Apple CEO Tim Cook's 2012 salary drops 99% without stock awards
Tim Cook's total compensation for being CEO of Apple in 2012 will be $4.17 million ? a number down 99 percent from 2011 because of a lack of stock awards.
Cook's pay was revealed in a regulatory filing by Apple, first highlighted on Thursday by Bloomberg. The annual payment includes $1.36 million in base salary and $2.8 million in incentive plan compensation.
Last year, Cook was awarded $378 million, making him the highest-paid CEO in the U.S. But Cook won't see most of that money unless he stays at Apple for a decade, as a majority of it ??$376.2 ? stems from a one-time stock award.
Without the stock award, Cook's salary, perks and bonuses for the 12-month span of 2011 amounted to $1.8 million. His annual salary last year was $900,000.
This year, Cook oversaw the launch of the iPhone 5, the most successful product debut in Apple's history in terms of sales. Other major products introduced in 2012 include both the third- and fourth-generation iPad, the iPad mini, a revamped iPod lineup, and new Macs.
Apple Chief Financial Officer Peter Oppenheimer earned a total of $68.6 million in 2012, an increase driven mostly by $66.2 million in stock awards. Last year, he earned $1.42 million.
Cook's pay was revealed in a regulatory filing by Apple, first highlighted on Thursday by Bloomberg. The annual payment includes $1.36 million in base salary and $2.8 million in incentive plan compensation.
Last year, Cook was awarded $378 million, making him the highest-paid CEO in the U.S. But Cook won't see most of that money unless he stays at Apple for a decade, as a majority of it ??$376.2 ? stems from a one-time stock award.
Without the stock award, Cook's salary, perks and bonuses for the 12-month span of 2011 amounted to $1.8 million. His annual salary last year was $900,000.
This year, Cook oversaw the launch of the iPhone 5, the most successful product debut in Apple's history in terms of sales. Other major products introduced in 2012 include both the third- and fourth-generation iPad, the iPad mini, a revamped iPod lineup, and new Macs.
Apple Chief Financial Officer Peter Oppenheimer earned a total of $68.6 million in 2012, an increase driven mostly by $66.2 million in stock awards. Last year, he earned $1.42 million.
Comments
Why does he need to be "compensated"? What for? Some people would pay to get his job ^^
What a perfectly rational comment¡ Most think it's good the job of CEO of Apple didn't go to the lowest bidder but to the most talented person.
Other companies would gladly pay much more to steal him. He works for Apple because he loves it. My local power company's CEO in south east Wisconsin (not anywhere near as large as Apple) makes over 13 million (more then 1% of earnings) a year and is raising rates due to poor planning and overspending. The executives make their money no matter how they perform. The only penalty to their poor performance was that a large local company, SC Johnson, built their own power plant in protest and took themselves off the grid completely using green power. I find it refreshing to see a more reasonable salary for a CEO. Compared to other companies this is a very small amount of compensation.
Originally Posted by esummers
My local power company's CEO in south east Wisconsin (not anywhere near as large as Apple) makes over 13 million (more then 1% of earnings) a year and is raising rates due to poor planning and overspending.
Why does a power company CEO need that much money? No, I'm not at all in favor of "others" dictating what people do and don't "deserve", I'm just questioning how they're raking that much in. As you've said, it doesn't seem that they are. Continued mismanagement of this sort will be his own undoing and the system will stabilize itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by esummers
Other companies would gladly pay much more to steal him. He works for Apple because he loves it. My local power company's CEO in south east Wisconsin (not anywhere near as large as Apple) makes over 13 million (more then 1% of earnings) a year and is raising rates due to poor planning and overspending. The executives make their money no matter how they perform. The only penalty to their poor performance was that a large local company, SC Johnson, built their own power plant in protest and took themselves off the grid completely using green power. I find it refreshing to see a more reasonable salary for a CEO. Compared to other companies this is a very small amount of compensation.
Exactly...I was surprised at how low it was, especially when you factor in it is heavily incentive based (unclear obviously how difficult the incentives are to reach). I'm not great with how to value stock options nor do I know what the standard is, but I would guess that Cook is being paid very reasonably for his work.
People always get on CEOs for being paid the most, but ultimately they are the ones that take the heat when things go wrong and I think it is bad to make a blanket statement on CEOs. There are definitely bad ones and over paid ones, doesn't mean they are all in that category.
Um, the word "salary" refers to a "fixed regular payment."
Not the occasional stock option grant. Just sayin'.
Maybe "salary" should be changed to "total pay" in the title.
I wish other companies followed this example. Most (if not all) will not. Most CEO's as far as I'm concerned aren't worth anywhere near the compensation they earn. It's a damn shame that that those companies can throw boatloads of money to one individual, at the same time laying off front-line workers or cutting benefits. Just not right.
I hope Tim continues to perform well for the next decade. Apple was so exciting with Steve at the helm, a certain magic existed. A bit of that shine is lost for me, but I don't blame it on change in management. I do hope that Apple keeps the fire burning hot and continues to surprise us year after year with amazing products.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TzTerri
Can't imagine trying to live on just $4.17 million a year. We all need to start a charity to help out with his living expenses.
Pretty assinine comment. Yes, obviously $4 million is alot for most people. But we're talking about the CEO of a company that brings in almost ~$40 billion in revenue a quarter, and makes pretty much more profit and revenue than any other company in its industry, and on the planet. In that context, 4 million is definitely considered extremely low, in that someone who manages a company of this magnitude is worth more than 4 million to that company. There are no doubt countless companies who don't bring in a fraction of Apple's figures who have CEOs with a significantly higher salary. Cook's salary, in relation to his company's success, it's probably one of the lowest in the world. And there's nothing wrong with that- it's clear evidence that Cook isn't a greedy glutton and isn't doing it for the money. No doubt he could demand much more and it would be approved by the board of directors.
they should stop handing out these stocks awards like candy. no wonder the stock has been tanking... investors bleeding to death from lowering sales estimates and diluting of stock
they need to stop handing out these stock awards like candy, insiders are selling like crazy and shares are diluted enough... very poor treatment of loyal shareholders and apple supporters IMO.
Originally Posted by KingChael
they need to stop handing out these stock awards like candy, insiders are selling like crazy and shares are diluted enough... very poor treatment of loyal shareholders and apple supporters IMO.
Why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Why?
investor confidence & an already poor investor PR... as if apple doesnt have enough real problems to deal with
Originally Posted by KingChael
investor confidence? as if apple doesnt have enough real problems to deal with
What reason would there be to assume a decrease in investor confidence in Apple? Can't use any speculation in this answer; just gotta use Apple's numbers.
I assume a more realistic way of stating his stock awards would be to say it's equivalent to a ten year contract worth $37.6m a year.
I presume the reason for giving his pay in stock is to act as an incentive to wisely steer the company over ten years, but personally I don't see how this is an incentive at all. Will it make any difference to his life if he runs the company abysmally and averages $30m a year instead of $37.6m? I don't think he'll notice the difference, but it would make a big difference to the company if the shares lost that amount of value over ten years. Ironically it would be more of an incentive if he had been awarded less shares - because then an increase in the share price WOULD make a significant difference to his personal wealth.