belong in jail.
Again you're proving my point about the class warfare? you're very worked up about "old boys' clubs" and "execs". Sounds a lot like fear mongering and scape goating.
And where do banks and VCs get their money? Do you know what percentage of VCs and startups are privately funded? Get to a library and hit the books. You're obviously oblivious to the fact that rich people are the ones who tend to invest in new companies, and they start these fancy little things called venture capital funds to do it. Duh. I take it you're not from Silicon Valley? More common than Starbucks here.
You don't mind a CEO being rich, just not too rich. What right do you have to impose your opinion on what others do or how much you think they should make?
You mind them making "more money than they can possibly spend"? How do you know what they can spend? Or plan to spend? Again, you're very self-centered to think that you know best.
I doubt you understand why the Fed bailed out the banks (I assume you're talking about he last two stimulus packages). In fact, the Fed has a hard time explaining why they bailed out the banks. Perhaps you can elaborate on the economic reasons, without the campaign pamphlet bulletin points?
*For fun:
Step 1 - Get 5 index cards,
Step 2 - Write down the total of all the unfairly payed "public" CEOs' salaries on the first card and turn it over
Step 3- Write the the total amount of money that was actually payed to banks and companies from the two recent stimulus packages on the second card
Step 4 - Write down the total price of the stimulus packages on the third
Step 5 - Subtract the number on card 2 from the number on card 3 and write down the result on card 4
Step 6 - Stare at card 4 for 1 minute without blinking.
Step 7 - Turn over card 1 and stare at it for 1 minute without blinking.
Step 8 - On card 5, write down why you think that the miniscule amount on card 1 is worth even mentioning when the amount on card 4 never went to bailout or stimulate any bank or industry.
Step 9 - Achieve enlightenment.
Now having said all that, I think your premise is misguided: no one serious is talking about regulating salaries of CEOs EXCEPT for those companies still owing Federal bailout money. However, I'd be happier if they did regulate the salaries of CEOs in public companies.
Stocks that are "publicly traded" does not equal a "public" company. This might be the source of your difficulty. Lot's of people are seriously talking about limiting on CEO pay, you even admit your proclivity for such. It sucks when a CEO screws up, but it's unfair to renege on their pay. If you screw up all the orders at the drive-in window and get fired, you're still entitled to be payed your hourly rate. This is basic, again I think you're confusing political rhetoric with reality.
However, if any exec out there deserves killer compensation, it is Jobs. While no company is perfect and there still remains a level of arrogance at Apple that is disturbing, he has batted about .900 since returning to Apple's helm. No one could have expected or asked for more than he's accomplished and although I think it's temporary, the stock hit a new record today.
What does your perceived level of arrogance at Apple have to do with anything?
Execs deserve the amount that was agreed upon based upon their employment contract. Anything else is unfair and unjust. If there is a performance clause for part of their salary, like a car salesman's commission, then that part of their pay is affected by how well they do.
As an Apple shareholder, I don't like Gil Amelio, but he was entitled to all his pay. You see how Apple is the "death blow" to the whole CEO pay nonsense? Companies are responsible for their successes and failures, and hiring bad people happens. If the company is good, they don't keep wasting their money on bad materials and personnel. If they're a bad company, they keep hiring them, and go out of business. A number of those losers, beg the Fed to give them more money to avoid responsibility and bail them out for their failures. I'd start asking why politicians feel the need to reward these duds?
It's like asking the government to subsidize the Zune because Microsoft screwed it up. Makes no reasonable sense, but there's always a lot of very shallow, flowery political jive to sugar coat this crap. It's very easy to spend other people's money. What criminal is that the House and Senate have even stolen control over their pay raises from the people. We are their boss, and according to the Constitution - we have the inalienable right to vote on their wage increases. Pretty cute huh? Not even your greedy CEOs can just raise their pay whenever it suits them.
And if they do indeed pull off a successful tablet - one that people purchase in addition to their iPhone and computer (and not a replacement), we could see the stock at $300 within two years.
I'm definitely looking forward to what Apple does next. However I don't think the stock prices are a big focus or motivator for Steve Jobs. My guess: he does Apple and helps create this stuff for fun - like Edison or Franklin - both made "a killing" but were driven almost exclusively by the challenges.
I'm definitely looking forward to what Apple does next. However I don't think the stock prices are a big focus or motivator for Steve Jobs. My guess: he does Apple and helps create this stuff for fun - like Edison or Franklin - both made "a killing" but were driven almost exclusively by the challenges.
There are a couple points that I?d disagree with.
1) I don?t think Jobs cares about how much money he has, per say, but I do think he cares about Apple valuation in relation to other tech companies, specifically Microsoft. They are on the heels of a profitable, yet stagnant MS. If Apple maintains their current growth rate it?s possible that Apple could overtake MS to become the tech company with the highest valuation. Considering the multi-decade intertwining rivalry while also working together, as well as the position Apple was in when Jobs returned to the helm this might be a motivator for him. It certainly would be for me in that situation.
2) Edison as a business man first and foremost. He was more about making money than making the best product. He?s scammed and cheated wherever he could to save a buck, even Nikoli Tesla, someone who was more focused on the invention than the profit to be had from it. He does work for your analogy as I see Jobs more like Edison (both are complete cocks) and Tesla more like Woz (not so much business sense, or at lest focus).
i think you're really right about this. what with all the controversy at the moment about executive salaries/bonuses, you have right here a solid gold way to tie executive income to long-term company performance.
You forget that most executives focus on short term results because of bonus/stock incentives. In fact, this was one of main reasons why bankers took such irresponsible risks leading up to the credit crisis.
Steve Jobs is a unique person. He's not greedy like most execs unfortunately are.
I do agree with you that long term results and value should be the basis for compensation. Stocks/bonuses/options are just not the way to achieve this.
Cheers,
Marc