Apple's Cook awarded $58M worth of AAPL stock for meeting performance goals, sells none

245

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 85
    paxmanpaxman Posts: 4,729member
    solipsismy wrote: »
    It's an interesting dilemma for a company because what if there is someone that is considered high valuable to have on their team, or even not to have on their competitor's team, they should pay them as much as possible to stay on board or come aboard.

    For example, I think $10 MM per year is excessive for a salary, but if you think it will cost you hundreds of millions of dollars to not have this person onboard and they are being offered $15 MM from your competitor isn't it not in the best interest of the company, your shareholders, and customers to not pay what it takes to get them aboard? We can say, "those people shouldn't be so greedy" but this is the free market we're talking about.

    Personally, if offered $500,000 to work for MS in the late nineties and aughts and only $410,000 to work for Apple, I would have taken the $450,000. But what if we're talking about $60k to work at Apple and $300,000 to work at Google. I would have definitely worked at Google.
    I agree with all of that and would have made the same choices. I think it is a cultural thing that has allowed wages beyond what anybody could ever possibly need to become acceptable. I know this is hugely unpopular here but I wander if this is where regulation would be useful, following a wide and open debate. A salary cap in the name of reasonable equity. It would be interesting to see what companies would do to make themselves attractive to desirable candidates.
  • Reply 22 of 85
    brakkenbrakken Posts: 687member
    Nice work Cookie! Keep up the good work!
  • Reply 23 of 85
    davidwdavidw Posts: 2,036member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TheWhiteFalcon View Post



    Let's look at the ridiculous amount withheld for taxes. That's insane.

     

    Right now these vested shares are taxed as though it's earned wages for the year. For him, that's a rate of almost 40% just for Federal.  However, if he doesn't sell any of these shares and hold off selling for a year, it will be taxed as long term capital gains. Which now maxes out at 20%, but that may change in the future. However, CA do not have any long term capital gain rate and all capital gains is taxed as income for the year. I'm sure he has 10's of millions of dollars of AAPL shares, that has been vest for over a year, that he can sell if he needs the money. And if he ends up giving away these shares to charity (or set up a charitable foundation), all those shares withheld for taxes, will go along with his donation (or go into his foundation).   

  • Reply 24 of 85
    red rogers wrote: »

    I don't live in the US and have little exposure to American media. Where does this nonsense come from?

    Mostly the UK. :)
  • Reply 25 of 85
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NostraThomas View Post



    I get the impression that Mr. Cook isn't motivated by personal wealth accrual.



    Legacy is tops on his todo list every morning. Wealth is the symptom.

    while I agree, you must admit it's a helluva lot easier to do that when you're already loaded. when your wealth crosses a certain threshold that you and your family could live happily forever more on accrued interest alone then of course there is very little motivation to increase and focus on that (unless the person is incredibly greedy). If he was earning 20K a year at starbucks, I'm pretty sure he'd be cashing in those shares straight away.

  • Reply 26 of 85
    thepixeldocthepixeldoc Posts: 2,257member
    paxman wrote: »
    I agree with all of that and would have made the same choices. I think it is a cultural thing that has allowed wages beyond what anybody could ever possibly need to become acceptable. I know this is hugely unpopular here but I wander if this is where regulation would be useful, following a wide and open debate. A salary cap in the name of reasonable equity. It would be interesting to see what companies would do to make themselves attractive to desirable candidates.

    Dark and never-ending path you're on there. You're either for a market economy or you're not, especially when it comes to compensation.

    Are you considering salary-caps as in sports? Is that working?

    IMO.... the public scorn is mostly for the hoarding and greed associated with many individuals that truly do have "enough", but consciously decide not to do anything worthwhile with it for the betterment of society. Again though, that's for every individual a subjective argument, like the answer to "what's art".

    Regardless of the story behind the billions and the attendant PR of his projects, I still have a certain amount of respect for Bill Gates, and more so for his wife Melinda who got him started in active philanthropy. Should he have been denied the billions due to regulation (aside from the theft and shady business practices to get them)?
  • Reply 27 of 85
    thepixeldocthepixeldoc Posts: 2,257member
    adm1 wrote: »
    while I agree, you must admit it's a helluva lot easier to do that when you're already loaded. when your wealth crosses a certain threshold that you and your family could live happily forever more on accrued interest alone then of course there is very little motivation to increase and focus on that (unless the person is incredibly greedy). If he was earning 20K a year at starbucks, I'm pretty sure he'd be cashing in those shares straight away.

    ....and probably be back working at Starbucks in 5-10 years after "blowing the load"... literally in more ways than one :no:
  • Reply 28 of 85
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member

      Quote:


    Originally Posted by DavidW View Post

     

     

    Right now these vested shares are taxed as though it's earned wages for the year. For him, that's a rate of almost 40% just for Federal.  However, if he doesn't sell any of these shares and hold off selling for a year, it will be taxed as long term capital gains. Which now maxes out at 20%, but that may change in the future. However, CA do not have any long term capital gain rate and all capital gains is taxed as income for the year. I'm sure he has 10's of millions of dollars of AAPL shares, that has been vest for over a year, that he can sell if he needs the money. And if he ends up giving away these shares to charity (or set up a charitable foundation), all those shares withheld for taxes, will go along with his donation (or go into his foundation).   


    Only the difference in price from when it vests to when it's sold would be treated as capital gains if sold a year later. The vested RSUs would still be treated as income and thus subject to marginal income tax rates at their present value. The entire thing doesn't change to capital gains treatment.

    (wondering if I may have misread but it doesn't appear that way)

  • Reply 29 of 85
    He is just making fun of the Trolls and doom sayers.
  • Reply 30 of 85
    Yet for the lower end workers to ask for $1/hour pay rise would be met with scorn and ridicule and negative bias. Pay commissions would be set up and people would argue in court. Not so at the high end, just a quick board decision and voila, here's your well deserved $58M sir.
    Don't you see the problem here? It *is* a sick system that allows such gross payments to be made where the decision makers are so close to the beneficiaries. Tim Cook isn't doing the job for money, so it seems like a waste of money to me. The face of Apple working at the stores deserve to see some of that success too.
    Btw I have never worked for Apple, just sayin...

    solipsismy wrote: »
    1) Why not all Apple employees, like their CSRs, why only those working in retail?

    2) They have around 30,000 retail employees. If we take that and divide by that and then assume that they work on average about 30 hours per week to spread out full and part time we get about a dollar an hour. Note, that's before any taxes, any accounting costs, and it drops off in a year. Not exactly a sustainable model, and not exactly a good message when Cook is already underpaid compared to others in his position and for his performance in keeping Apple going which is why they Apple can have 30,000 retail employees with thousands(?) more each year.
  • Reply 31 of 85
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 10,557member

    Somehow I knew this thread would turn into a socialist diatribe about economic parity. 

  • Reply 32 of 85
    red rogers wrote: »

    I don't live in the US and have little exposure to American media. Where does this nonsense come from?

    American media.
  • Reply 33 of 85
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,686member
    ....and probably be back working at Starbucks in 5-10 years after "blowing the load"... literally in more ways than one :no:

    What Cook if he were working at Starbucks or the typical Starbucks employee?

    I'm not buying the latter statement at all. Or either.
  • Reply 34 of 85
    Not only are they lining up to take shots at Apple, and the overall economy be damned, but you can rest assured that some Wall St. analist or their media outlets will try to tie this to the Cramner email as proof of some sort of wrongdoing. Forget China. If stocks are having problems, they're problems made by Americans looking to manipulate the world for a quick buck or to reinforce their self-image as "experts"
  • Reply 35 of 85
    schlackschlack Posts: 719member
    wow. what a stand up guy.

    receives apple shares on monday during one of the worst crashes in recent memory.

    doesn't immediately sell them by Tuesday?!!

    that's commitment!

    or logistics, or common sense, or expected...but don't tell the author that!
  • Reply 36 of 85
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member
    schlack wrote: »
    wow. what a stand up guy.

    receives apple shares on monday during one of the worst crashes in recent memory.

    doesn't immediately sell them by Tuesday?!!

    that's commitment!

    or logistics, or common sense, or expected...but don't tell the author that!
    I think there's some special restrictions on selling significant shares of a publicly-traded company you exert management control of. He couldn't have sold them yesterday if he wanted AFAIK, insider trading and all that.
  • Reply 37 of 85
    solipsismysolipsismy Posts: 5,099member
    aussiepaul wrote: »
    Yet for the lower end workers to ask for $1/hour pay rise would be met with scorn and ridicule and negative bias.

    Who would scorn and ridicule an employee for either wanting a raise or showing how his performance in compared to all other employees in his field warrants a raise because the company would lose more without him? I think what you're misappropriating are people that strike for higher wages or, as you're doing here, saying it's not fair that blah blah gets that much and I get so little without any consideration for the talents involved. $58 million isn't that much. This isn't the $80 billion Bill Gates has. Dr. Dre bought Tom Brady and Gisele Bundchen's house last year for $50 million, which means you don't have a lot left over for maintenance and upkeep in California. This is not a one off house or even close to the most expensive, but what seems pretty standard for celebrities.
  • Reply 38 of 85
    solipsismysolipsismy Posts: 5,099member
    schlack wrote: »
    wow. what a stand up guy.

    receives apple shares on monday during one of the worst crashes in recent memory.

    doesn't immediately sell them by Tuesday?!!

    that's commitment!

    or logistics, or common sense, or expected...but don't tell the author that!

    Is that sarcasm? If he could sell them immediately, what sense does it make to sell them at such a low point? The only thing that comes to mind is because he knows Apple will not going back up anytime soon.
  • Reply 39 of 85
    nolamacguynolamacguy Posts: 4,758member
    atlapple wrote: »

    But but but if we are basing competence on the level of compensation then I guess Steve Ballmer blows Cook away seeing he has a net worth of 21.5 Billion. Larry Page 29.2 Billion. But but but.....

    who's saying that, specifically?
  • Reply 40 of 85
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    solipsismy wrote: »
    sirlance99 wrote: »
    No they don't. They are getting paid what they agreed upon. They choose to work at Apple and most are happy with it.

    Despite his payout, Cook could get a lot more if he jumped to another company. It's almost like his goal as CEO isn't to be the richest man on Earth.

    The question now is, can he be successful elsewhere? Is Apple successful because of TC or despite him?
Sign In or Register to comment.