Does anyone know if this is actual vested stock or new grants that have yet to vest? (And what the vesting schedule is)
As mentioned by Carnegie, Cook receives both time-based and performance-based grants.
My guess -- based on Tim's public persona of fairness and equality -- is that his time-based grants are on the same vesting schedule as those of his line employees. In Silicon Valley, this has long meant 20% of the grant's shares vesting one year after the date of the grant followed by 2% additional vesting each month. Thus, to be 50% vested, it would take 1 year + 15 months. To be fully vested for that specific grant, it would take 1 year + 40 months = 4 years + 4 months.
Tim's sense of fairness shows up a bit in his $3 million salary. He is not playing that $1 annual salary game. He is still contributing to the regular social welfare pots: Social Security, Medicare, SDI, etc. plus other things like a pre-tax medical account ("cafeteria plan") and a long-term care policy. The rest of it is likely withheld for federal and state income taxes. I bet his actual bi-weekly pay stub is less than $50 net.
Silicon Valley has a nickname for these time-based grants; they are known as "golden handcuffs" because they incentivize the employees to remain with the company.
His performance based grants are probably described in the company's SEC filings. Note that these types of performance-based grants for senior executives don't automatically vest. They are reviewed and approved by the Board of Directors' compensation committee. Often, performance based grants are not fully granted if the company's performance falls short of the goals set in the grant. In this case, it is usually not an all-of-nothing deal and the compensation committee reduces the amount of awarded grant.
The Bloomberg figure would have to be that of exercised grants. An unexercised grant -- even if fully vested -- is still theoretical money. Cook -- like others in his category -- periodically exercise vested grants for the primary purpose of portfolio diversification.
Of course, the IRS does not care about unvested, unexercised grants. The only figure that is truly important is the value of the exercised grant. That is the number that the IRS (and Franchise Tax Board for Tim) look at.
My guess is that Tim also donates some of his fully appreciated stock to charitable organizations. There is a considerable tax benefit to donating equities.
So Mr. Cook's award was actually for 10 years. When he became CEO in 2011 he received an RSU award of 1,000,000 shares, half of which was to vest in 5 years and the other half of which was to vest in 10 years. A little bit later they changed the award some. Apple shares have since split 7:1, so I'll give the split shares numbers for what it was changed to.
With the changes, 8% of the total of 7,000,000 shares was to vest each year. That's 560,000 shares a year - 280,000 time-based and 280,000 performance based, depending on how Apple stock does. The other 20% of the award was to vest 10% after 5 years and 10% after 10 years, with those blocks just being time-based. So in 2016 Mr. Cook received an extra 700,000 shares and he's set to receive an extra 700,000 shares in 2021. Most, but not all, of his performance-based shares have vested over the years.
Mr. Cook has received no other RSU awards since he's been CEO. I'd add that he's voluntarily declined the dividend equivalents he's been entitled to based on his unvested RSUs (and which others in the company receive based on their unvested RSUs). That's already more than $76 million worth of dividend equivalents he's turned down.
I am unsure whether or not I should be impressed by your detailed knowledge of Tim Cook's compensation package. Perhaps you have more free time on your hands to consider such matters than I. That's fine, everyone needs a hobby.
There are some who believe that Mr. Cook is overcompensated and I won't argue with them, however there are plenty of other CEOs who deserve to be burned at the stake first.
It's not a hobby. I own a considerable amount of Apple stock so I read its SEC filings. It doesn't take that long.
And, for the record, I don't think Mr. Cook is overcompensated. I think the job he's done is easily worth more than he's been paid.
Comments
And, for the record, I don't think Mr. Cook is overcompensated. I think the job he's done is easily worth more than he's been paid.