The question now is, can he be successful elsewhere?
Successful people are usually successful wherever they are do their outlook on life, focus, work ethic, strong will to succeed, and general disposition that drives them. Will Tim Cook help make another company as successful as Apple, is another story.
That isn't to say that there isn't a huge amount of luck involved with anyone who is successful (There is!), but there is also a huge amount of individual effort needed to make that happen which, at its core, also comes back to luck.
Is Apple successful because of TC or despite him?
Apple is successful because of Tim Cook, but that doesn't mean Apple would not be successful without him. The questions are: How much success does Tim Cook bring Apple? Can anyone do a better job than Tim Cook?
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.
The guy spends most of his time at work, and exercising. I cannot imagine he would leave Apple. Maybe in 10 years if there is some successor possible (can't imagine), he may go off to work on social causes. He seems to have intrinsic drive in doing great work and supporting people through social change. Money seems like an irrelevant motivator to him.
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)
Seems you're right. RSU's are not treated the same as ordinary restricted stocks. It has something to do with the fact that with RSU's, there's a chance that you receive nothing if you don't meet the criteria set. While with ordinary restricted stocks, you actually receive the stocks (at a certain price), but just can't sell it until it's vested. Therefore, you can elect to pay the tax on the market value of the ordinary restricted stocks when you received the restricted stocks and then pay capital gains on it when they are vested AND you sell. (No tax due on date of vesting and all of it would be long term capital gains when you sell, if it took more than a year to vest.)
So basically, it was a big advantage for Tim Cook to have Apple drop on the days leading up to his RSU becoming vested, as this would reduce his tax burden. (Unless he had a sell order in on the date of vesting. Which he didn't, because the sell order would have had to be put in weeks in advance and can't be cancelled on the days leading up to the sale.) So all gains in AAPL, from yesterday on, would be taxed as capital gains on Tim Cook's remaining RSU's that vested on Monday.
So all the conspiracy theorist has it backwards. Tim Cook needed AAPL to drop, not go up on the date his RSU vested.
Cook deserves every fucking penny, going by the only rational definition of "deserves" that can be applied in this case. Cook lead Apple to generate 210B+ revenue and 50B+ in profit in 2014, while exploding sales, and driving forward core foundation improvements in Apple's products and software. Compared to the compensation of other CEO's, as a multiple of their companies success, his is a pittance in the big picture.
The question now is, can he be successful elsewhere?
Successful people are usually successful wherever they are do their outlook on life, focus, work ethic, strong will to succeed, and general disposition that drives them. Will Tim Cook help make another company as successful as Apple, is another story.
That isn't to say that there isn't a huge amount of luck involved with anyone who is successful (There is!), but there is also a huge amount of individual effort needed to make that happen which, at its core, also comes back to luck.
Is Apple successful because of TC or despite him?
Apple is successful because of Tim Cook, but that doesn't mean Apple would not be successful without him. The questions are: How much success does Tim Cook bring Apple? Can anyone do a better job than Tim Cook?
As successful as Apple is too high a bar. He was given the helm of an extremely large ship moving in the right direction. A ship like that is easy to keep on course, so no I don't think there's anyone that can do a better job, but I believe there's a boat load that can do the same job.
As successful as Apple is too high a bar. He was given the helm of an extremely large ship moving in the right direction.
LOL You still believe "too big to fail" is a real thing? To make your metaphor accurate you need to look at "moving in the right direction" as simply making forward progress. Sure, pretty much anyone would keep Apple in the black and afloat for sometime based on that even if they don't know the first thing about sailing a ship. The difference we're seeing between you and I, and Cook is that he's increased Apple's forward motion, which isn't as easy as you might be thinking because it's not simply about increased interest in their products but working out the logistics to make that a reality. This is where Cook thrives. Apple had machines built just to build their own products in new ways! This has to happen years in advanced. If you think this his job is easy you are mistaken. You couldn't do it. I couldn't do it. Also, it's been how many years since Jobs first stepped down as CEO and Cook first took over? How long do you think a ship can stay on course and traverse obstacles without a competent captain? How did Dell, Compaq, MS, Gateway, Creative, HP, BB, Nokia and countless others do when they were at the top of their game when they needed a truly competent leader? Seems to me all started sinking or became rudderless pretty damn quickly.
LOL You still believe "too big to fail" is a real thing? To make your metaphor accurate you need to look at "moving in the right direction" as simply making forward progress. Sure, pretty much anyone would keep Apple in the black and afloat for sometime based on that even if they don't know the first thing about sailing a ship. The difference we're seeing between you and I, and Cook is that he's increased Apple's forward motion, which isn't as easy as you might be thinking because it's not simply about increased interest in their products but working out the logistics to make that a reality. This is where Cook thrives. Apple had machines built just to build their own products in new ways! This has to happen years in advanced. If you think this his job is easy you are mistaken. You couldn't do it. I couldn't do it. Also, it's been how many years since Jobs first stepped down as CEO and Cook first took over? How long do you think a ship can stay on course and traverse obstacles without a competent captain? How did Dell, Compaq, MS, Gateway, Creative, HP, BB, Nokia and countless others do when they were at the top of their game when they needed a truly competent leader? Seems to me all started sinking or became rudderless pretty damn quickly.
Absolutely agree. I also think Tim Cook is a visionary leader contrary to what has often been claimed in these forums. Different kind of visionary than Steve Jobs but a visionary all the same. To take a company from what it was a few years ago to what it is now - a huge mainstream corporate entity - and to increase its integrity, standing and leadership amongst both small and large companies all over the world in so many different areas is amazing. Tim Cook definitely has been able to operate from a position of strength since he took over and I guess the true test will come when things go badly over a long period of time. At the moment it is difficult to see when that day will come.
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.....
Nobody here except you asserted any connection between "net worth" and "competence." Got any other "proof" of Tim Cook's incompetency besides silly non sequiturs?
Amazing how you manage to troll every thread you enter in such a shitty, mindless way.
Get a clue. It should be considered a violation and trolling always bringing up trolling. If that was the case you and the person I responded too would be banned on a daily basis.
Nobody here except you asserted any connection between "net worth" and "competence." Got any other "proof" of Tim Cook's incompetency besides silly non sequiturs?
You don't get it, I would explain it but that would be a waste of key strokes, hard to take someone seriously when they are always one of the first to interject trolling into a thread or constantly starts one off with BUT but but. Try growing up.
... why would he sell stock when it's the lowest it's going to be for the next several months? Comment on this in a couple months when stock is riding high on iPhone launch numbers etc. What a silly headline.
As successful as Apple is too high a bar. He was given the helm of an extremely large ship moving in the right direction. A ship like that is easy to keep on course, so no I don't think there's anyone that can do a better job, but I believe there's a boat load that can do the same job.
ANYTHING to take credit away from Tim Cook.
This is the "Apple is coasting on Steve Jobs' coat tails" meme. Are you still hoping it works 4 years after Steve's death?
There's no way Apple can coast on momentum for four years. That's an eternity in Silicon Valley. A high profile tech company's fortunes can turn pretty quickly since there is a lot of competitive pressure all around. Just look how quickly HP, Dell, Microsoft, Palm, RIM and Nokia and the like had their fortunes reversed. I don't know if you're delusional or naive or just trolling, but Apple could not have grown the way they have since 2011 without Tim Cook doing a bang-on job as CEO.
Well congrats to Tim Cook, I think it's pretty well-deserved. He seems to be a competent leader compared to some other CEOs. Didn't he say Apple is working on products that haven't even been rumored yet? Curious to see how things go in the future!
Well congrats to Tim Cook, I think it's pretty well-deserved. He seems to be a competent leader compared to some other CEOs. Didn't he say Apple is working on products that haven't even been rumored yet? Curious to see how things go in the future!
You don't get it, I would explain it but that would be a waste of key strokes, hard to take someone seriously when they are always one of the first to interject trolling into a thread or constantly starts one off with BUT but but. Try growing up.
That's it? Is that the best you can do? Feigning indignation over my stupidity? Let me get this straight: you avoid a direct rebuttal, and instead, go for an ad hom attack on me? Well, I'm relieved: for a moment I thought you might have a cogent argument to present. Now I know for sure that you don't.
As successful as Apple is too high a bar. He was given the helm of an extremely large ship moving in the right direction.
LOL You still believe "too big to fail" is a real thing? To make your metaphor accurate you need to look at "moving in the right direction" as simply making forward progress. Sure, pretty much anyone would keep Apple in the black and afloat for sometime based on that even if they don't know the first thing about sailing a ship. The difference we're seeing between you and I, and Cook is that he's increased Apple's forward motion, which isn't as easy as you might be thinking because it's not simply about increased interest in their products but working out the logistics to make that a reality. This is where Cook thrives. Apple had machines built just to build their own products in new ways! This has to happen years in advanced. If you think this his job is easy you are mistaken. You couldn't do it. I couldn't do it. Also, it's been how many years since Jobs first stepped down as CEO and Cook first took over? How long do you think a ship can stay on course and traverse obstacles without a competent captain? How did Dell, Compaq, MS, Gateway, Creative, HP, BB, Nokia and countless others do when they were at the top of their game when they needed a truly competent leader? Seems to me all started sinking or became rudderless pretty damn quickly.
Traverse obstacles? At this point Apple just mows them down with nary a slow down. Nothing is too big to fail but it would literally take years upon years for Apple to fail just the way it took years for them to get where they are. The smartphone war is won, and that's a victory Apple is going to be able to savor for the foreseeable future, and more than likely many years after that.
Now getting back to TC, the real litmus test would be can he turn around one of the failing smartphone vendors. Can he right a ship, or can he only keep one on course which isn't easy as you pointed out, but the prior is much more difficult.
Comments
Successful people are usually successful wherever they are do their outlook on life, focus, work ethic, strong will to succeed, and general disposition that drives them. Will Tim Cook help make another company as successful as Apple, is another story.
That isn't to say that there isn't a huge amount of luck involved with anyone who is successful (There is!), but there is also a huge amount of individual effort needed to make that happen which, at its core, also comes back to luck.
Apple is successful because of Tim Cook, but that doesn't mean Apple would not be successful without him. The questions are: How much success does Tim Cook bring Apple? Can anyone do a better job than Tim Cook?
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.
The guy spends most of his time at work, and exercising. I cannot imagine he would leave Apple. Maybe in 10 years if there is some successor possible (can't imagine), he may go off to work on social causes. He seems to have intrinsic drive in doing great work and supporting people through social change. Money seems like an irrelevant motivator to him.
Quote:
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)
Seems you're right. RSU's are not treated the same as ordinary restricted stocks. It has something to do with the fact that with RSU's, there's a chance that you receive nothing if you don't meet the criteria set. While with ordinary restricted stocks, you actually receive the stocks (at a certain price), but just can't sell it until it's vested. Therefore, you can elect to pay the tax on the market value of the ordinary restricted stocks when you received the restricted stocks and then pay capital gains on it when they are vested AND you sell. (No tax due on date of vesting and all of it would be long term capital gains when you sell, if it took more than a year to vest.)
So basically, it was a big advantage for Tim Cook to have Apple drop on the days leading up to his RSU becoming vested, as this would reduce his tax burden. (Unless he had a sell order in on the date of vesting. Which he didn't, because the sell order would have had to be put in weeks in advance and can't be cancelled on the days leading up to the sale.) So all gains in AAPL, from yesterday on, would be taxed as capital gains on Tim Cook's remaining RSU's that vested on Monday.
So all the conspiracy theorist has it backwards. Tim Cook needed AAPL to drop, not go up on the date his RSU vested.
LOL. Neither Apple nor their grinning CEO cares about the little people.
Cook deserves every fucking penny, going by the only rational definition of "deserves" that can be applied in this case. Cook lead Apple to generate 210B+ revenue and 50B+ in profit in 2014, while exploding sales, and driving forward core foundation improvements in Apple's products and software. Compared to the compensation of other CEO's, as a multiple of their companies success, his is a pittance in the big picture.
As successful as Apple is too high a bar. He was given the helm of an extremely large ship moving in the right direction. A ship like that is easy to keep on course, so no I don't think there's anyone that can do a better job, but I believe there's a boat load that can do the same job.
LOL You still believe "too big to fail" is a real thing? To make your metaphor accurate you need to look at "moving in the right direction" as simply making forward progress. Sure, pretty much anyone would keep Apple in the black and afloat for sometime based on that even if they don't know the first thing about sailing a ship. The difference we're seeing between you and I, and Cook is that he's increased Apple's forward motion, which isn't as easy as you might be thinking because it's not simply about increased interest in their products but working out the logistics to make that a reality. This is where Cook thrives. Apple had machines built just to build their own products in new ways! This has to happen years in advanced. If you think this his job is easy you are mistaken. You couldn't do it. I couldn't do it. Also, it's been how many years since Jobs first stepped down as CEO and Cook first took over? How long do you think a ship can stay on course and traverse obstacles without a competent captain? How did Dell, Compaq, MS, Gateway, Creative, HP, BB, Nokia and countless others do when they were at the top of their game when they needed a truly competent leader? Seems to me all started sinking or became rudderless pretty damn quickly.
Absolutely agree. I also think Tim Cook is a visionary leader contrary to what has often been claimed in these forums. Different kind of visionary than Steve Jobs but a visionary all the same. To take a company from what it was a few years ago to what it is now - a huge mainstream corporate entity - and to increase its integrity, standing and leadership amongst both small and large companies all over the world in so many different areas is amazing. Tim Cook definitely has been able to operate from a position of strength since he took over and I guess the true test will come when things go badly over a long period of time. At the moment it is difficult to see when that day will come.
Nobody here except you asserted any connection between "net worth" and "competence." Got any other "proof" of Tim Cook's incompetency besides silly non sequiturs?
Amazing how you manage to troll every thread you enter in such a shitty, mindless way.
Get a clue. It should be considered a violation and trolling always bringing up trolling. If that was the case you and the person I responded too would be banned on a daily basis.
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.
I'm lost on this one. If given two choices, A or B, you'd pick option C?
Nobody here except you asserted any connection between "net worth" and "competence." Got any other "proof" of Tim Cook's incompetency besides silly non sequiturs?
You don't get it, I would explain it but that would be a waste of key strokes, hard to take someone seriously when they are always one of the first to interject trolling into a thread or constantly starts one off with BUT but but. Try growing up.
What a silly headline.
Typo. Should be $410k, as in work for Apple even though it pays less than MS in that scenario.
ANYTHING to take credit away from Tim Cook.
This is the "Apple is coasting on Steve Jobs' coat tails" meme. Are you still hoping it works 4 years after Steve's death?
There's no way Apple can coast on momentum for four years. That's an eternity in Silicon Valley. A high profile tech company's fortunes can turn pretty quickly since there is a lot of competitive pressure all around. Just look how quickly HP, Dell, Microsoft, Palm, RIM and Nokia and the like had their fortunes reversed. I don't know if you're delusional or naive or just trolling, but Apple could not have grown the way they have since 2011 without Tim Cook doing a bang-on job as CEO.
That's it? Is that the best you can do? Feigning indignation over my stupidity? Let me get this straight: you avoid a direct rebuttal, and instead, go for an ad hom attack on me? Well, I'm relieved: for a moment I thought you might have a cogent argument to present. Now I know for sure that you don't.
Traverse obstacles? At this point Apple just mows them down with nary a slow down. Nothing is too big to fail but it would literally take years upon years for Apple to fail just the way it took years for them to get where they are. The smartphone war is won, and that's a victory Apple is going to be able to savor for the foreseeable future, and more than likely many years after that.
Now getting back to TC, the real litmus test would be can he turn around one of the failing smartphone vendors. Can he right a ship, or can he only keep one on course which isn't easy as you pointed out, but the prior is much more difficult.