Apple executives net more than $13M each in vested stock
Eight Apple executives, including senior vice presidents Eddy Cue and Craig Federighi, saw batches of restricted stock units vest last week, six of which were worth some $13.6 million.
According to multiple U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings made public on Tuesday, the stock vested on April 1 originate from Apple RSU incentive plans meted out on March 3, 2014, and Oct. 17, 2014. The two awards included 53,056 and 40,955 RSUs, respectively.
Six executives -- Apple COO Jeff Williams, SVP and General Counsel Bruce Sewell, SVP of Worldwide Marketing Phil Schiller, SVP of Internet Software and Services Eddy Cue, SVP of Software Engineering Craig Federighi and SVP of Hardware Engineering Dan Riccio -- received grants from both plans, meaning their awards converted into 94,010 common stock units. At the end of trading on Tuesday, the shares were worth just over $13.6 million.
In addition to the statutory stock grant, Cue purchased 236 shares of Apple common stock on Jan. 31, 2017, under the company's Employee Stock Purchase Plan (ESPP).
Apple SVP of Retail Angela Ahrendts and CFO Luca Maestri also saw RSUs vest as part of the October 2014 incentive plan, netting each executive shares worth about $6 million.
As is standard operating procedure, Apple withheld 46,214 shares from awards received by Cue, Schiller, Federighi, Riccio, Williams and Sewell to satisfy tax laws. The company withheld 19,632 shares from Ahrendts 20,648 shares from Maestri for the same reason.
Cue and Schiller shuffled a respective 48,032 and 47,796 shares to family trusts following last week's vesting. Schiller ultimately sold those shares at a price of $143.32, netting $6.9 million.
The vested stock awards arrive after Apple's executive team missed out on bonus pay last year due to the company's comparatively poor fiscal 2016 results. Apple generated $215.6 billion in net sales and operating income of $60 billion, but the performance was not up to standards set by Apple's compensation committee.
According to multiple U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings made public on Tuesday, the stock vested on April 1 originate from Apple RSU incentive plans meted out on March 3, 2014, and Oct. 17, 2014. The two awards included 53,056 and 40,955 RSUs, respectively.
Six executives -- Apple COO Jeff Williams, SVP and General Counsel Bruce Sewell, SVP of Worldwide Marketing Phil Schiller, SVP of Internet Software and Services Eddy Cue, SVP of Software Engineering Craig Federighi and SVP of Hardware Engineering Dan Riccio -- received grants from both plans, meaning their awards converted into 94,010 common stock units. At the end of trading on Tuesday, the shares were worth just over $13.6 million.
In addition to the statutory stock grant, Cue purchased 236 shares of Apple common stock on Jan. 31, 2017, under the company's Employee Stock Purchase Plan (ESPP).
Apple SVP of Retail Angela Ahrendts and CFO Luca Maestri also saw RSUs vest as part of the October 2014 incentive plan, netting each executive shares worth about $6 million.
As is standard operating procedure, Apple withheld 46,214 shares from awards received by Cue, Schiller, Federighi, Riccio, Williams and Sewell to satisfy tax laws. The company withheld 19,632 shares from Ahrendts 20,648 shares from Maestri for the same reason.
Cue and Schiller shuffled a respective 48,032 and 47,796 shares to family trusts following last week's vesting. Schiller ultimately sold those shares at a price of $143.32, netting $6.9 million.
The vested stock awards arrive after Apple's executive team missed out on bonus pay last year due to the company's comparatively poor fiscal 2016 results. Apple generated $215.6 billion in net sales and operating income of $60 billion, but the performance was not up to standards set by Apple's compensation committee.
Comments
Tip o' the cap to continuing that success.
Seems light, to be honest.
This is a clear sign that Google/Samsung/Microsoft/Dunkin' Donuts have won! The executives are bleeding the cash from this bealeagured husk and are running for the hills!
Apple is finished! Blessed is the Pixel/ExplOding Note/Surface/Two for the price of one on the Iced Donuts with Raspberry Filling.
Intraday high of $145.19 as of this writing.
There are performance-based portions of those stock awards. But that portion, which is based on relative total shareholder return over a set period of time, doesn't vest until this October in the case of the October 2014 award. In the case of the March 2014 award, the performance based portions vested in October of 2015 and 2016.
What drives bonuses (speaking in general terms)* is self-interest, not ideology. In terms of populations, self-interest is the most consistent, predictable, and most powerful force in society, which is why capitalism, which best harnesses this aspect of human nature, is the most productive mechanism for economic growth and general prosperity. In turn, capitalism should also not be viewed in a narrow, simplistic, ideological fashion; capitalistic systems need practical guidelines to prevent fraud and exploitation, as well as mechanisms to fill in the gaps where personal needs don't directly correlate to societal needs (e.g. programs that reduce the personal penalty/risk for doing something that benefits society as a whole).**
The examples you cite, while they sound nice at a surface level, are full of problems and are generally unrealistic, which is a perfect example of why it's a terrible idea to govern a population based on ideology. What becomes problematic is when people decide they want to put unrealistic controls on other people to the extent that it corrupts the foundational rules of the economy (e.g. Who are you to decide how "these people" spend their money? Maybe they want to reinvest, thus bolstering the economy as a whole, because they think they can be more productive that way, and give even more in the future?).
In conclusion, ideologies are a convenient, cheap shortcut to trying to understand the world, which is never that simple. So, don't get caught up in being a 'conservative' or a 'liberal' because both are stupid positions to take.
*I feel that Apple's execs are very far from the antisocial/materialistic stereotype we often see in other businesses and wall street.
**E.g. Recycling; personally, it is easier to just throw everything in the trash, but incentives and programs that facilitate recycling are a positive overall investment for society.
Kinda veered off into full rant mode; guess I was trying to skip ahead to the core issue(s).
Ideology does work on a societal level. When we vote in a democracy we vote for an ideology. Self interest may be a more consistent, predictable and powerful force, I won't argue with that, and it is a core part of being human, but ideology is an overriding guiding principle designed by groups of individuals to intellectually shape a system and set of rules, morals, guiding principles etc, by which we can live together as a society. It is the only way we can decide upon the kind of world we want to live in. It is through ideology that we can contain and rein in self interest (as you point out).
When you say that problems arise when 'people' place unrealistic controls on other people you seem to suggest that there should be no regulation, nor governance. I absolutely believe in regulation and governance and I also believe you can't have either without ideology. Unrealistic control placed upon other people is always bad, but the question is if by saying unrealistic you mean unreasonable. If my neighbour wants to turn his house into a sweatshop, and invest money into enlarging his house to that end, is it unreasonable for any authority to forbid the project in spite of its likely monetary success and the added employment opportunities? Obviously, yes, there are many possible reasons, and they are all based in ideology. So I don't understand what you mean when you say ideology is a shortcut to understanding the world. The way I see it is much more of a way to create a world, for better or worse.
I also feel that Apple's executives are far from the antisocial/materialistic stereotype often seen, and I think that Apple is better (much) company for largely adhering to and promoting its relatively liberal social ideology,