Good one! It is so tiresome these days when "CEO" is some kind of bad word, and successful business people are "greedy" and "stealing" (???) from society. (Who is society? Stealing what? What did people have without industry?)
Yes, there are bad CEOs and crooks out there. No, it doesn't mean industry is evil.
Its so annoying when someone smokes a giant bongload and then tells people inventing and packaging new products, that make people's lives better, that they are "greedy corporate SOBs." Great, great contribution
The Fake Steve Jobs hates to hear this. He's one of the biggest proponents of the myth that Jobs was "hurting" Apple with this stock deal. The Wall Street Journal had a guy on the "Get Jobs" story too.
Jobs, remember was forced out after he brought in John Sculley, the "serious business" guy, who had no real concept of what to do, just making money. Wall Street screwed him out of the company that he started with Woz.
So there's no frickin' way that he was going to go for the money, except for making himself very, very difficult to remove. Apple will be run his way, as long as he survives. His money is just a way of telling Wall Street to go f. themselves, he ain't goin' nowhere.
Had Apple co-founder Steve Jobs not cancelled his stock options in exchange for $75 million in shares in 2003, he would have an extra $10.3 billion in profits today.
The revelation comes courtesy of a new column Tuesday from Brett Arends of MarketWatch. He noted that the tech bubble burst in 2000 had left many companies hurting, including Apple, which dropped from a peak of $36 down to $7.
In 2003, stock options granted to employees "seemed completely worthless," he wrote. "After all, Apple stock would have to climb all the way back up to those giddy heights before the options even started to show a profit again."
Apple employees were allowed to exchange their options for a smaller number that became valuable at a lower price. Jobs canceled his options in return for $75 million in shares, a move that was said to allow the company to offer more options to other staff, and reportedly was not done due to the diminished stock price.
"Jobs held 15 million options at an exercise price of $9.15, which meant they started to gain value only if Apple stock exceeded that price, and 40 million options at an exercise price of $21.80," Arends wrote. "Apple at the time was little more than $7 a share. (These prices have been adjusted to reflect the subsequent stock split.) Total value: $12.8 billion."
"In other words," he continued, "Steve Jobs missed out on $10.3 billion in extra profits."
Of course, Jobs' 10 million shares are still worth about $2.5 billion today. And last year, he was named the No. 43 wealthiest American with a net worth of $5.1 billion by Forbes.
The chief executive famously takes a salary of only $1 for his work at Apple, but receives millions in compensation in the form of stock options.
While Arends suggested Jobs' move in 2003 was the "dumbest trade ever," Jobs has also been behind some quite profitable deals. Perhaps his best move was purchasing Pixar from filmmaker George Lucas in 1986 for $10 million. He sold the company to Disney in 2006 for $7.4 billion in stock, and was also given a seat on the Disney Board of Directors.
Understand that, with guys like Jobs and Gates, it's really not about making money. The money flows in as a natural result of their passion. These types are driven by some inner demon to do what they do. Steve Jobs wanted to make a dent in the universe and he has done so. So did Gates. With them it's the DOING of it, not the reward, that drives them. That goes for most self-made men. And has been stated in another post, Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are responsible for literally millions of jobs being created over the now three decades since they started the personal computer industry.
And I'm more than a little annoyed at the thought of some committee or agency, or ethical formula deciding how much money is "enough" for an individual. President Obama said almost those words last week I believe. He wondered how much income was enough for an individual or corporation, a natural result of socialist thinking I guess. So at which point should society confiscate or redistribute someone's wealth and who decides what is enough?
Perhaps you should read the full transcript of President Obama's speech.* He certainly didn't imply that at all.
If I recall, Steve turned over his options in exchange for restricted stocks because there was a back dating issue involve with those options. Even though he didn't legally have to give them up. Steve didn't want to be accused of profitting from back dated options when it came time to exercise them. Which he will eventually have to do. He didn't make the exchange because he thought he could make more money holding the stock.
You best get your memory checked. And your conclusions as well.
Everything you stated is either a mistake or a lie.
Oh, I don't know about that. For example, there's a difference between 'gluttony' and 'hunger.'
'Avarice' is such a religiously loaded term. I interpret 'greed' to mean the desire for more wealth rather than less. And, as with any other such attribute, taken by itself, it can be good or bad.... it just depends. But it is fair to say that it is the desire for more wealth that makes us all better off.
Independent of that, SpamSandwich's post had to do with the type of people that use the term, not the meaning of the term itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Of course not.
But the desire for more wealth ('greed') is often a determinant of 'success' (which, btw, is another value-laden term.... care to explain what you mean by 'success?')
Yes, of course there's a difference. That's precisely my point. I have a problem with trying turn vices into virtues as a matter of convenience. When someone accuses another of greed, this is hardly automatically an indicator of "jelously" but can very well be an accurate observation of excessive acquisitiveness, which could be entirely well-deserved. Trying to assign an ethical observation to a "type" in order to escape its implications, is a cynical exercise.
Naturally these are all laden terms, which doesn't make them meaningless. Ethics can give them meaning. It's become popular to make all these terms value-neutral.
He flat out said, "I mean, I do think at a certain point you?ve made enough money."
He certainly did. Though he didn't share the same sentiment when he was accepting millions of campaign dollars from taxpayer-funded sinking ships like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I'm sure he's simply had a change of heart, and will be doing all his post-presidential lobbying and speaking engagements for meals, lodging, and airfare.
I was hoping to go the rest of my life without seeing a bigger assclown than Bush in the nation's highest office. I didn't even get a day.
Well said. You got 100 million +hundreds more from wherever, the last thing on your mind should be how you could've got 10 billion when you're not likely to live another 15 years. Even if you're 100% healthy it shouldn't matter.
Unless of course you're the type to donate 9 billion to whatever and I don't think that's the case.
Comments
"Greed" is term used by jealous people.
Good one! It is so tiresome these days when "CEO" is some kind of bad word, and successful business people are "greedy" and "stealing" (???) from society. (Who is society? Stealing what? What did people have without industry?)
Yes, there are bad CEOs and crooks out there. No, it doesn't mean industry is evil.
Its so annoying when someone smokes a giant bongload and then tells people inventing and packaging new products, that make people's lives better, that they are "greedy corporate SOBs." Great, great contribution
Jobs, remember was forced out after he brought in John Sculley, the "serious business" guy, who had no real concept of what to do, just making money. Wall Street screwed him out of the company that he started with Woz.
So there's no frickin' way that he was going to go for the money, except for making himself very, very difficult to remove. Apple will be run his way, as long as he survives. His money is just a way of telling Wall Street to go f. themselves, he ain't goin' nowhere.
Had Apple co-founder Steve Jobs not cancelled his stock options in exchange for $75 million in shares in 2003, he would have an extra $10.3 billion in profits today.
The revelation comes courtesy of a new column Tuesday from Brett Arends of MarketWatch. He noted that the tech bubble burst in 2000 had left many companies hurting, including Apple, which dropped from a peak of $36 down to $7.
In 2003, stock options granted to employees "seemed completely worthless," he wrote. "After all, Apple stock would have to climb all the way back up to those giddy heights before the options even started to show a profit again."
Apple employees were allowed to exchange their options for a smaller number that became valuable at a lower price. Jobs canceled his options in return for $75 million in shares, a move that was said to allow the company to offer more options to other staff, and reportedly was not done due to the diminished stock price.
"Jobs held 15 million options at an exercise price of $9.15, which meant they started to gain value only if Apple stock exceeded that price, and 40 million options at an exercise price of $21.80," Arends wrote. "Apple at the time was little more than $7 a share. (These prices have been adjusted to reflect the subsequent stock split.) Total value: $12.8 billion."
"In other words," he continued, "Steve Jobs missed out on $10.3 billion in extra profits."
Of course, Jobs' 10 million shares are still worth about $2.5 billion today. And last year, he was named the No. 43 wealthiest American with a net worth of $5.1 billion by Forbes.
The chief executive famously takes a salary of only $1 for his work at Apple, but receives millions in compensation in the form of stock options.
While Arends suggested Jobs' move in 2003 was the "dumbest trade ever," Jobs has also been behind some quite profitable deals. Perhaps his best move was purchasing Pixar from filmmaker George Lucas in 1986 for $10 million. He sold the company to Disney in 2006 for $7.4 billion in stock, and was also given a seat on the Disney Board of Directors.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5INUyqCWrA
Understand that, with guys like Jobs and Gates, it's really not about making money. The money flows in as a natural result of their passion. These types are driven by some inner demon to do what they do. Steve Jobs wanted to make a dent in the universe and he has done so. So did Gates. With them it's the DOING of it, not the reward, that drives them. That goes for most self-made men. And has been stated in another post, Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are responsible for literally millions of jobs being created over the now three decades since they started the personal computer industry.
And I'm more than a little annoyed at the thought of some committee or agency, or ethical formula deciding how much money is "enough" for an individual. President Obama said almost those words last week I believe. He wondered how much income was enough for an individual or corporation, a natural result of socialist thinking I guess. So at which point should society confiscate or redistribute someone's wealth and who decides what is enough?
Perhaps you should read the full transcript of President Obama's speech.* He certainly didn't imply that at all.
*http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-...uincy-illinois
If I recall, Steve turned over his options in exchange for restricted stocks because there was a back dating issue involve with those options. Even though he didn't legally have to give them up. Steve didn't want to be accused of profitting from back dated options when it came time to exercise them. Which he will eventually have to do. He didn't make the exchange because he thought he could make more money holding the stock.
You best get your memory checked. And your conclusions as well.
Everything you stated is either a mistake or a lie.
Perhaps you should read the full transcript of President Obama's speech.* He certainly didn't imply that at all.
*http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-...uincy-illinois
You're right. He didn't imply anything,
He flat out said, "I mean, I do think at a certain point you?ve made enough money."
Oh, I don't know about that. For example, there's a difference between 'gluttony' and 'hunger.'
'Avarice' is such a religiously loaded term. I interpret 'greed' to mean the desire for more wealth rather than less. And, as with any other such attribute, taken by itself, it can be good or bad.... it just depends. But it is fair to say that it is the desire for more wealth that makes us all better off.
Independent of that, SpamSandwich's post had to do with the type of people that use the term, not the meaning of the term itself.
Of course not.
But the desire for more wealth ('greed') is often a determinant of 'success' (which, btw, is another value-laden term.... care to explain what you mean by 'success?')
Yes, of course there's a difference. That's precisely my point. I have a problem with trying turn vices into virtues as a matter of convenience. When someone accuses another of greed, this is hardly automatically an indicator of "jelously" but can very well be an accurate observation of excessive acquisitiveness, which could be entirely well-deserved. Trying to assign an ethical observation to a "type" in order to escape its implications, is a cynical exercise.
Naturally these are all laden terms, which doesn't make them meaningless. Ethics can give them meaning. It's become popular to make all these terms value-neutral.
You best get your memory checked. And your conclusions as well.
Everything you stated is either a mistake or a lie.
Geez, lighten up Francis. A mistake is just a mistake.
Geez, lighten up Francis. A mistake is just a mistake.
Then remove it and I will mine.
You're right. He didn't imply anything,
He flat out said, "I mean, I do think at a certain point you?ve made enough money."
He certainly did. Though he didn't share the same sentiment when he was accepting millions of campaign dollars from taxpayer-funded sinking ships like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I'm sure he's simply had a change of heart, and will be doing all his post-presidential lobbying and speaking engagements for meals, lodging, and airfare.
I was hoping to go the rest of my life without seeing a bigger assclown than Bush in the nation's highest office. I didn't even get a day.
"news" as apple related as SJ taking his morning poop
Maybe just being alive is good enough!
Well said. You got 100 million +hundreds more from wherever, the last thing on your mind should be how you could've got 10 billion when you're not likely to live another 15 years. Even if you're 100% healthy it shouldn't matter.
Unless of course you're the type to donate 9 billion to whatever and I don't think that's the case.
Then remove it and I will mine.
What are you, like 3 years old?
What are you, like 3 years old?
Onkha called DavidW out for falsely accusing someone. Why shouldn't the accusation be removed?