Tim Cook salary to drop 40%, at his request

Posted:
in General Discussion
Apple CEO Tim Cook is expected to earn $49 million in 2023, far below his 2022 earnings of $99.4 million, following his recommendation that Apple responded to shareholder feedback.




The news comes from Apple's latest filing with the US Securities and Exchange Commission. Apple is required to file with the SEC, and also has to apply to it over certain shareholder issues.

Now having run a Say on Pay advisory with "broader shareholder engagement on executive compensation in 2022," Apple's Compensation Committee has announced changes to salaries and other earnings.

"The Compensation Committee balanced shareholder feedback, Apple's exceptional performance, and a recommendation from Mr. Cook to adjust his compensation in light of the feedback received," continues the filing.

"The Compensation Committee then approved the target annual compensation of our named executive officers for 2023," it says, "including the following changes to CEO compensation, which Mr. Cook supported, and that the Compensation Committee believes are responsive to shareholder feedback, while continuing both to align pay with performance and to recognize Mr. Cook's outstanding leadership."

Cook's income is divided between a salary per se, then performance-based sums. The Compensation Committee has adjusted the proportions of his income that derive from each source.

"[Overall] Mr. Cook's 2023 target total compensation is $49 million, a reduction of over 40% from his 2022 target total compensation," says the SEC filing.

Apple's SEC filing also includes a note to shareholders from Cook, formally inviting them to the company's annual shareholder meeting. He doesn't address the issue of pay, but he does speak of the need to not cut back on investment overall.

"The global challenges with us all today - from inflation, to war in Eastern Europe, to the enduring impacts of the pandemic - make this a time for deliberate and thoughtful action," he wrote. "But it is not a time to retreat from the future."

"We've always run Apple for the long-term," continued Cook, "and that means continuing to invest in innovation, in people, and in the positive difference we can make in the world."

Apple's SEC filing once more includes a note about how they "provide for pro-rata instead of full vesting in the event of retirement during the term of the award.". In 2021, Cook said that he is likely to leave Apple in the next ten years.

Read on AppleInsider

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 17
    amar99amar99 Posts: 181member
    How will he survive on such a low salary? What a guy.
    beowulfschmidtgrandact73jeffharriswilliamlondonravnorodom
  • Reply 2 of 17
    zimmiezimmie Posts: 651member
    DT36MT said:
    amar99 said:
    How will he survive on such a low salary? What a guy.
    Will you do it if you were in his place just because someone or some group of people say you should?
    If I were in such a position, I would have my salary lowered without somebody else pushing for it because I can't imagine ever needing more than about $100M in assets. That level of wealth is self-sustaining for even an unreasonably extravagant lifestyle. It's enough for separate his and hers Ferraris for every day of the month with plenty left over to still get about two million dollars of income per year on bank interest. What would you ever spend it on?
    beowulfschmidtwatto_cobran2itivguyStrangeDayswilliamlondonFileMakerFeller
  • Reply 3 of 17
    XedXed Posts: 2,473member
    amar99 said:
    How will he survive on such a low salary? What a guy.
    Actually, he is, but you clearly aren't because you see a story about a CEO suggesting to lower his own salary because the stock is underperforming (which is no fault of his, but purely due to larger issues) and decide to make a snarky comment about him not being able to support himself.
    watto_cobramacxpresswilliamlondonbaconstanglolliver
  • Reply 4 of 17
    paxmanpaxman Posts: 4,729member
    Apparently the call for lower wages was based on the allegation that he earns more than 1400 x more than the lowest paid Apple worker. If so that is kinda crazy in any environment. Perhaps there should be legislation that regulates not the highest or lowest wage within an organization, but instead the allowable disparity. It would likely mean that bottom wages would increase and top wages go down but still grades and hierarchy could be observed.
    muthuk_vanalingamn2itivguygrandact73StrangeDayswilliamlondonFileMakerFeller
  • Reply 5 of 17
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,273moderator
    paxman said:
    Apparently the call for lower wages was based on the allegation that he earns more than 1400 x more than the lowest paid Apple worker. If so that is kinda crazy in any environment. Perhaps there should be legislation that regulates not the highest or lowest wage within an organization, but instead the allowable disparity. It would likely mean that bottom wages would increase and top wages go down but still grades and hierarchy could be observed.
    Tim Cook's salary is much less than the billionaire investors are making from Apple. Warren Buffet made over $100b.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/04/warren-buffett-makes-over-120-billion-on-apples-trot-to-3-trillion-among-his-best-bets-ever.html

    $36b invested in 2018, more than 3x return. This nonagenarian doesn't put in a minute's work at Apple but makes over 1,500,000 times Apple's median salary.

    https://finance.yahoo.com/news/apples-tim-cook-paid-over-124709881.html

    When talking about fairness in earnings, the billionaire ownership class needs to be part of the discussion. They are the ones depriving the workers of earnings, not Tim Cook. Unpaid wages go to the company owners and so will Tim Cook's reduction in salary. Tim Cook has earned his salary, the billionaire owners haven't contributed anything to Apple's success.

    There needs to be an employment law that requires employees get allocated a minimum portion of company profits when company profits far exceed their payroll.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/cameronkeng/2014/12/18/if-apple-was-a-worker-cooperative-each-employee-would-earn-at-least-403k

    $68k median salary over 100k employees = $6.8b. Apple has made over $90b profit the last 2 years:

    https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AAPL/apple/net-income

    doubling the median salary (or rather bonus allocation, not permanent) of the workers would cost less than 10% of their profits and that's what the law should be - employees deserve at least 10% of a company's excessive profits. They're the ones who made the profit after all.
    Xedn2itivguythtapplebynaturedewmewilliamlondonbaconstanglollivermuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 6 of 17
    I am sure everyone predicted China’s lockdown but Tim failed to guess it right. 

    Sure Apple should diversify production chain years ago. But if nothing happens in pass 3 years, people will say the unnecessary diversification add additional cost.  

    You can never win. 
    williamlondon
  • Reply 7 of 17
    JapheyJaphey Posts: 1,766member
    Xed said:
    amar99 said:
    How will he survive on such a low salary? What a guy.
    Actually, he is, but you clearly aren't because you see a story about a CEO suggesting to lower his own salary because the stock is underperforming (which is no fault of his, but purely due to larger issues) and decide to make a snarky comment about him not being able to support himself.
    Is it possible that they were just making a joke? 
    amar99williamlondon
  • Reply 8 of 17
    XedXed Posts: 2,473member
    Japhey said:
    Xed said:
    amar99 said:
    How will he survive on such a low salary? What a guy.
    Actually, he is, but you clearly aren't because you see a story about a CEO suggesting to lower his own salary because the stock is underperforming (which is no fault of his, but purely due to larger issues) and decide to make a snarky comment about him not being able to support himself.
    Is it possible that they were just making a joke? 
    They're absolutely being snarky, which I guess you could call a joke since they're clearly aware that he'll be able to survive, but that's not the point of their snark, now is it?
    baconstanglolliver
  • Reply 9 of 17
    entropysentropys Posts: 4,134member
    DT36MT said:
    amar99 said:
    How will he survive on such a low salary? What a guy.
    Will you do it if you were in his place just because someone or some group of people say you should?
    At some point you have earned so much money more pay doesn’t mean much anymore, it is the thing you do that motivates you,  and you might as well do it for free. A sort of service.

    see Jobs, Steve; Trump, Donald.
    edited January 2023
  • Reply 10 of 17
    JapheyJaphey Posts: 1,766member
    Xed said:
    Japhey said:
    Xed said:
    amar99 said:
    How will he survive on such a low salary? What a guy.
    Actually, he is, but you clearly aren't because you see a story about a CEO suggesting to lower his own salary because the stock is underperforming (which is no fault of his, but purely due to larger issues) and decide to make a snarky comment about him not being able to support himself.
    Is it possible that they were just making a joke? 
    They're absolutely being snarky, which I guess you could call a joke since they're clearly aware that he'll be able to survive, but that's not the point of their snark, now is it?
    I really don’t know. But more importantly, I don’t care. I just read it as a bad joke, and not something worth getting triggered over. 
    edited January 2023 muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 11 of 17
    davidwdavidw Posts: 2,025member
    Marvin said:
    paxman said:
    Apparently the call for lower wages was based on the allegation that he earns more than 1400 x more than the lowest paid Apple worker. If so that is kinda crazy in any environment. Perhaps there should be legislation that regulates not the highest or lowest wage within an organization, but instead the allowable disparity. It would likely mean that bottom wages would increase and top wages go down but still grades and hierarchy could be observed.
    Tim Cook's salary is much less than the billionaire investors are making from Apple. Warren Buffet made over $100b.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/04/warren-buffett-makes-over-120-billion-on-apples-trot-to-3-trillion-among-his-best-bets-ever.html

    $36b invested in 2018, more than 3x return. This nonagenarian doesn't put in a minute's work at Apple but makes over 1,500,000 times Apple's median salary.

    https://finance.yahoo.com/news/apples-tim-cook-paid-over-124709881.html

    When talking about fairness in earnings, the billionaire ownership class needs to be part of the discussion. They are the ones depriving the workers of earnings, not Tim Cook. Unpaid wages go to the company owners and so will Tim Cook's reduction in salary. Tim Cook has earned his salary, the billionaire owners haven't contributed anything to Apple's success.

    There needs to be an employment law that requires employees get allocated a minimum portion of company profits when company profits far exceed their payroll.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/cameronkeng/2014/12/18/if-apple-was-a-worker-cooperative-each-employee-would-earn-at-least-403k

    $68k median salary over 100k employees = $6.8b. Apple has made over $90b profit the last 2 years:

    https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AAPL/apple/net-income

    doubling the median salary (or rather bonus allocation, not permanent) of the workers would cost less than 10% of their profits and that's what the law should be - employees deserve at least 10% of a company's excessive profits. They're the ones who made the profit after all.
    The last thing the US need is to have the government come with with laws that regulate what "excessive profits" are? That's an impossible task under capitalism. That is something that Sen. Sanders would come up with. You actually want to take a chance that some one like Sen. E. Warren might head a government committee to determine what qualifies as  .... "excessive profits", (for a company or an industry)? We do not need to be like the EU when it comes to regulating companies more, in the name of "Socialism".  If company employees wants a piece of their companies profit, they should do what their company shareholders do ....... buy stocks in their company. Companies paying their employees bonuses when they have a good year, is not the problem. The government making laws to force companies to pay out bonuses in good years, is ludicrous and  bordering on socialism as way of regulating for-profit companies. 

    And in a way, employees that are critical to highly profitable companies, are already compensated for that profit. Ever notice that companies with the most profits are the ones that usually pays their critical employees the most. Software engineers for highly profitable companies like Apple, Facebook, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Intel, Oracle, Salesforce, etc., earn high salaries that reflects their companies profitability. And they are still paid that high salary whether their company is profitable that year or not. They would probably make 10% less, working for a less profitable company. 

    Now I'm all for employees being able to negotiate their salary pay package to take account for a percentage of their company profits, when there are profits. Say a software engineer that would be paid $120K a year, accepts a salary of $100K a year and a certain percentage of the company profits each year. That's like a famous actor/actress working on a movie almost for free, in exchange for a small percentage of the movie profits. There's no guarantee that the percent of profit will make up for the lost in salary, in any given year. But on the other hand, one's salary could doubled in any given year. They take their chances, just like shareholders.  

    Employees don't make the profit for the company, unless they are working for free or below competitive wages. Consumers buying the company products and services are what makes the profit for the company.  All profits belongs to the shareholders. It's the shareholders that should have a say in whether a certain amount of profits be distributed to the employees, not the government. I'm OK with AAPL shareholders having a say in Tim Cook pay package and not at all would like to see the government having a say in it, by passing laws regulating how much a CEO can make based on the median salaries of all the employees. We are not the EU.    


    As for Buffet. AFAIK, Warren Buffet, the billionaire, do no own any AAPL shares. His holding company, Berkshire Hathaway invested in millions of shares of AAPL over the past 5 years. I only have thousands of shares of AAPL over 25 years. Why shouldn't a share of AAPL be worth the same to Buffet's holding company, that it is to me?  ....... because the person running the company is a billionaire? Since 2018, I made the same percentage on my shares of AAPL as Berkshire Hathaway with theirs and I haven't put a minute work in to Apple either. The reward for investing in a company stock should be proportional to the amount one was willing to risk in purchasing the stock. I did not make billions of dollars. But then again, I did not risk billions of dollars when I purchased my AAPL shares. 

    Warren Buffet is not a billionaire because of any AAPL shares he might personally own. He's a billionaire because of his 230K shares of BRK.A he own in his own company. A share of Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A) is worth about $481,250. Up from $320,000 a share five years ago. And one of the reason why is because of the shares of AAPL that Buffet holding company purchased over the years. In fact, it wasn't even Buffet that purchased the shares. One of his investment manager made the initial purchase. Buffet has a history of not wanting to invest in tech. 

    williamlondonFileMakerFellerJanNL
  • Reply 12 of 17
    worldhappiness.report/ed/2022/happiness-benevolence-and-trust-during-covid-19-and-beyond/#ranking-of-happiness-2019-2021
    williamlondon
  • Reply 13 of 17
    M68000M68000 Posts: 705member
    davidw said:
    Marvin said:
    paxman said:
    Apparently the call for lower wages was based on the allegation that he earns more than 1400 x more than the lowest paid Apple worker. If so that is kinda crazy in any environment. Perhaps there should be legislation that regulates not the highest or lowest wage within an organization, but instead the allowable disparity. It would likely mean that bottom wages would increase and top wages go down but still grades and hierarchy could be observed.
    Tim Cook's salary is much less than the billionaire investors are making from Apple. Warren Buffet made over $100b.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/04/warren-buffett-makes-over-120-billion-on-apples-trot-to-3-trillion-among-his-best-bets-ever.html

    $36b invested in 2018, more than 3x return. This nonagenarian doesn't put in a minute's work at Apple but makes over 1,500,000 times Apple's median salary.

    https://finance.yahoo.com/news/apples-tim-cook-paid-over-124709881.html

    When talking about fairness in earnings, the billionaire ownership class needs to be part of the discussion. They are the ones depriving the workers of earnings, not Tim Cook. Unpaid wages go to the company owners and so will Tim Cook's reduction in salary. Tim Cook has earned his salary, the billionaire owners haven't contributed anything to Apple's success.

    There needs to be an employment law that requires employees get allocated a minimum portion of company profits when company profits far exceed their payroll.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/cameronkeng/2014/12/18/if-apple-was-a-worker-cooperative-each-employee-would-earn-at-least-403k

    $68k median salary over 100k employees = $6.8b. Apple has made over $90b profit the last 2 years:

    https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AAPL/apple/net-income

    doubling the median salary (or rather bonus allocation, not permanent) of the workers would cost less than 10% of their profits and that's what the law should be - employees deserve at least 10% of a company's excessive profits. They're the ones who made the profit after all.
    The last thing the US need is to have the government come with with laws that regulate what "excessive profits" are? That's an impossible task under capitalism. That is something that Sen. Sanders would come up with. You actually want to take a chance that some one like Sen. E. Warren might head a government committee to determine what qualifies as  .... "excessive profits", (for a company or an industry)? We do not need to be like the EU when it comes to regulating companies more, in the name of "Socialism".  If company employees wants a piece of their companies profit, they should do what their company shareholders do ....... buy stocks in their company. Companies paying their employees bonuses when they have a good year, is not the problem. The government making laws to force companies to pay out bonuses in good years, is ludicrous and  bordering on socialism as way of regulating for-profit companies. 

    And in a way, employees that are critical to highly profitable companies, are already compensated for that profit. Ever notice that companies with the most profits are the ones that usually pays their critical employees the most. Software engineers for highly profitable companies like Apple, Facebook, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Intel, Oracle, Salesforce, etc., earn high salaries that reflects their companies profitability. And they are still paid that high salary whether their company is profitable that year or not. They would probably make 10% less, working for a less profitable company. 

    Now I'm all for employees being able to negotiate their salary pay package to take account for a percentage of their company profits, when there are profits. Say a software engineer that would be paid $120K a year, accepts a salary of $100K a year and a certain percentage of the company profits each year. That's like a famous actor/actress working on a movie almost for free, in exchange for a small percentage of the movie profits. There's no guarantee that the percent of profit will make up for the lost in salary, in any given year. But on the other hand, one's salary could doubled in any given year. They take their chances, just like shareholders.  

    Employees don't make the profit for the company, unless they are working for free or below competitive wages. Consumers buying the company products and services are what makes the profit for the company.  All profits belongs to the shareholders. It's the shareholders that should have a say in whether a certain amount of profits be distributed to the employees, not the government. I'm OK with AAPL shareholders having a say in Tim Cook pay package and not at all would like to see the government having a say in it, by passing laws regulating how much a CEO can make based on the median salaries of all the employees. We are not the EU.    


    As for Buffet. AFAIK, Warren Buffet, the billionaire, do no own any AAPL shares. His holding company, Berkshire Hathaway invested in millions of shares of AAPL over the past 5 years. I only have thousands of shares of AAPL over 25 years. Why shouldn't a share of AAPL be worth the same to Buffet's holding company, that it is to me?  ....... because the person running the company is a billionaire? Since 2018, I made the same percentage on my shares of AAPL as Berkshire Hathaway with theirs and I haven't put a minute work in to Apple either. The reward for investing in a company stock should be proportional to the amount one was willing to risk in purchasing the stock. I did not make billions of dollars. But then again, I did not risk billions of dollars when I purchased my AAPL shares. 

    Warren Buffet is not a billionaire because of any AAPL shares he might personally own. He's a billionaire because of his 230K shares of BRK.A he own in his own company. A share of Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A) is worth about $481,250. Up from $320,000 a share five years ago. And one of the reason why is because of the shares of AAPL that Buffet holding company purchased over the years. In fact, it wasn't even Buffet that purchased the shares. One of his investment manager made the initial purchase. Buffet has a history of not wanting to invest in tech. 

    Minor correction since you put much effort into your post, many of us know who you mean, Warren’s last name is Buffett and not Buffet.  Lol, don’t know if he has anything to do with buffet restaurants too.
  • Reply 14 of 17
    amar99 said:
    How will he survive on such a low salary? What a guy.
    Jeeze, I really feel for the guy.

    I couldn’t make it through a week on only $49 million.
    Suffering only begins to describe it.
    😜
    williamlondon
  • Reply 15 of 17
    XedXed Posts: 2,473member
    entropys said:
    DT36MT said:
    amar99 said:
    How will he survive on such a low salary? What a guy.
    Will you do it if you were in his place just because someone or some group of people say you should?
    At some point you have earned so much money more pay doesn’t mean much anymore, it is the thing you do that motivates you,  and you might as well do it for free. A sort of service.

    see Jobs, Steve; Trump, Donald.
    LOL You think those people weren't compensated? One of them really has you fooled if you think that by saying they're not taking the salary portion while jacking up prices at owned properties to get 10s of millions off taxpayers without any concern for the emoluments clause. And was just the start of the scam.
    baconstang
  • Reply 16 of 17
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,095member
    Marvin said:
    paxman said:
    Apparently the call for lower wages was based on the allegation that he earns more than 1400 x more than the lowest paid Apple worker. If so that is kinda crazy in any environment. Perhaps there should be legislation that regulates not the highest or lowest wage within an organization, but instead the allowable disparity. It would likely mean that bottom wages would increase and top wages go down but still grades and hierarchy could be observed.
    Tim Cook's salary is much less than the billionaire investors are making from Apple. Warren Buffet made over $100b.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/04/warren-buffett-makes-over-120-billion-on-apples-trot-to-3-trillion-among-his-best-bets-ever.html

    $36b invested in 2018, more than 3x return. This nonagenarian doesn't put in a minute's work at Apple but makes over 1,500,000 times Apple's median salary.

    https://finance.yahoo.com/news/apples-tim-cook-paid-over-124709881.html

    When talking about fairness in earnings, the billionaire ownership class needs to be part of the discussion. They are the ones depriving the workers of earnings, not Tim Cook. Unpaid wages go to the company owners and so will Tim Cook's reduction in salary. Tim Cook has earned his salary, the billionaire owners haven't contributed anything to Apple's success.

    There needs to be an employment law that requires employees get allocated a minimum portion of company profits when company profits far exceed their payroll.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/cameronkeng/2014/12/18/if-apple-was-a-worker-cooperative-each-employee-would-earn-at-least-403k

    $68k median salary over 100k employees = $6.8b. Apple has made over $90b profit the last 2 years:

    https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AAPL/apple/net-income

    doubling the median salary (or rather bonus allocation, not permanent) of the workers would cost less than 10% of their profits and that's what the law should be - employees deserve at least 10% of a company's excessive profits. They're the ones who made the profit after all.
    So they all have obscene amounts of assets, more cash than any person could spend in 5 lifetimes, removed from our economy and that's not a positive for our future IMO.
    edited January 2023 muthuk_vanalingam
Sign In or Register to comment.