At Apple, compensation for the CEO and his pet Vice-Presidents is insane, demented, unwarranted and the reason why Apple will NEVER succeed in the market place beyond its paltry 5% or 6% US market share.
I think you are talking out of your posterior. The iPod has something like 30% global market share, 80% in much of the developed world, and that's about half of Apple's business now.
In a business sense, market share is irrelevant if it's not profitable. Apple makes (very roughly) about as much net profit as HP and Dell does, with generally about twice the profit margin.
Heck, most companies in most industries don't have a 5% market share in anything.
As much as I'd like Apple to have a bigger market share for computers, I think they are going to do better being a consumer electronics company than they did as a computer company.
This guy should be ignored. (See his previous posts).
Obviously, he's just trying to stir up shit. Responding to him just increases his ignorance and for any one of us to do so may be construed as contibuting to juvenile or mental cruelty.
He's definitely worth every penny, seeing how much the AAPL market cap has risen, how influential the company and it's products have been in the markets they enter since Amelio was ousted, and how much better off the company is with Jobs. They definitely need to make public the succession plan within the next couple years. Would Steve be any more of a valuable asset if he made half? Would he even consider leaving?
After reading the shareholder books that were just released, I agree it's excessive, but worth it.
But, being an employee of a company with a CEO who's on the list, I think full CEO pay packages MUST be directly tied to company performance. Company profits go down, CEO pay goes down. Company profits go up, share the wealth (especially so in this case because Apple doesn't issue a dividend).
"Jobs' $646.6 million came in the form of restricted stock options that vested during the year, bringing his 5-year compensation total for work done at Apple to $650.17 million. "
So if he made 650 mil in 5 years, and of that, 646 was this year... I assume that means he made far less for the previous years, and this is a one-time event not expected to be duplicated each year?
Exactly. The four previous years Jobs made $3.57 million - an average of $892,500.
Over 5 years her averaged $130 million/year.
Over 5 years, here's how AAPL tracked. With the stock splitting 2:1, the value is actually $200/share for anyone who purchased 5 years ago at the share price of $11.675 (market open May 3, 2002): 1713.06% gain.
There are two ways of looking at this: one is from the shareholder's value, where Jobs is obviously worth every bit of what he took. From 11.00 to 100. in five years, with a split in there, means the owner of Apple stock in May 2002 who bought at $11.00 now has $200. The uproar over paying off in options and stock came when CEOs with poorly-performing companies were getting huge awards anyway. That defeated the purpose of paying off only in stock, or tying compensation to performance. This obviously doesn't really set off alarm bells, as long as his stock, awarded near $11, is paid off at $200. If he had just kept the company level, he would have gotten, what, $34 million for five years? My math is terrible. Or if the company had gone lower, he'd have been shown the door by now.
On the other hand, executive compensation in general has gone too high in comparison with the average worker, in general. In the greatest boom our in history, the postwar expansion from 1945-1971, Jobs would have made a salary, maybe up to, oh, a couple of million dollars. And his lowest-paid worker would have made about $10,000 -- both when those sums had much larger buying power than they do now.
Apple will NEVER succeed in the market place beyond its paltry 5% or 6% US market share.
As Jobs has said in the past, BMW and Mercedes Benz combined have less market share in the US than Apple. Which, to me says that you not only get what you pay for, but that there are few US consumers with enough taste, style, and originality to think outside the box.
On that note, if Apple had a 80% market share it means they'd be producing crap much like Microsoft and I would look elsewhere for my computing needs.
So with that, go do something productive like defrag your hard drive, scan for viruses, or reinstall your OS. Enjoy!
Eisner and every other CEO should have their pay tied inextricably to stock performance. Steve rocks and has done amazing things in a truly tough, tough business.
Hmmm....Why not distibute the enmorous pay back to the company employees and buyers (as really discounted prices) who really made Apple "kick ass" Not just the head person... I know there has been argument on this before here on the forums.. but damn, do CEO's really need that much pay for what they they do? Stock options or pay...that is a shit ton of money. I think salary caps are practical, thay way the company as a whole get to benefit from the good business. just my 2cents.
Hmmm....Why not distibute the enmorous pay back to the company employees and buyers (as really discounted prices) who really made Apple "kick ass" Not just the head person... I know there has been argument on this before here on the forums.. but damn, do CEO's really need that much pay for what they they do? Stock options or pay...that is a shit ton of money. I think salary caps are practical, thay way the company as a whole get to benefit from the good business. just my 2cents.
Have salary caps ever been effective? It causes other problems last I heard, causes more problems then it is supposed to fix.
Redistributing the money is probably not effective in any way. Let's say that we wanted to redistribute $100M to all iPod owners, if you owned an iPod, then you get $1. Redistributing $100M to all Mac owners would be about $5.
Have salary caps ever been effective? It causes other problems last I heard, causes more problems then it is supposed to fix.
Redistributing the money is probably not effective in any way. Let's say that we wanted to redistribute $100M to all iPod owners, if you owned an iPod, then you get $1. Redistributing $100M to all Mac owners would be about $5.
WelI wouldn't actually want distribute the earnigs back to mac owners persay, more like using the profit somewhat to cut prices on stuff, therefore inabling new users etc to be able to afford a new Mac, hence Apple selling more HW, SW etc.
WelI wouldn't actually want distribute the earnigs back to mac owners persay, more like using the profit somewhat to cut prices on stuff, therefore inabling new users etc to be able to afford a new Mac, hence Apple selling more HW, SW etc.
So, instead of a $1099 price on a Mac Book, a $1094 price would be seen as significantly better? Would the difference between $1049 and $1099 be a significant turn-off? That's part of the point I am driving at.
A 34% pay raise? No one in the middle class (or lower class) ever gets that much of a pay raise. It's obscene that Jobs gets paid that much. I'm all for Apple doing well but the reality is the growing gap between employee pay and CEO pay is directly related to overpayment of CEOs, like this. Jobs isn't necessarily the guilty one, its the boards that vote on giving so much away. Really, nearly all of that pay raise should go to the hardworking Apple employees, the grunts doing hard programming and product development.
Say what you will to me, when was the last time any of YOU got a 34% pay raise? ... Didn't think so.
A 34% pay raise? No one in the middle class (or lower class) ever gets that much of a pay raise. It's obscene that Jobs gets paid that much. I'm all for Apple doing well but the reality is the growing gap between employee pay and CEO pay is directly related to overpayment of CEOs, like this. Jobs isn't necessarily the guilty one, its the boards that vote on giving so much away. Really, nearly all of that pay raise should go to the hardworking Apple employees, the grunts doing hard programming and product development.
Say what you will to me, when was the last time any of YOU got a 34% pay raise? ... Didn't think so.
My point exactly.. I could'nt have said it better.
I'm not bothered at all by what Jobs makes. What worries me is that there isn't a _visible_ succession plan. Apple seems to be a 'one man show' at the top, and Jobs won't live forever...
Wow.... great first post. I agree wholeheartedly. This is a "poison put" on Apple's stock value. Hopefully, the succession process has started, and in earnest.
My one other slight issue is: Steve Jobs is now at a wealth level ($4+ or $5+ billion?) at which he should be starting to talk about what he is going to do with it all -- i.e., he should not just start his succession planning, but also planning his non-Apple/post-Apple legacy.
Tell me who contributed more to the prosperity of the USA in the last 5 years than Steve Jobs. He truly built Apple with his own mind. Everyone in America should thank him. He made my life better. He also made me richer thanks to AAPL stock. To me, he created this money so he deserves it, and more. And as a stockholder, my opinion counts.
Despite a $1 yearly salary, Apple chief executive Steve Jobs still managed to top Forbes' list of highest paid CEOs for 2006, raking in more than $646 million through stock-based compensation -- more than twice that of the next highest paid boss.
As a comparison, the CEO of Canada's largest bank, The Royal Bank of Canada, earned the unprecedented compensation of $6.5 millions in 2006.
Compare that to the top 4 Vice-Presidents of Apple who earned a combined $64.5 million in 2006. See "Top four Apple execs net $64.5 million in 2006 as Jobs earns just one dollar" at:
A balanced Stock Market place is made in equal parts with investors who have a positive outlook of the future and, in equal numbers, individuals who are pessimistic about the future of a company.
In the case of Apple, there are a number of red flags which have been ignored for far too long. Beware of when the sky comes falling in. Or the SEC. Or the class action lawsuits of shareholders who consider that a plublicly traded company doesn't exist for the sole benefit of its CEO and his pet Vice-Presidents.
As a corporate and business lawyer, it has been my view that a company belongs to its shareholders who are entitled to share in the profits without undue interference by management who wants to keep all the profits to itself.
Computer buyers have been asked to overlook the Steve Jobs premium they pay for the privilege of owning an Apple computer. Investors have been asked to overlook the outrageous and illegal compensation paid to the CEO and top management of Apple. Why is that?
How is Apple different from any other company listed on the NASDQ Stock Exchange?
There needs to be a balanced outlook on the prospects of Apple. Apple will not break away from its niche market so long as:
1- Steve Jobs is the CEO of Apple;
2- Steve Jobs asks for such a demented compensation for himself and the 4 Vice-Presidents he chosed to lead Apple (no amount of money can ever compensate the insecurity and feeling of rejection of an adopted child);
3- Steve Jobs doesn't see the need for Apple to market an inexpensive "no frills, no remote control" office computer for consumers and businesses who just want to do word processing, simple accounting, emails and basic internet surfing (during office hours);
4- Steve Jobs refuses to allow Dell, HP, Gateway and Lenovo to install Mac OS X on a minimum of 20% of their computers.
It's high time for shareholders to revolt and demand that Tim Cook take over the CEO position at Apple. Does the SEC need to intervene and ask for jail time for Steve Jobs or will Apple shareholders wake up?
Rob Enderle summed it up best when he described the legal problems of Steve Jobs in "Will Steve Jobs have to leave Apple?" at:
The only open question is whether Apple could have adopted and developped Mac OS X without Steve Jobs as its CEO. Maybe not. But Steve Jobs has served his purpose and must now leave to open up the future of Apple.
As a comparison, the CEO of Canada's largest bank, The Royal Bank of Canada, earned the unprecedented compensation of $6.5 millions in 2006.
Compare that to the top 4 Vice-Presidents of Apple who earned a combined $64.5 million in 2006. See "Top four Apple execs net $64.5 million in 2006 as Jobs earns just one dollar" at:
...
The only open question is whether Apple could have adopted and developped Mac OS X without Steve Jobs as its CEO. Maybe not. But Steve Jobs has served his purpose and must now leave to open up the future of Apple.
Did the CEO of the Bank of Canada create the Bank of Canada with his bare hands? I'm sorry I am not aware of his being known around the world as a genius who created the Bank of Canada. Maybe he's just an average CEO.
Steve is no average CEO. He is the best in the world at the moment. We can see this not only in Apple's success from 1997-2007, but because most people like Apple and feel good about buying its products. Also, the future is very bright. The world needs Apple.
As a small shareholder I disagree with you. I am glad Steve is kept happy and being rewarded. Believe me, the stock is doing ok, and so is Apple financially.
Steve does indeed add hundreds of millions of dollars of value. Thanks to him, Apple's value increased by over $50 billion. Don't forget that.
Comments
At Apple, compensation for the CEO and his pet Vice-Presidents is insane, demented, unwarranted and the reason why Apple will NEVER succeed in the market place beyond its paltry 5% or 6% US market share.
I think you are talking out of your posterior. The iPod has something like 30% global market share, 80% in much of the developed world, and that's about half of Apple's business now.
In a business sense, market share is irrelevant if it's not profitable. Apple makes (very roughly) about as much net profit as HP and Dell does, with generally about twice the profit margin.
Heck, most companies in most industries don't have a 5% market share in anything.
As much as I'd like Apple to have a bigger market share for computers, I think they are going to do better being a consumer electronics company than they did as a computer company.
That is just incorrect on so many levels.
Re Ouragon
This guy should be ignored. (See his previous posts).
Obviously, he's just trying to stir up shit. Responding to him just increases his ignorance and for any one of us to do so may be construed as contibuting to juvenile or mental cruelty.
After reading the shareholder books that were just released, I agree it's excessive, but worth it.
But, being an employee of a company with a CEO who's on the list, I think full CEO pay packages MUST be directly tied to company performance. Company profits go down, CEO pay goes down. Company profits go up, share the wealth (especially so in this case because Apple doesn't issue a dividend).
"Jobs' $646.6 million came in the form of restricted stock options that vested during the year, bringing his 5-year compensation total for work done at Apple to $650.17 million. "
So if he made 650 mil in 5 years, and of that, 646 was this year... I assume that means he made far less for the previous years, and this is a one-time event not expected to be duplicated each year?
Exactly. The four previous years Jobs made $3.57 million - an average of $892,500.
Over 5 years her averaged $130 million/year.
Over 5 years, here's how AAPL tracked. With the stock splitting 2:1, the value is actually $200/share for anyone who purchased 5 years ago at the share price of $11.675 (market open May 3, 2002): 1713.06% gain.
On the other hand, executive compensation in general has gone too high in comparison with the average worker, in general. In the greatest boom our in history, the postwar expansion from 1945-1971, Jobs would have made a salary, maybe up to, oh, a couple of million dollars. And his lowest-paid worker would have made about $10,000 -- both when those sums had much larger buying power than they do now.
Apple will NEVER succeed in the market place beyond its paltry 5% or 6% US market share.
As Jobs has said in the past, BMW and Mercedes Benz combined have less market share in the US than Apple. Which, to me says that you not only get what you pay for, but that there are few US consumers with enough taste, style, and originality to think outside the box.
On that note, if Apple had a 80% market share it means they'd be producing crap much like Microsoft and I would look elsewhere for my computing needs.
So with that, go do something productive like defrag your hard drive, scan for viruses, or reinstall your OS. Enjoy!
I don't have to share the 1.3 million dollars I reported in earnings on Apple stock this year :-)
So you're the one who has been doing all the selling
Hmmm....Why not distibute the enmorous pay back to the company employees and buyers (as really discounted prices) who really made Apple "kick ass" Not just the head person... I know there has been argument on this before here on the forums.. but damn, do CEO's really need that much pay for what they they do? Stock options or pay...that is a shit ton of money. I think salary caps are practical, thay way the company as a whole get to benefit from the good business. just my 2cents.
Have salary caps ever been effective? It causes other problems last I heard, causes more problems then it is supposed to fix.
Redistributing the money is probably not effective in any way. Let's say that we wanted to redistribute $100M to all iPod owners, if you owned an iPod, then you get $1. Redistributing $100M to all Mac owners would be about $5.
Have salary caps ever been effective? It causes other problems last I heard, causes more problems then it is supposed to fix.
Redistributing the money is probably not effective in any way. Let's say that we wanted to redistribute $100M to all iPod owners, if you owned an iPod, then you get $1. Redistributing $100M to all Mac owners would be about $5.
WelI wouldn't actually want distribute the earnigs back to mac owners persay, more like using the profit somewhat to cut prices on stuff, therefore inabling new users etc to be able to afford a new Mac, hence Apple selling more HW, SW etc.
WelI wouldn't actually want distribute the earnigs back to mac owners persay, more like using the profit somewhat to cut prices on stuff, therefore inabling new users etc to be able to afford a new Mac, hence Apple selling more HW, SW etc.
So, instead of a $1099 price on a Mac Book, a $1094 price would be seen as significantly better? Would the difference between $1049 and $1099 be a significant turn-off? That's part of the point I am driving at.
Say what you will to me, when was the last time any of YOU got a 34% pay raise? ... Didn't think so.
A 34% pay raise? No one in the middle class (or lower class) ever gets that much of a pay raise. It's obscene that Jobs gets paid that much. I'm all for Apple doing well but the reality is the growing gap between employee pay and CEO pay is directly related to overpayment of CEOs, like this. Jobs isn't necessarily the guilty one, its the boards that vote on giving so much away. Really, nearly all of that pay raise should go to the hardworking Apple employees, the grunts doing hard programming and product development.
Say what you will to me, when was the last time any of YOU got a 34% pay raise? ... Didn't think so.
My point exactly.. I could'nt have said it better.
I'm not bothered at all by what Jobs makes. What worries me is that there isn't a _visible_ succession plan. Apple seems to be a 'one man show' at the top, and Jobs won't live forever...
Wow.... great first post. I agree wholeheartedly. This is a "poison put" on Apple's stock value. Hopefully, the succession process has started, and in earnest.
My one other slight issue is: Steve Jobs is now at a wealth level ($4+ or $5+ billion?) at which he should be starting to talk about what he is going to do with it all -- i.e., he should not just start his succession planning, but also planning his non-Apple/post-Apple legacy.
Apple's Steve Jobs tops list of highest paid CEOs
Despite a $1 yearly salary, Apple chief executive Steve Jobs still managed to top Forbes' list of highest paid CEOs for 2006, raking in more than $646 million through stock-based compensation -- more than twice that of the next highest paid boss.
As a comparison, the CEO of Canada's largest bank, The Royal Bank of Canada, earned the unprecedented compensation of $6.5 millions in 2006.
Compare that to the top 4 Vice-Presidents of Apple who earned a combined $64.5 million in 2006. See "Top four Apple execs net $64.5 million in 2006 as Jobs earns just one dollar" at:
http://notes.thinksecret.com/secretn...cpaynote.shtml
A balanced Stock Market place is made in equal parts with investors who have a positive outlook of the future and, in equal numbers, individuals who are pessimistic about the future of a company.
In the case of Apple, there are a number of red flags which have been ignored for far too long. Beware of when the sky comes falling in. Or the SEC. Or the class action lawsuits of shareholders who consider that a plublicly traded company doesn't exist for the sole benefit of its CEO and his pet Vice-Presidents.
As a corporate and business lawyer, it has been my view that a company belongs to its shareholders who are entitled to share in the profits without undue interference by management who wants to keep all the profits to itself.
Computer buyers have been asked to overlook the Steve Jobs premium they pay for the privilege of owning an Apple computer. Investors have been asked to overlook the outrageous and illegal compensation paid to the CEO and top management of Apple. Why is that?
How is Apple different from any other company listed on the NASDQ Stock Exchange?
There needs to be a balanced outlook on the prospects of Apple. Apple will not break away from its niche market so long as:
1- Steve Jobs is the CEO of Apple;
2- Steve Jobs asks for such a demented compensation for himself and the 4 Vice-Presidents he chosed to lead Apple (no amount of money can ever compensate the insecurity and feeling of rejection of an adopted child);
3- Steve Jobs doesn't see the need for Apple to market an inexpensive "no frills, no remote control" office computer for consumers and businesses who just want to do word processing, simple accounting, emails and basic internet surfing (during office hours);
4- Steve Jobs refuses to allow Dell, HP, Gateway and Lenovo to install Mac OS X on a minimum of 20% of their computers.
It's high time for shareholders to revolt and demand that Tim Cook take over the CEO position at Apple. Does the SEC need to intervene and ask for jail time for Steve Jobs or will Apple shareholders wake up?
Rob Enderle summed it up best when he described the legal problems of Steve Jobs in "Will Steve Jobs have to leave Apple?" at:
http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/31868/128/
The only open question is whether Apple could have adopted and developped Mac OS X without Steve Jobs as its CEO. Maybe not. But Steve Jobs has served his purpose and must now leave to open up the future of Apple.
As a comparison, the CEO of Canada's largest bank, The Royal Bank of Canada, earned the unprecedented compensation of $6.5 millions in 2006.
Compare that to the top 4 Vice-Presidents of Apple who earned a combined $64.5 million in 2006. See "Top four Apple execs net $64.5 million in 2006 as Jobs earns just one dollar" at:
...
The only open question is whether Apple could have adopted and developped Mac OS X without Steve Jobs as its CEO. Maybe not. But Steve Jobs has served his purpose and must now leave to open up the future of Apple.
Did the CEO of the Bank of Canada create the Bank of Canada with his bare hands? I'm sorry I am not aware of his being known around the world as a genius who created the Bank of Canada. Maybe he's just an average CEO.
Steve is no average CEO. He is the best in the world at the moment. We can see this not only in Apple's success from 1997-2007, but because most people like Apple and feel good about buying its products. Also, the future is very bright. The world needs Apple.
As a small shareholder I disagree with you. I am glad Steve is kept happy and being rewarded. Believe me, the stock is doing ok, and so is Apple financially.
Steve does indeed add hundreds of millions of dollars of value. Thanks to him, Apple's value increased by over $50 billion. Don't forget that.