Wow! That is a lot of money and does she get it annually? This huge compensation issue is a significant issue for Apple's other top executives who are not making nearly as well off as the ex-Burberry CEO. The presuure is on Angela to greatly succeed at expanding the profitability of the Apple stores revenues.
While it seems ridiculous to the general public, it's not vastly different from other successful company CEO according to this graphic. (Hover over the dots to see the CEO's salary.)
Wow! That is a lot of money and does she get it annually? This huge compensation issue is a significant issue for Apple's other top executives who are not making nearly as well off as the ex-Burberry CEO. The presuure is on Angela to greatly succeed at expanding the profitability of the Apple stores revenues.
As [@]PhilBoogie[/@] noted, this is a one-time compensation for the Burberry stock she sacrificed.
Only about half of the $70 million in RSUs was to replace the unvested RSUs that she would be giving up by leaving Burberry - so-called Make Whole RSUs. The rest was what Apple calls New Hire RSUs meant to make the package more attractive and to give her a greater equity stake, better aligning her (financial) interests with those of the company.
But that means you had it right to begin with - that was all part of the transition package used to get her on board. I think all of those RSUs vest within the next 3 years, at least the New Hire half of them does.
I understand that issue, however, one can be sure that Angela is going to expect superior compensation from that which she earned at Burberry's on a per annum basis- which was quite high by the way. So I would expect that she is going to be very well compensated at Apple as part of her continuing emplyment there. This amount of compensation package may also contain some salary/bonus off-set money that Angela was going to be receiving for x-years into the future. I am unsure if she has a service contarct with Apple as an executive.
Only about half of the $70 million in RSUs was to replace the unvested RSUs that she would be giving up by leaving Burberry - so-called Make Whole RSUs. The rest was what Apple calls New Hire RSUs meant to make the package more attractive and to give her a greater equity stake, better aligning her (financial) interests with those of the company.
quote: Since joining the company in May, Ahrendts has collected some $70 million in stock grants from Apple — $37 million to compensate her for the value of the Burberry stock that she walked away from in accepting the Apple job, plus a new-hire stock allocation valued at $33 million — 40 percent of which is performance based, with the rest vesting over three years.
She also pocketed a $500,000 cash bonus and relocation expenses totaling $457,615.
I'm a long term shareholder. I don't believe in massive salaries for executives ( are they really so much better than a decade ago?) and if you are getting well paid buy your own damn holiday.
First of all, think about how much the value of the dollar has been eroded over the last 10 years ....thanks to the reckless overprinting of the money supply. Secondly, take the time to compare the success and level of compensation between the financial sector and the Apple execs. If you want to find "obscene compensation" the financial industry wins this title, hands down.
I find it "interesting" to note that, in almost every instance, the people who were most to blame for the economic crisis, were the same ones who got the biggest rewards and who were given the task of solving the problems that they, themselves, created. You couldn't make up anything more unbelievable than this. When will we ever learn.
well, the simple analogy is that Tim is the GM of a great athletic team. To win big, they need a home run hitter. When you 'sell stuff' head of retail would be your clean-up hitter... your QB, your Kobe/LeBron/MichaelJordan. You make a hard decision based on the economics of your market [revenue, market share, mind share (I think 'Yankees' here or Manchester United)], and the economics of 'her'market [free agency so to speak].
A good leader pays for the talent that is needed to win the game, regardless of his/her own salary. It's a small person who has to earn more than his/her subordinates.
We should hope that she is the 'straw that stirs the drink' Apple has great tech product [Functional High Ground arguments notwithstanding], now they need to convert/maintain/extend that into great consumer product. Angela is being asked to do that. And Tim/Apple can't afford underperforming in that position.
That's exactly where this analogy fails. I don't understand american sport so I'll stick with soccer.
The best player in the world at the moment and maybe of all time is Messi ( Ronaldo is also one of the greats, just to avoid arguments) There are continuous rumours of him going to the premiership for up to 70M euro. If so he will - unless plagued by injury -- massively increase their profits by scoring and aiding goals.
However Messi isn't a manager. He will be signed for more and paid more than the team manager and vastly more than other managerial classes, accountants, salesmen etc associated with Barcelona. In what he does he's a low level worker. Just the best at it.
If capitalism in general worked like sport then the best kernel engineer or chip designer would get the millions and the retail manager would get a low six figure salary ( Chelsea, Barca and Man United etc. do have franchise shops).
Conversely if Sport worked like the rest of capitalism Messi would be a level IV soccer player getting excellent performance reviews but not expected to make real money becsuse he's not the managerial type. Maybe scrape a 6 figure salary. Meanwhile the head of Barcelonas retail division will get hired for 70M. She won't know shit about soccer.
If sport worked like Apple did in the past Messi wouldn't be able to transfer to other clubs and earn more because of a non-compete agreement with other teams. He would have to end his contract, rather than be head hunted.
First of all, think about how much the value of the dollar has been eroded over the last 10 years ....thanks to the reckless overprinting of the money supply. Secondly, take the time to compare the success and level of compensation between the financial sector and the Apple execs. If you want to find "obscene compensation" the financial industry wins this title, hands down.
I find it "interesting" to note that, in almost every instance, the people who were most to blame for the economic crisis, were the same ones who got the biggest rewards and who were given the task of solving the problems that they, themselves, created. You couldn't make up anything more unbelievable than this. When will we ever learn. :???:
Yes bankers are worse. I don't think the dollar has eroded though.
The thread just wouldn't be the same without a baiting, useless comment. Thanks for doing your part.
He's not baiting at all. You are opposed to the class settlement awarded to apple employees and others in a deliberate suppression of their wages but get angry when executive wage levels are criticised.
He's not baiting at all. You are opposed to the class settlement awarded to apple employees and others in a deliberate suppression of their wages but get angry when executive wage levels are criticised.
Sounds like we are in fact talking about exactly the same thing - renumeration of employees.
No, we’re not talking about the same thing, where “paid fairly” means, either, “allowed to bid yourself to other companies for your work” or “you should not get that much money because I say you should not get that much money”.
I was actually going to add, “The only way in which they’re related is that they both involve dollar signs,” but I didn’t because I expected people to be smart enough to comprehend that.
No, we’re not talking about the same thing, where “paid fairly” means, either, “allowed to bid yourself to other companies for your work” or “you should not get that much money because I say you should not get that much money”.
I was actually going to add, “The only way in which they’re related is that they both involve dollar signs,” but I didn’t because I expected people to be smart enough to comprehend that.
You've created a strawman argument. I'm not arguing that the managerial class in Apple ( and american capitalism ) shouldn't get money because I say so ( although as a long term shareholder it should be my decision) but because the managerial classes are not worth what they pay themselves. Across the board. That is productivity hasn't justified their increased renumeration. That bonuses are awarded regardless of performance. See GTAT
I also believe that skilled workers are under paid and companies collude in that underpayment.
That's in all probability because you, like millions of others, look at the increased price of an item as having gone up, when in fact, the value of the dollar has gone down. There is one "economic law" that has been in place for years, the law that says when demand is greater than supply, prices go up and when supply is greater than demand, prices fall. Money is a commodity and as such it follows that same law. Create more dollars and the value of each one is reduced.
That's in all probability because you, like millions of others, look at the increased price of an item as having gone up, when in fact, the value of the dollar has gone down. There is one "economic law" that has been in place for years, the law that says when demand is greater than supply, prices go up and when supply is greater than demand, prices fall. Money is a commodity and as such it follows that same law. Create more dollars and the value of each one is reduced.
Or it's because the dollar has not eroded and is in fact higher valued relativr to most other currencies than it was. Maybe that's because everybody else is also printing currencies but the value of the dollar is not depreciating.
Or it's because the dollar has not eroded and is in fact higher valued relativr to most other currencies than it was. Maybe that's because everybody else is also printing currencies but the value of the dollar is not depreciating.
You're right about everyone else printing currencies, but it would appear that the government of the day in the US had a very reckless and panicked fed chairman ... not a good situation at all.
This is a quote from Ben Bernanke, who served two terms as chairmanof the Federal Reserve, the central bank of the United States from 2006 to 2014...... "Like gold, U.S. dollars have value only to the extent that they are strictly limited in supply. But the U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost. By increasing the number of U.S. dollars in circulation, or even by credibly threatening to do so, the U.S. government can also reduce the value of a dollar in terms of goods and services, which is equivalent to raising the prices in dollars of those goods and services"......
Comments
http://www.payscale.com/data-packages/ceo-income
As [@]PhilBoogie[/@] noted, this is a one-time compensation for the Burberry stock she sacrificed.
Nope:
$73M payout to Angela Ahrendts reflects the Burberry stock she sacrificed, explains Apple
http://tinyurl.com/qf775zo
Only about half of the $70 million in RSUs was to replace the unvested RSUs that she would be giving up by leaving Burberry - so-called Make Whole RSUs. The rest was what Apple calls New Hire RSUs meant to make the package more attractive and to give her a greater equity stake, better aligning her (financial) interests with those of the company.
But that means you had it right to begin with - that was all part of the transition package used to get her on board. I think all of those RSUs vest within the next 3 years, at least the New Hire half of them does.
I understand that issue, however, one can be sure that Angela is going to expect superior compensation from that which she earned at Burberry's on a per annum basis- which was quite high by the way. So I would expect that she is going to be very well compensated at Apple as part of her continuing emplyment there. This amount of compensation package may also contain some salary/bonus off-set money that Angela was going to be receiving for x-years into the future. I am unsure if she has a service contarct with Apple as an executive.
BIre/code sums it up rather nicely:quote:
Since joining the company in May, Ahrendts has collected some $70 million in stock grants from Apple — $37 million to compensate her for the value of the Burberry stock that she walked away from in accepting the Apple job, plus a new-hire stock allocation valued at $33 million — 40 percent of which is performance based, with the rest vesting over three years.
She also pocketed a $500,000 cash bonus and relocation expenses totaling $457,615.
The thread just wouldn't be the same without a baiting, useless comment. Thanks for doing your part.
Predictable dodge tactic. Something you would expect from a trust fund baby.
The article says "$458,000 in relocation expenses". It's outrageous ! This means 385 $ have disappeared ! A class action is needed !
I agree, for 103%.
I'm a long term shareholder. I don't believe in massive salaries for executives ( are they really so much better than a decade ago?) and if you are getting well paid buy your own damn holiday.
First of all, think about how much the value of the dollar has been eroded over the last 10 years ....thanks to the reckless overprinting of the money supply. Secondly, take the time to compare the success and level of compensation between the financial sector and the Apple execs. If you want to find "obscene compensation" the financial industry wins this title, hands down.
I find it "interesting" to note that, in almost every instance, the people who were most to blame for the economic crisis, were the same ones who got the biggest rewards and who were given the task of solving the problems that they, themselves, created. You couldn't make up anything more unbelievable than this. When will we ever learn.
He's the creator of his own wealth. Not a manager of it.
That's exactly where this analogy fails. I don't understand american sport so I'll stick with soccer.
The best player in the world at the moment and maybe of all time is Messi ( Ronaldo is also one of the greats, just to avoid arguments) There are continuous rumours of him going to the premiership for up to 70M euro. If so he will - unless plagued by injury -- massively increase their profits by scoring and aiding goals.
However Messi isn't a manager. He will be signed for more and paid more than the team manager and vastly more than other managerial classes, accountants, salesmen etc associated with Barcelona. In what he does he's a low level worker. Just the best at it.
If capitalism in general worked like sport then the best kernel engineer or chip designer would get the millions and the retail manager would get a low six figure salary ( Chelsea, Barca and Man United etc. do have franchise shops).
Conversely if Sport worked like the rest of capitalism Messi would be a level IV soccer player getting excellent performance reviews but not expected to make real money becsuse he's not the managerial type. Maybe scrape a 6 figure salary. Meanwhile the head of Barcelonas retail division will get hired for 70M. She won't know shit about soccer.
If sport worked like Apple did in the past Messi wouldn't be able to transfer to other clubs and earn more because of a non-compete agreement with other teams. He would have to end his contract, rather than be head hunted.
Yes bankers are worse. I don't think the dollar has eroded though.
Nah, get over it.
He's not baiting at all. You are opposed to the class settlement awarded to apple employees and others in a deliberate suppression of their wages but get angry when executive wage levels are criticised.
Because they’re in no way related, I’d imagine.
Sounds like we are in fact talking about exactly the same thing - renumeration of employees.
No, we’re not talking about the same thing, where “paid fairly” means, either, “allowed to bid yourself to other companies for your work” or “you should not get that much money because I say you should not get that much money”.
I was actually going to add, “The only way in which they’re related is that they both involve dollar signs,” but I didn’t because I expected people to be smart enough to comprehend that.
You've created a strawman argument. I'm not arguing that the managerial class in Apple ( and american capitalism ) shouldn't get money because I say so ( although as a long term shareholder it should be my decision) but because the managerial classes are not worth what they pay themselves. Across the board. That is productivity hasn't justified their increased renumeration. That bonuses are awarded regardless of performance. See GTAT
I also believe that skilled workers are under paid and companies collude in that underpayment.
That's in all probability because you, like millions of others, look at the increased price of an item as having gone up, when in fact, the value of the dollar has gone down. There is one "economic law" that has been in place for years, the law that says when demand is greater than supply, prices go up and when supply is greater than demand, prices fall. Money is a commodity and as such it follows that same law. Create more dollars and the value of each one is reduced.
Or it's because the dollar has not eroded and is in fact higher valued relativr to most other currencies than it was. Maybe that's because everybody else is also printing currencies but the value of the dollar is not depreciating.
Or it's because the dollar has not eroded and is in fact higher valued relativr to most other currencies than it was. Maybe that's because everybody else is also printing currencies but the value of the dollar is not depreciating.
You're right about everyone else printing currencies, but it would appear that the government of the day in the US had a very reckless and panicked fed chairman ... not a good situation at all.
This is a quote from Ben Bernanke, who served two terms as chairmanof the Federal Reserve, the central bank of the United States from 2006 to 2014...... "Like gold, U.S. dollars have value only to the extent that they are strictly limited in supply. But the U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost. By increasing the number of U.S. dollars in circulation, or even by credibly threatening to do so, the U.S. government can also reduce the value of a dollar in terms of goods and services, which is equivalent to raising the prices in dollars of those goods and services"......
(emphasis mine)
http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2002/20021121/default.htm