Tim Cook makes $41.5 million in his first Apple stock sale since 2021

Posted:
in AAPL Investors

Two years after he last sold any of his shares in Apple, CEO Tim Cook has chosen a time when APPL is lower than usual, to sell off around half a million shares.

Tim Cook
Tim Cook



Back in 2021, Cook received five million shares in Apple as part of the deal he received when starting as CEO yet years before. At that point, he sold off all of those shares, earning approximately $355 million.

According to Reuters, he's now received a comparatively modest $41.5 million from the sale of 511,000 shares. Before taxes, the sale price was around $87.8 million.

Reportedly, Cook still owns approximately 3.3 million shares, which are worth $585 million.

It's not unusual for Apple executives to sell shares, but notably Cook was one of the few to not sell any in 2022.

Read on AppleInsider

«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 21
    No wonder he's so happy!
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 21
    22july201322july2013 Posts: 3,615member
    Maybe he knows something we don't?
    grandact73mayflywatto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 21
    mayflymayfly Posts: 385member
    Maybe he knows something we don't?
    Maybe? Maybe??? He knows hundreds of millions of things we don't.
    FileMakerFellerbaconstangwatto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 21
    Maybe he knows something we don't?
    Nope, sure the CEO knows nothing, nothing.🤦‍♂️
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 21
    Especially with GM’s CEO getting the flack she is, I which industry would move to a more modest $250,000 to $500,000 base salary and all other income is based off of performance of the company.  That way they have the most Incentive to make the company do good.  

    Like the Rivian CEO, should be making enough for a nice living situation, but shouldn’t rack up the $$$ until he is able to get the company profitable. I think that is a fair approach and allow for companies to reinvest as much as possible back into them. It also helps us investors in a company, as stock prices should go up. 

    Glad Tim is getting his beans. While not the most innovative period of Apple, Tim has done a great job with market cap and share prices. 
    baconstangwatto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 21
    JinTechJinTech Posts: 1,039member
    Especially with GM’s CEO getting the flack she is, I which industry would move to a more modest $250,000 to $500,000 base salary and all other income is based off of performance of the company.  That way they have the most Incentive to make the company do good.  

    Like the Rivian CEO, should be making enough for a nice living situation, but shouldn’t rack up the $$$ until he is able to get the company profitable. I think that is a fair approach and allow for companies to reinvest as much as possible back into them. It also helps us investors in a company, as stock prices should go up. 

    Glad Tim is getting his beans. While not the most innovative period of Apple, Tim has done a great job with market cap and share prices. 
    Kinda like when Jobs only took a $1 salary?

    So many people are saying that Apple isn’t really innovating much anymore. The market is pretty stagnant. I’m not sure where you want Apple to innovate? Apple have done a lot under Cooks watch, not to mention increase market cap beyond belief!
    FileMakerFellerbaconstangwatto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 21
    carnegiecarnegie Posts: 1,078member
    This isn't Mr. Cook's first stock sale since 2021. He also sold stock in April of this year when another tranche of shares, from the same RSU award these shares came from, vested.

    In September of 2020 he received an RSU award which would have more than 100,000 shares vest in each of April 2023, April 2024, and April 2025. When that first time-based tranche vested in April he sold all of them less the nearly 50% which were withheld for tax purposes. That's what he typically (though not always) does. He would have received around $9 million from the sale of those shares.

    That RSU award also included a performance based tranche which would have between 0 and nearly 700,000 shares vest this October. As it turned out he had a little over 500,000 shares vest and sold all that remained after more than 50% were withheld for tax purposes.

    As for 2022, he didn't sell any shares that year in large part because he didn't have any shares vest that year.


    FileMakerFellermuthuk_vanalingameriamjhwatto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 21
    carnegiecarnegie Posts: 1,078member
    Especially with GM’s CEO getting the flack she is, I which industry would move to a more modest $250,000 to $500,000 base salary and all other income is based off of performance of the company.  That way they have the most Incentive to make the company do good.  

    Like the Rivian CEO, should be making enough for a nice living situation, but shouldn’t rack up the $$$ until he is able to get the company profitable. I think that is a fair approach and allow for companies to reinvest as much as possible back into them. It also helps us investors in a company, as stock prices should go up. 

    Glad Tim is getting his beans. While not the most innovative period of Apple, Tim has done a great job with market cap and share prices. 
    For the record, the tranche of shares which just vested for Mr. Cook were performance-based. He could have received 0 shares or could have received about 668,000 shares depending on Apple's relative total shareholder return over the last 3 years.
    FileMakerFeller
  • Reply 9 of 21
    Maybe he knows something we don't?
    Yeah, like how much he owes in taxes this year.  LOL.  This is a relatively small chunk of his net worth.
  • Reply 10 of 21
    dewmedewme Posts: 5,486member
    Especially with GM’s CEO getting the flack she is, I which industry would move to a more modest $250,000 to $500,000 base salary and all other income is based off of performance of the company.  That way they have the most Incentive to make the company do good.  

    Like the Rivian CEO, should be making enough for a nice living situation, but shouldn’t rack up the $$$ until he is able to get the company profitable. I think that is a fair approach and allow for companies to reinvest as much as possible back into them. It also helps us investors in a company, as stock prices should go up. 

    Glad Tim is getting his beans. While not the most innovative period of Apple, Tim has done a great job with market cap and share prices. 
    These highly compensated CEO’s compensation packages are set by their individual company’s board of directors, not “the industry.” 

    Companies compete for CEOs just like sports teams compete for top talent. In fact, some of the compensation packages given to the top sports talent dwarf what top CEOs in challenging industries who consistently deliver results are awarded. 

    I’d bet that some of the striking workers who are complaining about the size of their CEO’s compensation package have no issues at all with their favorite sports team paying one player more than they pay everyone else on the team combined.

    Why do the owners of these sports teams award such massive contracts to one or a few players? Because the owners believe that particular player is going to pull in additional revenue over time that greatly exceeds what they’re paying that player. In some cases the owners may have to increase the customer’s price of their “product” to recoup their investment more quickly, but as long as their customers think the increase in price is worth it, no problem.

    The analogy between the best CEOs and superstar sports athletes extends to the performance side of the equation as well. If they meet certain targets they can reap additional bonuses. But if they don’t meet expectations they can be fired. In similar fashion, fired CEOs often have golden parachutes while “fired” sports superstars often get guaranteed money up-front that they get to keep whether or not they play a single game. 

    If the owners and boards of these businesses and sports teams weren’t benefiting significantly from these compensation arrangements, and if customers weren’t happy with the business paying for the top talent, they would not be doing these deals, well, at least outside of Cleveland. 

    And yeah, Tim has proven that he is worth every penny they pay him, and then some. 
    edited October 2023 muthuk_vanalingamchasmwatto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 21
    dewme said:
    Especially with GM’s CEO getting the flack she is, I which industry would move to a more modest $250,000 to $500,000 base salary and all other income is based off of performance of the company.  That way they have the most Incentive to make the company do good.  

    Like the Rivian CEO, should be making enough for a nice living situation, but shouldn’t rack up the $$$ until he is able to get the company profitable. I think that is a fair approach and allow for companies to reinvest as much as possible back into them. It also helps us investors in a company, as stock prices should go up. 

    Glad Tim is getting his beans. While not the most innovative period of Apple, Tim has done a great job with market cap and share prices. 
    These highly compensated CEO’s compensation packages are set by their individual company’s board of directors, not “the industry.” 

    Companies compete for CEOs just like sports teams compete for top talent. In fact, some of the compensation packages given to the top sports talent dwarf what top CEOs in challenging industries who consistently deliver results are awarded. 

    I’d bet that some of the striking workers who are complaining about the size of their CEO’s compensation package have no issues at all with their favorite sports team paying one player more than they pay everyone else on the team combined.

    Why do the owners of these sports teams award such massive contracts to one or a few players? Because the owners believe that particular player is going to pull in additional revenue over time that greatly exceeds what they’re paying that player. In some cases the owners may have to increase the customer’s price of their “product” to recoup their investment more quickly, but as long as their customers think the increase in price is worth it, no problem.

    The analogy between the best CEOs and superstar sports athletes extends to the performance side of the equation as well. If they meet certain targets they can reap additional bonuses. But if they don’t meet expectations they can be fired. In similar fashion, fired CEOs often have golden parachutes while “fired” sports superstars often get guaranteed money up-front that they get to keep whether or not they play a single game. 

    If the owners and boards of these businesses and sports teams weren’t benefiting significantly from these compensation arrangements, and if customers weren’t happy with the business paying for the top talent, they would not be doing these deals, well, at least outside of Cleveland. 

    And yeah, Tim has proven that he is worth every penny they pay him, and then some. 
    You kicked off with an Ad Hominem fallacy and went down hill from there. 
    grandact73rundhvid
  • Reply 12 of 21
    dewmedewme Posts: 5,486member
    dewme said:
    Especially with GM’s CEO getting the flack she is, I which industry would move to a more modest $250,000 to $500,000 base salary and all other income is based off of performance of the company.  That way they have the most Incentive to make the company do good.  

    Like the Rivian CEO, should be making enough for a nice living situation, but shouldn’t rack up the $$$ until he is able to get the company profitable. I think that is a fair approach and allow for companies to reinvest as much as possible back into them. It also helps us investors in a company, as stock prices should go up. 

    Glad Tim is getting his beans. While not the most innovative period of Apple, Tim has done a great job with market cap and share prices. 
    These highly compensated CEO’s compensation packages are set by their individual company’s board of directors, not “the industry.” 

    Companies compete for CEOs just like sports teams compete for top talent. In fact, some of the compensation packages given to the top sports talent dwarf what top CEOs in challenging industries who consistently deliver results are awarded. 

    I’d bet that some of the striking workers who are complaining about the size of their CEO’s compensation package have no issues at all with their favorite sports team paying one player more than they pay everyone else on the team combined.

    Why do the owners of these sports teams award such massive contracts to one or a few players? Because the owners believe that particular player is going to pull in additional revenue over time that greatly exceeds what they’re paying that player. In some cases the owners may have to increase the customer’s price of their “product” to recoup their investment more quickly, but as long as their customers think the increase in price is worth it, no problem.

    The analogy between the best CEOs and superstar sports athletes extends to the performance side of the equation as well. If they meet certain targets they can reap additional bonuses. But if they don’t meet expectations they can be fired. In similar fashion, fired CEOs often have golden parachutes while “fired” sports superstars often get guaranteed money up-front that they get to keep whether or not they play a single game. 

    If the owners and boards of these businesses and sports teams weren’t benefiting significantly from these compensation arrangements, and if customers weren’t happy with the business paying for the top talent, they would not be doing these deals, well, at least outside of Cleveland. 

    And yeah, Tim has proven that he is worth every penny they pay him, and then some. 
    You kicked off with an Ad Hominem fallacy and went down hill from there. 
    I’d like to see your definition of ad hominem fallacy. I’m very familiar with that fallacy because in the US we see it playing out on a daily basis with a particular ex-president and candidate. The basis of the ad hominem fallacy is to attack the person making an argument or assertion rather than attacking the assertions being made. 

    “Ad hominem fallacy is a group of argumentation strategies that focus on the person making an argument rather than their viewpoint. ”

    The basis of my comment is that the compensation awarded to singularly unique talent in a competitive market is based on ROI expectations made by those who put forth the offers, not some industry established calculation for what compensation should be awarded based on particular roles. 

    Nowhere in my comment did I question to worthiness of any individual to be compensated in the manner that they are. Those questions are completely within the realm of those who extend the compensation offers to prospective candidates. 
    muthuk_vanalingamchasmwatto_cobra
  • Reply 13 of 21
    neoncatneoncat Posts: 153member
    Maybe he knows something we don't?

    Sales of stock by c-suite executives at public companies are scheduled months (usually 6 or more) in advance, on a schedule, that has to be submitted to the SEC. While not a perfect solution, the goal is to avoid shenanigans based on insider knowledge that there would be no way for a CEO to not have. 

    The overwhelming likelihood is that the sale was for to pay taxes, or to reimburse for taxes paid—Q4 (tax year, not Apple's fiscal year) just started on October 1st, so there would've been an estimated tax payment due at the end of September, something anyone in Tim's income class would be required to pay. 

    Doesn't mean that some of the money isn't intended for whatever Tim would like to spend his money on—solid gold rocket car, whatever—but that as a CEO, he has far less control over when he sells stock grants than any of us normies who can buy and sell stock as we wish.
    muthuk_vanalingamwatto_cobra
  • Reply 14 of 21
    danoxdanox Posts: 3,051member
    Maybe he knows something we don't?
    He does, but he gave us a hint but most in general aren’t paying attention yet…
    edited October 2023 watto_cobra
  • Reply 15 of 21
    dewme said:
    dewme said:
    Especially with GM’s CEO getting the flack she is, I which industry would move to a more modest $250,000 to $500,000 base salary and all other income is based off of performance of the company.  That way they have the most Incentive to make the company do good.  

    Like the Rivian CEO, should be making enough for a nice living situation, but shouldn’t rack up the $$$ until he is able to get the company profitable. I think that is a fair approach and allow for companies to reinvest as much as possible back into them. It also helps us investors in a company, as stock prices should go up. 

    Glad Tim is getting his beans. While not the most innovative period of Apple, Tim has done a great job with market cap and share prices. 
    These highly compensated CEO’s compensation packages are set by their individual company’s board of directors, not “the industry.” 

    Companies compete for CEOs just like sports teams compete for top talent. In fact, some of the compensation packages given to the top sports talent dwarf what top CEOs in challenging industries who consistently deliver results are awarded. 

    I’d bet that some of the striking workers who are complaining about the size of their CEO’s compensation package have no issues at all with their favorite sports team paying one player more than they pay everyone else on the team combined.

    Why do the owners of these sports teams award such massive contracts to one or a few players? Because the owners believe that particular player is going to pull in additional revenue over time that greatly exceeds what they’re paying that player. In some cases the owners may have to increase the customer’s price of their “product” to recoup their investment more quickly, but as long as their customers think the increase in price is worth it, no problem.

    The analogy between the best CEOs and superstar sports athletes extends to the performance side of the equation as well. If they meet certain targets they can reap additional bonuses. But if they don’t meet expectations they can be fired. In similar fashion, fired CEOs often have golden parachutes while “fired” sports superstars often get guaranteed money up-front that they get to keep whether or not they play a single game. 

    If the owners and boards of these businesses and sports teams weren’t benefiting significantly from these compensation arrangements, and if customers weren’t happy with the business paying for the top talent, they would not be doing these deals, well, at least outside of Cleveland. 

    And yeah, Tim has proven that he is worth every penny they pay him, and then some. 
    You kicked off with an Ad Hominem fallacy and went down hill from there. 
    I’d like to see your definition of ad hominem fallacy. I’m very familiar with that fallacy because in the US we see it playing out on a daily basis with a particular ex-president and candidate. The basis of the ad hominem fallacy is to attack the person making an argument or assertion rather than attacking the assertions being made. 

    “Ad hominem fallacy is a group of argumentation strategies that focus on the person making an argument rather than their viewpoint. ”

    The basis of my comment is that the compensation awarded to singularly unique talent in a competitive market is based on ROI expectations made by those who put forth the offers, not some industry established calculation for what compensation should be awarded based on particular roles. 

    Nowhere in my comment did I question to worthiness of any individual to be compensated in the manner that they are. Those questions are completely within the realm of those who extend the compensation offers to prospective candidates. 
    "I’d bet that some of the striking workers who are complaining about the size of their CEO’s compensation package have no issues at all with their favorite sports team paying one player more than they pay everyone else on the team combined."

    That what your Ad Hominem.  You arguing that the striking workers you hypocrites (sans any evidence) and using that to delegitimize their stance. Arguing that a 
    person or persons should be discounted due to their hypocrisy is one of the most common forms of the Ad Hominem attack. A person behind hypocritical doesn't make them wrong, it makes them inconsistent. You went after the person for being inconsistent rather than addressing the substance of what they said. That is a text book Ad Hominem fallacy. 


    edited October 2023 rundhvid
  • Reply 16 of 21
    dewme said:
    dewme said:
    Especially with GM’s CEO getting the flack she is, I which industry would move to a more modest $250,000 to $500,000 base salary and all other income is based off of performance of the company.  That way they have the most Incentive to make the company do good.  

    Like the Rivian CEO, should be making enough for a nice living situation, but shouldn’t rack up the $$$ until he is able to get the company profitable. I think that is a fair approach and allow for companies to reinvest as much as possible back into them. It also helps us investors in a company, as stock prices should go up. 

    Glad Tim is getting his beans. While not the most innovative period of Apple, Tim has done a great job with market cap and share prices. 
    These highly compensated CEO’s compensation packages are set by their individual company’s board of directors, not “the industry.” 

    Companies compete for CEOs just like sports teams compete for top talent. In fact, some of the compensation packages given to the top sports talent dwarf what top CEOs in challenging industries who consistently deliver results are awarded. 

    I’d bet that some of the striking workers who are complaining about the size of their CEO’s compensation package have no issues at all with their favorite sports team paying one player more than they pay everyone else on the team combined.

    Why do the owners of these sports teams award such massive contracts to one or a few players? Because the owners believe that particular player is going to pull in additional revenue over time that greatly exceeds what they’re paying that player. In some cases the owners may have to increase the customer’s price of their “product” to recoup their investment more quickly, but as long as their customers think the increase in price is worth it, no problem.

    The analogy between the best CEOs and superstar sports athletes extends to the performance side of the equation as well. If they meet certain targets they can reap additional bonuses. But if they don’t meet expectations they can be fired. In similar fashion, fired CEOs often have golden parachutes while “fired” sports superstars often get guaranteed money up-front that they get to keep whether or not they play a single game. 

    If the owners and boards of these businesses and sports teams weren’t benefiting significantly from these compensation arrangements, and if customers weren’t happy with the business paying for the top talent, they would not be doing these deals, well, at least outside of Cleveland. 

    And yeah, Tim has proven that he is worth every penny they pay him, and then some. 
    You kicked off with an Ad Hominem fallacy and went down hill from there. 
    I’d like to see your definition of ad hominem fallacy. I’m very familiar with that fallacy because in the US we see it playing out on a daily basis with a particular ex-president and candidate. The basis of the ad hominem fallacy is to attack the person making an argument or assertion rather than attacking the assertions being made. 

    “Ad hominem fallacy is a group of argumentation strategies that focus on the person making an argument rather than their viewpoint. ”

    The basis of my comment is that the compensation awarded to singularly unique talent in a competitive market is based on ROI expectations made by those who put forth the offers, not some industry established calculation for what compensation should be awarded based on particular roles. 

    Nowhere in my comment did I question to worthiness of any individual to be compensated in the manner that they are. Those questions are completely within the realm of those who extend the compensation offers to prospective candidates. 
    I completely agree with you on this post. I read your previous post few times, but I just couldn't find where the ad-hominem attack was. People are either imagining "attack" where none exists, or using the ad hominem fallacy as you implied.
  • Reply 17 of 21
    netroxnetrox Posts: 1,454member
    Tim Cook needs to get more shares, he did a lot for Apple. More than many people realize. He is literally a supply chain genius. Apple keeps delivering iphones, macs, and watches on time. During the pandemic, a lot of groceries were short on many groceries due to COVID. Many auto manufacturers couldn't manufacture because of missing parts. There are many items that could not be delivered due to disruption. That requires a person skilled in logistics to solve those challenges. 

    I think Tim Cook is one of the best leaders and should be paid a lot more. 
    chasmwatto_cobra
  • Reply 18 of 21
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,377moderator
    netrox said:
    Tim Cook needs to get more shares, he did a lot for Apple. More than many people realize. He is literally a supply chain genius. Apple keeps delivering iphones, macs, and watches on time. During the pandemic, a lot of groceries were short on many groceries due to COVID. Many auto manufacturers couldn't manufacture because of missing parts. There are many items that could not be delivered due to disruption. That requires a person skilled in logistics to solve those challenges. 

    I think Tim Cook is one of the best leaders and should be paid a lot more. 
    He's a billionaire already:

    https://appleinsider.com/articles/22/01/07/tim-cooks-net-worth-is-now-over-1-billion-after-2021

    Even if he deserves more, giving him more wouldn't make much difference.

    https://ayafintech.network/blog/apple-ceo-tim-cook-maintains-a-frugal-low-key-lifestyle/

    "Cook leads a frugal solitary life, buys clothes-and-shoes at the Nordstrom semi-annual sale, and lives in a relatively modest $1.9 million home in Palo Alto"

    https://manufacturingdigital.com/lean-manufacturing/tim-cook-doesnt-fear-failure-plus-11-other-facts-you-didnt-know-about-apples-ceo

    "He is very frugal both as a manager and in his personal life. Cook lived in a rental apartment for years without air conditioning. As a manager, he is described as someone who “would haggle over a nickel to drive profits.”"

    https://www.macworld.com/article/677835/has-tim-cook-bought-his-retirement-home.html

    The homes he buys are a few million dollars.

    Even if he went full showboating in retirement like Bezos, he could afford this too:

    https://www.scmp.com/magazines/style/celebrity/article/3213036/9-surprising-facts-about-jeff-bezos-new-mega-yacht-koru-it-cost-us500-million-size-2-airbus-a380s

    Wealthy people often use their wealth to try and add meaning to their lives with expensive vacations, events and property like the Kardashians. Tim Cook doesn't seem like the type:



    Steve Jobs took a $1 salary and died a billionaire, I could see Tim Cook doing the same. Otherwise, he will probably give most of it away.
  • Reply 19 of 21
    davidwdavidw Posts: 2,074member
    Isn't it obvious why Tim needed $41.5M? Remember, he took a 40% pay cut for 2023. So in order for him to maintain the same standard of living as he had in 2022, when he made nearly $100M, he's going to need an extra $41.5M. :)




    watto_cobra
  • Reply 20 of 21
    dewmedewme Posts: 5,486member
    dewme said:
    dewme said:
    Especially with GM’s CEO getting the flack she is, I which industry would move to a more modest $250,000 to $500,000 base salary and all other income is based off of performance of the company.  That way they have the most Incentive to make the company do good.  

    Like the Rivian CEO, should be making enough for a nice living situation, but shouldn’t rack up the $$$ until he is able to get the company profitable. I think that is a fair approach and allow for companies to reinvest as much as possible back into them. It also helps us investors in a company, as stock prices should go up. 

    Glad Tim is getting his beans. While not the most innovative period of Apple, Tim has done a great job with market cap and share prices. 
    These highly compensated CEO’s compensation packages are set by their individual company’s board of directors, not “the industry.” 

    Companies compete for CEOs just like sports teams compete for top talent. In fact, some of the compensation packages given to the top sports talent dwarf what top CEOs in challenging industries who consistently deliver results are awarded. 

    I’d bet that some of the striking workers who are complaining about the size of their CEO’s compensation package have no issues at all with their favorite sports team paying one player more than they pay everyone else on the team combined.

    Why do the owners of these sports teams award such massive contracts to one or a few players? Because the owners believe that particular player is going to pull in additional revenue over time that greatly exceeds what they’re paying that player. In some cases the owners may have to increase the customer’s price of their “product” to recoup their investment more quickly, but as long as their customers think the increase in price is worth it, no problem.

    The analogy between the best CEOs and superstar sports athletes extends to the performance side of the equation as well. If they meet certain targets they can reap additional bonuses. But if they don’t meet expectations they can be fired. In similar fashion, fired CEOs often have golden parachutes while “fired” sports superstars often get guaranteed money up-front that they get to keep whether or not they play a single game. 

    If the owners and boards of these businesses and sports teams weren’t benefiting significantly from these compensation arrangements, and if customers weren’t happy with the business paying for the top talent, they would not be doing these deals, well, at least outside of Cleveland. 

    And yeah, Tim has proven that he is worth every penny they pay him, and then some. 
    You kicked off with an Ad Hominem fallacy and went down hill from there. 
    I’d like to see your definition of ad hominem fallacy. I’m very familiar with that fallacy because in the US we see it playing out on a daily basis with a particular ex-president and candidate. The basis of the ad hominem fallacy is to attack the person making an argument or assertion rather than attacking the assertions being made. 

    “Ad hominem fallacy is a group of argumentation strategies that focus on the person making an argument rather than their viewpoint. ”

    The basis of my comment is that the compensation awarded to singularly unique talent in a competitive market is based on ROI expectations made by those who put forth the offers, not some industry established calculation for what compensation should be awarded based on particular roles. 

    Nowhere in my comment did I question to worthiness of any individual to be compensated in the manner that they are. Those questions are completely within the realm of those who extend the compensation offers to prospective candidates. 
    "I’d bet that some of the striking workers who are complaining about the size of their CEO’s compensation package have no issues at all with their favorite sports team paying one player more than they pay everyone else on the team combined."

    That what your Ad Hominem.  You arguing that the striking workers you hypocrites (sans any evidence) and using that to delegitimize their stance. Arguing that a 
    person or persons should be discounted due to their hypocrisy is one of the most common forms of the Ad Hominem attack. A person behind hypocritical doesn't make them wrong, it makes them inconsistent. You went after the person for being inconsistent rather than addressing the substance of what they said. That is a text book Ad Hominem fallacy. 


    Nothing in my comments were intended to be a personal attack on anyone or any group. My intention was to provide two examples of similarly motivated compensation models that are both driven by very similar business imperatives, which is to increase the revenue of their particular business. One of these instances is very frequently and publicly vilified (highly compensated CEOs) while the other one is openly celebrated (highly compensated sports figures). 

    The reasons why these two instances of the same business behavior are viewed in far different lights is anyone's guess. My guess, my opinion, is that a lot of people have not considered the similarities that exist between different business instances executing very similar compensation strategies. When each instance is viewed in isolation and with a lack of awareness of the commonality, the common rationale behind the decisions never enters into the conversation. Here's how I see it:

    1. Ask someone about their opinion on CEO compensation
    2. Ask someone about their opinion of a star sports figure
    3. Explain the commonality between the two from a business perspective
    4. Ask someone if the commonality or business rationale changes their opinion on either CEOs or star sports figures

    My comment regarding workers who are upset about their CEOs pay and comfortable with a star sports figures pay gets us to step 2. You have two isolated data points. Anything beyond step 2 is pure conjecture. If you're of the opinion that regardless of the argument made in step 3, an individual would still say that a highly compensated CEO is unfair while a highly compensated athlete is totally fair, then you could possibly form an opinion that the individual is being hypocritical. That would be an overly harsh statement because you don't really know the rationale for the seeming inconsistency. My entire comment was all about step 3. I have no mechanism or desire to perform step 4. That's an exercise left for the reader. But I neither made nor inferred anything related to calling anyone a hypocrite.

    Even if I had done the exercise left for the reader part and questioned the judgement, inconsistency, or limited perspective of some unnamed person or group based on my own presumptive responses to steps 1 and 2, that still would not make it ad hominem attack. People don't always see things through the same lens that I do. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. In liberal societies people are free to state their own opinions publicly and to disagree publicly with other people's opinions.

    Finally, I'm not taking a side, picking on sports, or even weighing in on whether any highly compensated business person, athlete, college president, doctor, lawyer, actor, or whatever is "worth" what they are getting paid. That's the polar opposite of what I want to do. I respect that the people who are making compensation decisions for these very special, highly compensated individuals in any business have very legitimate, rational, and defensible reasons for doing so. I don't want to fall into the trap of assuming that popular sentiment expressed in the media is warranted. I don't believe that CEOs, athletes, or any other highly compensated person whose compensation package is the result of a business decision and agreement established by others should be publicly challenged to justify their own pay. Ask the board of directors or whomever put together the package. As other commenters have clearly stated, the bottom line compensation numbers for senior executives in publicly traded companies is public knowledge.
    muthuk_vanalingam
Sign In or Register to comment.