Apple leadership awarded restricted stock unit bonus currently worth $19M

Posted:
in AAPL Investors edited October 2014
Eight Apple executives last week were awarded identical bonuses in the form of conditional RSUs worth over $19.6 million at the stock's current price, according to a U.S. SEC filing.




The awards were disclosed in a Tuesday filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, noting eight of Apple's leadership were each granted 191,439 RSUs scheduled to vest in three intervals through 2019. At Apple's current price, the RSUs are valued at $19.6 million.

Those addressed in today's filing include Apple SVP of Retail and Online Stores Angela Ahrendts, SVP of Internet Software and Services Eddy Cue, SVP of Software Engineering Craig Federighi, SVP and CFO Luca Maestri, SVP of Hardware Engineering Dan Riccio, SVP of Worldwide Marketing Phil Schiller, SVP and General Counsel Bruce Sewell and SVP of Operations Jeffrey Williams.

As it has in past bonus awards, Apple is issuing the restricted units as an incentive for continued employment and sustained output, as the vesting dates reach far into the future. Specifically, the units are to be divvied up in three batches scheduled to vest April 1, 2017, April 1, 2018 and April 1, 2019.

In addition to the employment requirement, the RSUs vest according to relative total shareholder return as calculated from Sept. 28, 2014 through Sept 30, 2017, with between 0 and 200 percent of the "target" number of units vesting on Oct. 1, 2017.

It should be noted that Sewell's SEC filing may contain an error as it shows 191,439 derivative securities disposed on Oct. 17, not acquired. The subtext explanation and number of shares reported as owned following the transaction add up to Apple's RSU bonus, however.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 28
    What happen to Jonny Ive ! No bonus ???
  • Reply 2 of 28
    pazuzupazuzu Posts: 1,728member

    What- no love for Jimmy Iovine?

  • Reply 3 of 28
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    dmgceo wrote: »
    What happen to Jonny Ive ! No bonus ???

    I've only heard this stated by others, but he consensus has been, because Ive isn't considered an executive his bonuses don't have to be made public.
  • Reply 4 of 28
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dmgceo View Post



    What happen to Jonny Ive ! No bonus ???

    For whatever reason Apple is not required to disclose his salary or stock awards.

  • Reply 5 of 28

    Just like the others,  the SEC has him a SVP  (executive - senior vice president)

  • Reply 6 of 28
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,787member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    I've only heard this stated by others, but he consensus has been, because Ive isn't considered an executive his bonuses don't have to be made public.

    Right, let's be serious here, Jony is on Mount Olympus part of the inner circle and should be. :smokey:
  • Reply 7 of 28
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dmgceo View Post

     

    Just like the others,  the SEC has him a SVP  (executive - senior vice president)




    Not Ive... 

    http://investor.apple.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=1193125-14-8074&CIK=320193

    Page 17

  • Reply 8 of 28
    Do rank and file Apple employees have similar access to stock-based performance incentives?
  • Reply 9 of 28
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    konqerror wrote: »

    He's not listed as an executive officer and thus his stock awards and salary don't hsve to be disclosed. Jessica Lessen reported on this a while back at the Information. She was wondering how long Apple could continue to keep his information secret. I'm not sure what Apple's reasoning is because even if Ive doesn't have oversight for a large group of people he still has huge responsibilities and is probably involved in just about every Apple initiative in some way.
  • Reply 10 of 28
    aussiepaul wrote: »
    Do rank and file Apple employees have similar access to stock-based performance incentives?

    Why would they? Also, define "rank and file".
  • Reply 11 of 28
    rogifan wrote: »
    He's not listed as an executive officer and thus his stock awards and salary don't hsve to be disclosed. Jessica Lessen reported on this a while back at the Information. She was wondering how long Apple could continue to keep his information secret. I'm not sure what Apple's reasoning is because even if Ive doesn't have oversight for a large group of people he still has huge responsibilities and is probably involved in just about every Apple initiative in some way.

    Maybe Jony was secretly bequeathed the company... or at least Steve Jobs' part of it(???)
  • Reply 12 of 28
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,408moderator
    Eight Apple executives last week were awarded identical bonuses in the form of conditional RSUs worth over $19.6 million at the stock's current price, according to a U.S. SEC filing.

    To average workers, this sounds like a lot but it reminds me of the interaction between Steve Jobs and Larry Ellison talking about Apple buying NeXT for Steve to eventually become Apple's CEO:

    Larry: But Steve, there’s one thing I don’t understand. If we don’t buy the company, how can we make any money?
    Steve: Larry, this is why it’s really important that I’m your friend. You don’t need any more money.
    Larry: Well, I may not need the money, but why should some fund manager at Fidelity get the money? Why should someone else get it? Why shouldn’t it be us?
    Steve: I think if I went back to Apple, and I didn’t own any of Apple, and you didn’t own any of Apple, I’d have the moral high ground.
    Larry: Steve, that’s really expensive real estate, this moral high ground. Look, Steve, you’re my best friend, and Apple is your company. I’ll do whatever you want.

    Carl Icahn is one such fund manager. In the last 12 months, AAPL has gone from about $70 to $102 so say Icahn invested $3.5b, it's now $5b (Icahn mentioned he now owns $5b of AAPL). These executives have made a fund manager $1,500m wealthier and these execs get $19m between them while they put in their 60-90 hour work weeks and the fund managers put in nothing but noise. As Larry Ellison says, why should they get the money? Fair enough shareholders that have been there for over a decade but not just 1 year. That's some hefty income inequality right there, even at the top. How is it in such a capitalist system do non-contributors make over 70x the contributors?
  • Reply 13 of 28
    Marvin wrote: »
    To average workers, this sounds like a lot but it reminds me of the interaction between Steve Jobs and Larry Ellison talking about Apple buying NeXT for Steve to eventually become Apple's CEO:

    Larry: But Steve, there’s one thing I don’t understand. If we don’t buy the company, how can we make any money?
    Steve: Larry, this is why it’s really important that I’m your friend. You don’t need any more money.
    Larry: Well, I may not need the money, but why should some fund manager at Fidelity get the money? Why should someone else get it? Why shouldn’t it be us?
    Steve: I think if I went back to Apple, and I didn’t own any of Apple, and you didn’t own any of Apple, I’d have the moral high ground.
    Larry: Steve, that’s really expensive real estate, this moral high ground. Look, Steve, you’re my best friend, and Apple is your company. I’ll do whatever you want.

    Carl Icahn is one such fund manager. In the last 12 months, AAPL has gone from about $70 to $102 so say Icahn invested $3.5b, it's now $5b (Icahn mentioned he now owns $5b of AAPL). These executives have made a fund manager $1,500m wealthier and these execs get $19m between them while they put in their 60-90 hour work weeks and the fund managers put in nothing but noise. As Larry Ellison says, why should they get the money? Fair enough shareholders that have been there for over a decade but not just 1 year. That's some hefty income inequality right there, even at the top. How is it in such a capitalist system do non-contributors make over 70x the contributors?

    Icahn risked 3.5 billion in the first place.
  • Reply 14 of 28
    Originally Posted by TheWhiteFalcon View Post

    Icahn risked 3.5 billion in the first place.

     

    Risked.

     

    On Apple.

     

    This side of 2004.

     

    ...

     

    Really.

  • Reply 15 of 28
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    dmgceo wrote: »
    What happen to Jonny Ive ! No bonus ???

    pazuzu wrote: »
    What- no love for Jimmy Iovine?

    No money if your initials are JI. :lol:
  • Reply 16 of 28
    Marvin wrote: »
    To average workers, this sounds like a lot but it reminds me of the interaction between Steve Jobs and Larry Ellison talking about Apple buying NeXT for Steve to eventually become Apple's CEO:

    Larry: But Steve, there’s one thing I don’t understand. If we don’t buy the company, how can we make any money?
    Steve: Larry, this is why it’s really important that I’m your friend. You don’t need any more money.
    Larry: Well, I may not need the money, but why should some fund manager at Fidelity get the money? Why should someone else get it? Why shouldn’t it be us?
    Steve: I think if I went back to Apple, and I didn’t own any of Apple, and you didn’t own any of Apple, I’d have the moral high ground.
    Larry: Steve, that’s really expensive real estate, this moral high ground. Look, Steve, you’re my best friend, and Apple is your company. I’ll do whatever you want.

    Carl Icahn is one such fund manager. In the last 12 months, AAPL has gone from about $70 to $102 so say Icahn invested $3.5b, it's now $5b (Icahn mentioned he now owns $5b of AAPL). These executives have made a fund manager $1,500m wealthier and these execs get $19m between them while they put in their 60-90 hour work weeks and the fund managers put in nothing but noise. As Larry Ellison says, why should they get the money? Fair enough shareholders that have been there for over a decade but not just 1 year. That's some hefty income inequality right there, even at the top. How is it in such a capitalist system do non-contributors make over 70x the contributors?

    Oh, Marvin. "income inequality" is a semantic trap created by socialist politicians and unions to push their agenda. It's utter nonsense. No one "deserves" anything simply because they exist. Please do not bring up that bogus drivel here.
  • Reply 17 of 28

    If by "rank and file", you mean professionals (engineers, business support, etc.) and supervisory roles, than yes most companies provide them with similar long-term incentive plans. Obviously the target is going to be substantially lower than a Executive.

     

    RSU are becoming increasingly popular especially as a retention tool in the market relative to stock options because while it retains some element of the company's market performance, there's significantly higher probability of payout versus stock options. Plus RSU's are a lot easier to explain to your employees than stock options. You wouldn't believe how few people understand how options work, optimal exercise times, etc. even many executives.

  • Reply 18 of 28
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by silverleaf View Post

     

    If by "rank and file", you mean professionals (engineers, business support, etc.) and supervisory roles, than yes most companies provide them with similar long-term incentive plans. Obviously the target is going to be substantially lower than a Executive.

     

    RSU are becoming increasingly popular especially as a retention tool in the market relative to stock options because while it retains some element of the company's market performance, there's significantly higher probability of payout versus stock options. Plus RSU's are a lot easier to explain to your employees than stock options. You wouldn't believe how few people understand how options work, optimal exercise times, etc. even many executives.




    I suspect Apple's incentive plans are quite comparable to those offered by Google, Facebook or Microsoft. All of these companies fight to hire the same employees.

  • Reply 19 of 28
    silverleaf wrote: »
    <p>If by "rank and file", you mean professionals (engineers, business support, etc.) and supervisory roles, than yes most companies provide them with similar long-term incentive plans. Obviously the target is going to be substantially lower than a Executive.</p><p> </p><p>RSU are becoming increasingly popular especially as a retention tool in the market relative to stock options because while it retains some element of the company's market performance, there's significantly higher probability of payout versus stock options. Plus RSU's are a lot easier to explain to your employees than stock options. You wouldn't believe how few people understand how options work, optimal exercise times, etc. even many executives.</p>
    That's why I love where I work. Part of my pay is in shares where I have to keep for a set time or pay 30-50% tax to get the money early and I can invest in a share option scheme. So far I have made on average 54% return every year once theyve reached the tax free point,for those shares I've sold. A good share scheme set up helps retain talent.
  • Reply 20 of 28
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by singularity View Post





    That's why I love where I work. Part of my pay is in shares where I have to keep for a set time or pay 30-50% tax to get the money early and I can invest in a share option scheme. So far I have made on average 54% return every year once theyve reached the tax free point,for those shares I've sold. A good share scheme set up helps retain talent.



    It's great when one is working at a company that is growing and/or well run. I worked previously at a company that was run by crooks and they destroyed the entire company and every share I had in the company ended up worthless. Another reason why Apple is so remarkable.

Sign In or Register to comment.