As an MBA, let me point out having been around and seen many of his type, he didn't do anything remotely to earn this in a "fair" way. Anyone competent could have done what Cook did; Jobs magic is obviously the real reason for Apple's success. It is crazy in corporate America there is such a huge disconnect between what the average worker in a company earns and the top execs. The BOD doesn't answer to the common shareholder anymore. I suppose I could understand him getting $5 million, but $59 million?! Just how much is enough?
Not sure what an MBA has to do with this discussion, since you can have an MBA and know nothing about business, e.g. I have 3 people who have completed their MBAs and have no clue about running a business in real world and how to manage start-up environment and the organizational input and mindset to keep a young company going.
It seems to me your MBA is waste of time, since understanding the value of human commodity and that value to company as whole, is why Tim Cook is being awarded such a great bonus.
As an MBA, let me point out having been around and seen many of his type, he didn't do anything remotely to earn this in a "fair" way. Anyone competent could have done what Cook did; Jobs magic is obviously the real reason for Apple's success. It is crazy in corporate America there is such a huge disconnect between what the average worker in a company earns and the top execs. The BOD doesn't answer to the common shareholder anymore. I suppose I could understand him getting $5 million, but $59 million?! Just how much is enough?
And in my experience with MBA's I've found most of them just barely competent. What right do you have to criticize Cook? Do you work for a major corporation at such a high level that you have the experience to know? Somehow, I doubt that. Cook is considered to be very good at his job, and has had feelers out from other major companies for a while. Thankfully, he seems to want to stay at apple. If Jobs thinks this guy is really good, then it's assured that he is, as Jobs is not easy on anyone.
Considering that at companies that aren't nearly as successful as Apple is, the top executives are often getting much more than Cook, I don't think he's getting too much at all. The fact that Jobs has not gotten any compensation other than the one dollar a year, and compensation for corporate use of his jet since 2003, allows Apple to spread some of what he may have gotten to other top executives.
And Apple doesn't offer their top executives anything other than what their other employees get, other than the anount of compensation. I read a good article about that earlier today. I'll update this post when I find that article in a short while.
Addendum:
Ok, here is the article. You'll see, surprisingly that there are no special executive packages at Apple. This is one reason that good compensation is needed. It's more than fair.
As an MBA, let me point out having been around and seen many of his type, he didn't do anything remotely to earn this in a "fair" way. Anyone competent could have done what Cook did; Jobs magic is obviously the real reason for Apple's success. It is crazy in corporate America there is such a huge disconnect between what the average worker in a company earns and the top execs. The BOD doesn't answer to the common shareholder anymore. I suppose I could understand him getting $5 million, but $59 million?! Just how much is enough?
Jeesh... didn't take long for the MBA divas to come out of the woodwork. Once again, folks like cyclack prove once again that one can be booksmart and be absolutely clueless how the real world works.
Folks like Cook deserve every single penny they earned. Not only was he instrumental in keeping Apple going (especially during SJ's absence), folks like him provided a means for regular folks to profit handsomely.
How many AAPL shares did that MBA eduction of yours tell YOU to invest in in 2008 when the entire economy took a turn in the dump?
Since you're a holier-than-thou MBA graduate, how would you have run Apple from nothing to the 2nd most valuable company, in one of the worst recessions in history?
Cook is also responsible for keeping a company running smoothly. A company mind you, that employs directly AND indirectly hundreds and thousands of people. People with jobs, mortgages, disposable income, etc. They pay taxes which keeps our cities running. Many of those people become successful and perhaps start up their own business to continue the economic engine as well.
And of course, Cook's bonus is on paper, not cold hard cash. Meaning?? It is in his best interests to continue making Apple the best company around and keep that stock value going up.
How's that MBA doing for ya Thornton Melon? Might be time to take a refresher course.
As an MBA, let me point out having been around and seen many of his type, he didn't do anything remotely to earn this in a "fair" way. Anyone competent could have done what Cook did; Jobs magic is obviously the real reason for Apple's success. It is crazy in corporate America there is such a huge disconnect between what the average worker in a company earns and the top execs. The BOD doesn't answer to the common shareholder anymore. I suppose I could understand him getting $5 million, but $59 million?! Just how much is enough?
Whether I agree or not with your assessment of Cook's skills, your basic point still stands. Boards of directors and top executives at American corporations look after their own interests first, second and third. When and if something is left over, it might go to others. The exploding gap between how much they and everyone else benefits from corporate profits isn't happening for no reason.
Why the heck do YOU get to decide that $5 million is "enough?" Apple is absolutely booming. They can pay him what they want.
Ridiculous. How would they live? You're actually going to pass a law to that fact? Hey guys, I think Nancy Pelosi is posting on AI.
Exactly. It's reality. It reminds me a little bit of my job on a much smaller scale. We have members of the public that crow about teachers making too much money, getting "free" healthcare, "4 months" off a year, etc. Beyond their obvious misconceptions, they fail to realize one thing: Teachers are subject to economic incentives like everyone else. I came to my district because of the working environment, the students, reputation...and the MONEY. Apple is no different.
I'll tell you when it's too much. It's too much when executives of certain financial companies take a third of the profits for themselves, and sometimes more. It's too much when executives fire people so that they can award themselves with higher salaries and compensation as old man Warner and his son tried a couple of decades ago.
Whether I agree or not with your assessment of Cook's skills, your basic point still stands. Boards of directors and top executives at American corporations look after their own interests first, second and third. When and if something is left over, it might go to others. The exploding gap between how much they and everyone else benefits from corporate profits isn't happening for no reason.
I don't see this as being a lot of money at all. Look to financial firms to see executives ripping off stockholders and employees. What percentage of profits is Cook getting? Almost nothing. And he's in good part responsible for those profits.
Whether I agree or not with your assessment of Cook's skills, your basic point still stands. Boards of directors and top executives at American corporations look after their own interests first, second and third. When and if something is left over, it might go to others. The exploding gap between how much they and everyone else benefits from corporate profits isn't happening for no reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
I'll tell you when it's too much. It's too much when executives of certain financial companies take a third of the profits for themselves, and sometimes more. It's too much when executives fire people so that they can award themselves with higher salaries and compensation as old man Warner and his son tried a couple of decades ago.
There are limits.
In that, I totally agree. The "norm" is for executives to essentially take the money and run. Do a lousy job, hey it's in the contract they get a golden-parachute. When their company is doing great, it's because of their leadership and visionary skills. When it's doing bad, hey it's someone else's fault.
Tim Cook and Steve Jobs rightfully so, deserve their compensation imho. The are in the very small minority methinks of executives that actually do care about other things not including themselves.
I'll tell you when it's too much. It's too much when executives of certain financial companies take a third of the profits for themselves, and sometimes more. It's too much when executives fire people so that they can award themselves with higher salaries and compensation as old man Warner and his son tried a couple of decades ago.
There are limits.
Totally different scenario. That's not what's happening here at all. And, while those scenarios might constitute immoral behavior, the government should not decide what they can and can't do. It's up to the shareholders. Now, obviously things change when companies want bailouts.
Love how people comment as if they know Tim Cook, his day to day job, and the inner corporate workings at Apple. The guy is a part of the ever growing machine of Apple. Steve obviously thinks he does enough, as he has a job, and that pretty much sums up the equation, regardless of the speculative rants on this forum.
I don't see this as being a lot of money at all. Look to financial firms to see executives ripping off stockholders and employees. What percentage of profits is Cook getting? Almost nothing. And he's in good part responsible for those profits.
With you 100%. Tim Cook's leadership and results have built value for AAPL and done a lot for me as a shareholder. There's a night-and-day difference between a legitimate value creator like a Tim Cook at Apple and a manipulating parasite like Richard Fuld was at Lehman Brothers.
I don't see this as being a lot of money at all. Look to financial firms to see executives ripping off stockholders and employees. What percentage of profits is Cook getting? Almost nothing. And he's in good part responsible for those profits.
I'm not sure what world you live in, where $59 million is not a lot of money, but that's not my point anyway. The distribution of corporate wealth has become ridiculously skewed towards the top, and the trend has shown no signs of abating. And it's not because American execs are getting so much better at their jobs. In fact we know that US top execs are very often rewarded handsomely even for failure. This is not nearly as much of an issue outside of the US. In short, the system is rigged.
The rest was stock, increasing his share in the company and giving him a far greater interest in increasing the value of those shares.
Also, note that Apple still does not pay dividends.
In the same year, Apple had $62.5 billion in net sales. $5.8 million is a very, very small percentage of that figure, and a slightly-less-small-but-still-minuscule percentage of their $18.4 billion operating income. Less than 1%.
That's the world we live in. $5.8 million is chump change for guys who own significant portions of a $300 billion company. If you don't like it, sod off and found your own dull, socialist hell-hole.
That $59 million is from incentive stock options, if I'm not mistaken. If so, he earned it. Doing a lousy job running Apple's manufacturing processes would have flatlined the stock.
We can bitch when it's a salary and the shareholders are upset, but powerless. But Apple's shareholders have the best at the helm and I doubt any are concerned, especially since the pay comes out of the company's shares.
What is excessive, as far as the number of options? Well, that can be debated night and day.
$59 million is not out of the question, IMO, for his excellent performance in a critical component of the Apple juggernaut.
For those MBAs who claim he did nothing special, be sure to apply and see if you can land his position and perform similarly. Then, when the stock goes up 10-fold and you get your $59 million, you can donate your excessive pay to charity.
Apple took top spot on AMR's manufacturing and supply chain rankings THREE YEARS in a row beating out every other U.S company.
Supplychaindigital: "The company’s supply chain strategy has been greatly admired for many years now but to remain in the No. 1 position of AMR’s findings is unprecedented."
Dell was always known as the supply chain king, able to manufacture and deliver cheaper than anyone else and Apple beat them. Apple beat Wal-mart as well! This is one heck of a competitive advantage.
This I believe is mainly due to Tim Cook.
Wikipedia Bio on Cook: "... helped the company reduce inventory levels and streamline its supply chain, dramatically increasing margins"
Where do you draw the line between reducing inventory levels and not being able to keep up with demand?
As an MBA, let me point out having been around and seen many of his type, he didn't do anything remotely to earn this in a "fair" way. Anyone competent could have done what Cook did; Jobs magic is obviously the real reason for Apple's success. It is crazy in corporate America there is such a huge disconnect between what the average worker in a company earns and the top execs. The BOD doesn't answer to the common shareholder anymore. I suppose I could understand him getting $5 million, but $59 million?! Just how much is enough?
What good is an idevice if you have no one to market it, plus people to come up with the whole apple store?
Job's may be the prominent figure, but he sure isn't the only reason why apple is successful.
Meanwhile, people who work at the Apple store are barely scraping by, working at a tough job in a retail environment while standing on their feet all day.
Im going to respond to that with the same view I have of unions, strikes, and minimum wages:
If you dont like the job, quit. You chose it, no ones forcing you to do it.
Exactly what Richard Branson said to his moaning cabin crew a few years back and I wholeheartedly agree.
That $59 million is from incentive stock options, if I'm not mistaken. If so, he earned it. Doing a lousy job running Apple's manufacturing processes would have flatlined the stock.
We can bitch when it's a salary and the shareholders are upset, but powerless. But Apple's shareholders have the best at the helm and I doubt any are concerned, especially since the pay comes out of the company's shares.
I am shareholder and I am concerned. And it hasn't got anything to do with grapes, sour or otherwise.
Where do you draw the line between reducing inventory levels and not being able to keep up with demand?
If you're Apple. You don't.
Not keeping up with demand has the bizarre side effect of not only increasing demand, but generating the illusion of excessive demand and artificially inflating the popularity of the product. And not only Apple are playing that game these days, there are plenty of other examples.
Do people still seriously believe that a multi billion dollar company couldn't get its shit together in terms of supply and easily meet consumer demand? This is all dirty reality distortion trickery to boost pre-orders and day one sales.
Works on me. Though. Can I pre-order an iPad 2 yet? Or, better still, just "subscribe" to Apple?
I also find it hard to believe why any shareholder would have an issue with the top brass at Apple being so intrinsically invested in the value of their stock. But then I'm no expert.
Do people still seriously believe that a multi billion dollar company couldn't get its shit together in terms of supply and easily meet consumer demand? This is all dirty reality distortion trickery to boost pre-orders and day one sales.
That?s a short sighted answer. Only someone who is in the RDF would imply that Apple can get anything they want, whenever they want, and as much as they want.
The unfortunate truth is there are very real limitations in the physical and on time so to suggest that consumer interest in Apple?s products couldn?t possibly exceed what they can manufacture at a given time is not seeing the big picture.
Comments
As an MBA, let me point out having been around and seen many of his type, he didn't do anything remotely to earn this in a "fair" way. Anyone competent could have done what Cook did; Jobs magic is obviously the real reason for Apple's success. It is crazy in corporate America there is such a huge disconnect between what the average worker in a company earns and the top execs. The BOD doesn't answer to the common shareholder anymore. I suppose I could understand him getting $5 million, but $59 million?! Just how much is enough?
Not sure what an MBA has to do with this discussion, since you can have an MBA and know nothing about business, e.g. I have 3 people who have completed their MBAs and have no clue about running a business in real world and how to manage start-up environment and the organizational input and mindset to keep a young company going.
It seems to me your MBA is waste of time, since understanding the value of human commodity and that value to company as whole, is why Tim Cook is being awarded such a great bonus.
As an MBA, let me point out having been around and seen many of his type, he didn't do anything remotely to earn this in a "fair" way. Anyone competent could have done what Cook did; Jobs magic is obviously the real reason for Apple's success. It is crazy in corporate America there is such a huge disconnect between what the average worker in a company earns and the top execs. The BOD doesn't answer to the common shareholder anymore. I suppose I could understand him getting $5 million, but $59 million?! Just how much is enough?
And in my experience with MBA's I've found most of them just barely competent. What right do you have to criticize Cook? Do you work for a major corporation at such a high level that you have the experience to know? Somehow, I doubt that. Cook is considered to be very good at his job, and has had feelers out from other major companies for a while. Thankfully, he seems to want to stay at apple. If Jobs thinks this guy is really good, then it's assured that he is, as Jobs is not easy on anyone.
Considering that at companies that aren't nearly as successful as Apple is, the top executives are often getting much more than Cook, I don't think he's getting too much at all. The fact that Jobs has not gotten any compensation other than the one dollar a year, and compensation for corporate use of his jet since 2003, allows Apple to spread some of what he may have gotten to other top executives.
And Apple doesn't offer their top executives anything other than what their other employees get, other than the anount of compensation. I read a good article about that earlier today. I'll update this post when I find that article in a short while.
Addendum:
Ok, here is the article. You'll see, surprisingly that there are no special executive packages at Apple. This is one reason that good compensation is needed. It's more than fair.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110107/...e_compensation
As an MBA, let me point out having been around and seen many of his type, he didn't do anything remotely to earn this in a "fair" way. Anyone competent could have done what Cook did; Jobs magic is obviously the real reason for Apple's success. It is crazy in corporate America there is such a huge disconnect between what the average worker in a company earns and the top execs. The BOD doesn't answer to the common shareholder anymore. I suppose I could understand him getting $5 million, but $59 million?! Just how much is enough?
Jeesh... didn't take long for the MBA divas to come out of the woodwork. Once again, folks like cyclack prove once again that one can be booksmart and be absolutely clueless how the real world works.
Folks like Cook deserve every single penny they earned. Not only was he instrumental in keeping Apple going (especially during SJ's absence), folks like him provided a means for regular folks to profit handsomely.
How many AAPL shares did that MBA eduction of yours tell YOU to invest in in 2008 when the entire economy took a turn in the dump?
Since you're a holier-than-thou MBA graduate, how would you have run Apple from nothing to the 2nd most valuable company, in one of the worst recessions in history?
Cook is also responsible for keeping a company running smoothly. A company mind you, that employs directly AND indirectly hundreds and thousands of people. People with jobs, mortgages, disposable income, etc. They pay taxes which keeps our cities running. Many of those people become successful and perhaps start up their own business to continue the economic engine as well.
And of course, Cook's bonus is on paper, not cold hard cash. Meaning?? It is in his best interests to continue making Apple the best company around and keep that stock value going up.
How's that MBA doing for ya Thornton Melon? Might be time to take a refresher course.
As an MBA, let me point out having been around and seen many of his type, he didn't do anything remotely to earn this in a "fair" way. Anyone competent could have done what Cook did; Jobs magic is obviously the real reason for Apple's success. It is crazy in corporate America there is such a huge disconnect between what the average worker in a company earns and the top execs. The BOD doesn't answer to the common shareholder anymore. I suppose I could understand him getting $5 million, but $59 million?! Just how much is enough?
Whether I agree or not with your assessment of Cook's skills, your basic point still stands. Boards of directors and top executives at American corporations look after their own interests first, second and third. When and if something is left over, it might go to others. The exploding gap between how much they and everyone else benefits from corporate profits isn't happening for no reason.
Why the heck do YOU get to decide that $5 million is "enough?" Apple is absolutely booming. They can pay him what they want.
Ridiculous. How would they live? You're actually going to pass a law to that fact? Hey guys, I think Nancy Pelosi is posting on AI.
Exactly. It's reality. It reminds me a little bit of my job on a much smaller scale. We have members of the public that crow about teachers making too much money, getting "free" healthcare, "4 months" off a year, etc. Beyond their obvious misconceptions, they fail to realize one thing: Teachers are subject to economic incentives like everyone else. I came to my district because of the working environment, the students, reputation...and the MONEY. Apple is no different.
I'll tell you when it's too much. It's too much when executives of certain financial companies take a third of the profits for themselves, and sometimes more. It's too much when executives fire people so that they can award themselves with higher salaries and compensation as old man Warner and his son tried a couple of decades ago.
There are limits.
Whether I agree or not with your assessment of Cook's skills, your basic point still stands. Boards of directors and top executives at American corporations look after their own interests first, second and third. When and if something is left over, it might go to others. The exploding gap between how much they and everyone else benefits from corporate profits isn't happening for no reason.
I don't see this as being a lot of money at all. Look to financial firms to see executives ripping off stockholders and employees. What percentage of profits is Cook getting? Almost nothing. And he's in good part responsible for those profits.
Whether I agree or not with your assessment of Cook's skills, your basic point still stands. Boards of directors and top executives at American corporations look after their own interests first, second and third. When and if something is left over, it might go to others. The exploding gap between how much they and everyone else benefits from corporate profits isn't happening for no reason.
I'll tell you when it's too much. It's too much when executives of certain financial companies take a third of the profits for themselves, and sometimes more. It's too much when executives fire people so that they can award themselves with higher salaries and compensation as old man Warner and his son tried a couple of decades ago.
There are limits.
In that, I totally agree. The "norm" is for executives to essentially take the money and run. Do a lousy job, hey it's in the contract they get a golden-parachute. When their company is doing great, it's because of their leadership and visionary skills. When it's doing bad, hey it's someone else's fault.
Tim Cook and Steve Jobs rightfully so, deserve their compensation imho. The are in the very small minority methinks of executives that actually do care about other things not including themselves.
I'll tell you when it's too much. It's too much when executives of certain financial companies take a third of the profits for themselves, and sometimes more. It's too much when executives fire people so that they can award themselves with higher salaries and compensation as old man Warner and his son tried a couple of decades ago.
There are limits.
Totally different scenario. That's not what's happening here at all. And, while those scenarios might constitute immoral behavior, the government should not decide what they can and can't do. It's up to the shareholders. Now, obviously things change when companies want bailouts.
I don't see this as being a lot of money at all. Look to financial firms to see executives ripping off stockholders and employees. What percentage of profits is Cook getting? Almost nothing. And he's in good part responsible for those profits.
With you 100%. Tim Cook's leadership and results have built value for AAPL and done a lot for me as a shareholder. There's a night-and-day difference between a legitimate value creator like a Tim Cook at Apple and a manipulating parasite like Richard Fuld was at Lehman Brothers.
I don't see this as being a lot of money at all. Look to financial firms to see executives ripping off stockholders and employees. What percentage of profits is Cook getting? Almost nothing. And he's in good part responsible for those profits.
I'm not sure what world you live in, where $59 million is not a lot of money, but that's not my point anyway. The distribution of corporate wealth has become ridiculously skewed towards the top, and the trend has shown no signs of abating. And it's not because American execs are getting so much better at their jobs. In fact we know that US top execs are very often rewarded handsomely even for failure. This is not nearly as much of an issue outside of the US. In short, the system is rigged.
He was paid $5.8 million.
The rest was stock, increasing his share in the company and giving him a far greater interest in increasing the value of those shares.
Also, note that Apple still does not pay dividends.
In the same year, Apple had $62.5 billion in net sales. $5.8 million is a very, very small percentage of that figure, and a slightly-less-small-but-still-minuscule percentage of their $18.4 billion operating income. Less than 1%.
That's the world we live in. $5.8 million is chump change for guys who own significant portions of a $300 billion company. If you don't like it, sod off and found your own dull, socialist hell-hole.
We can bitch when it's a salary and the shareholders are upset, but powerless. But Apple's shareholders have the best at the helm and I doubt any are concerned, especially since the pay comes out of the company's shares.
What is excessive, as far as the number of options? Well, that can be debated night and day.
$59 million is not out of the question, IMO, for his excellent performance in a critical component of the Apple juggernaut.
For those MBAs who claim he did nothing special, be sure to apply and see if you can land his position and perform similarly. Then, when the stock goes up 10-fold and you get your $59 million, you can donate your excessive pay to charity.
Otherwise, it's sour grapes.
Apple took top spot on AMR's manufacturing and supply chain rankings THREE YEARS in a row beating out every other U.S company.
Supplychaindigital: "The company’s supply chain strategy has been greatly admired for many years now but to remain in the No. 1 position of AMR’s findings is unprecedented."
Dell was always known as the supply chain king, able to manufacture and deliver cheaper than anyone else and Apple beat them. Apple beat Wal-mart as well! This is one heck of a competitive advantage.
This I believe is mainly due to Tim Cook.
Wikipedia Bio on Cook: "... helped the company reduce inventory levels and streamline its supply chain, dramatically increasing margins"
Where do you draw the line between reducing inventory levels and not being able to keep up with demand?
As an MBA, let me point out having been around and seen many of his type, he didn't do anything remotely to earn this in a "fair" way. Anyone competent could have done what Cook did; Jobs magic is obviously the real reason for Apple's success. It is crazy in corporate America there is such a huge disconnect between what the average worker in a company earns and the top execs. The BOD doesn't answer to the common shareholder anymore. I suppose I could understand him getting $5 million, but $59 million?! Just how much is enough?
What good is an idevice if you have no one to market it, plus people to come up with the whole apple store?
Job's may be the prominent figure, but he sure isn't the only reason why apple is successful.
Meanwhile, people who work at the Apple store are barely scraping by, working at a tough job in a retail environment while standing on their feet all day.
Im going to respond to that with the same view I have of unions, strikes, and minimum wages:
If you dont like the job, quit. You chose it, no ones forcing you to do it.
Exactly what Richard Branson said to his moaning cabin crew a few years back and I wholeheartedly agree.
That $59 million is from incentive stock options, if I'm not mistaken. If so, he earned it. Doing a lousy job running Apple's manufacturing processes would have flatlined the stock.
We can bitch when it's a salary and the shareholders are upset, but powerless. But Apple's shareholders have the best at the helm and I doubt any are concerned, especially since the pay comes out of the company's shares.
I am shareholder and I am concerned. And it hasn't got anything to do with grapes, sour or otherwise.
Where do you draw the line between reducing inventory levels and not being able to keep up with demand?
If you're Apple. You don't.
Not keeping up with demand has the bizarre side effect of not only increasing demand, but generating the illusion of excessive demand and artificially inflating the popularity of the product. And not only Apple are playing that game these days, there are plenty of other examples.
Do people still seriously believe that a multi billion dollar company couldn't get its shit together in terms of supply and easily meet consumer demand? This is all dirty reality distortion trickery to boost pre-orders and day one sales.
Works on me. Though. Can I pre-order an iPad 2 yet? Or, better still, just "subscribe" to Apple?
I also find it hard to believe why any shareholder would have an issue with the top brass at Apple being so intrinsically invested in the value of their stock. But then I'm no expert.
Do people still seriously believe that a multi billion dollar company couldn't get its shit together in terms of supply and easily meet consumer demand? This is all dirty reality distortion trickery to boost pre-orders and day one sales.
That?s a short sighted answer. Only someone who is in the RDF would imply that Apple can get anything they want, whenever they want, and as much as they want.
The unfortunate truth is there are very real limitations in the physical and on time so to suggest that consumer interest in Apple?s products couldn?t possibly exceed what they can manufacture at a given time is not seeing the big picture.