Tim Cook salary to drop 40%, at his request
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
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
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.
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.
I couldn’t make it through a week on only $49 million.
Suffering only begins to describe it.
😜