Apple CEO Pay Fell 99% In 2012

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Tim Cook saw his pay fall 99% in 2012. According to Apple, it is all part of the plan and has nothing to do with his performance as CEO, the maps issue or the massive stock slide over the last few months.

A proxy statement Apple filed today with the Securities and Exchange Commission revealed Cook's base salary as $1.3 million with non-cash compensation making up the rest. In contrast, Cook was given $378 million in overall compensation last year and $59 million the previous year. But the lower total compensation is all part of a plan.
 
I can't stand labor unions and the like, but talk about fuel for the fire when any individual is awarded so many hundreds of millions for their efforts.

Compensation should absolutely reflect the education level and skillset someone brings to the table for their "team", but with these mega-CEOs it is absolutely beyond rediculous.

I don't see how it can be long before we see a modern storming of the Bastille, as people can only tolerate being told there is no money to go around and they need cut after cut and work harder and harder while a few live to opulently.
 
I don't see how it can be long before we see a modern storming of the Bastille, as people can only tolerate being told there is no money to go around and they need cut after cut and work harder and harder while a few live to opulently.

There are two groups predominantly "living large" during this economic slump: CEOs and politicians.

The difference is that the former at least helped produce something, like the CEO of Apple. The politicians, who enjoy salaries, benefits, and perks I could never hope to taste, don't produce anything. All they do is take from people like you and me. If there is a Bastille to be stormed, it's in Washington, not in Silicon Valley.
 
There are two groups predominantly "living large" during this economic slump: CEOs and politicians.

The difference is that the former at least helped produce something, like the CEO of Apple. The politicians, who enjoy salaries, benefits, and perks I could never hope to taste, don't produce anything. All they do is take from people like you and me. If there is a Bastille to be stormed, it's in Washington, not in Silicon Valley.

I don't completely disagree with the gist of what you're saying, but Cook hasn't done much but follow the plan that Jobs left behind, though he did go against Jobsism and admitted Apple failed at something.

But There are fat cats in politics and fat cats in business. And they are all fat off the working class. The rich should pay far more, and the government should spend far less. In the end they are making sure each other stays rich.
 
There are two groups predominantly "living large" during this economic slump: CEOs and politicians.

The difference is that the former at least helped produce something, like the CEO of Apple. The politicians, who enjoy salaries, benefits, and perks I could never hope to taste, don't produce anything. All they do is take from people like you and me. If there is a Bastille to be stormed, it's in Washington, not in Silicon Valley.

I don't completely disagree with the gist of what you're saying, but Cook hasn't done much but follow the plan that Jobs left behind, though he did go against Jobsism and admitted Apple failed at something.

But there are fat cats in politics and fat cats in business. And they are all fat off the working class. The rich should pay far more, and the government should spend far less. In the end they are making sure each other stays rich, first and foremost.
 
400 million in a year is simply rape. He cannot possibly be doing anything that valuable. For his salary they could have 10k assembly people working in the US.
 
The rich should pay far more, and the government should spend far less. In the end they are making sure each other stays rich, first and foremost.

While I agree with your general sentiment, if the government did spend far less, there would be no need for the rich to pay far more. The problem has not been revenue, but spending. If anything, Washington could take lessons from companies like Apple, which still manage to produce profits and prosperity, even with overpaid CEOs.
 
400 million in a year is simply rape. He cannot possibly be doing anything that valuable. For his salary they could have 10k assembly people working in the US.

Agreed.

I used to subscribe to the thinking of "When you are at the top you have earned it" but I agree that there is no way in hell that any CEO is so valuable to a company that a compensation of $400 million is warranted.

Think about it, they work about the same hours as most hard working corporate folk, if not less. What are they contributing that is so valuable?

Don't tell me it's their experience because a few years of experience is not worth $400 million.
 
Most of that money probably came from stock he was given, before the stock price exploded.

He has no direct control over the stock market, and anyone who wanted could have bought Apple stock themselves. Many did, and ended up making money for themselves during that same time period.

400 million in a year is simply rape. He cannot possibly be doing anything that valuable. For his salary they could have 10k assembly people working in the US.

Where does it mention anywhere that the numbers represent his "Salary"? All I see is that those numbers represent his "overall compensation" which again likely came almost all from stock.

This is little more than a twisted news headline aimed at getting page clicks by stoking divisions in society. Sad to see so many buying in, hook, line, & sinker.
 
While I agree with your general sentiment, if the government did spend far less, there would be no need for the rich to pay far more. The problem has not been revenue, but spending. If anything, Washington could take lessons from companies like Apple, which still manage to produce profits and prosperity, even with overpaid CEOs.

In the long run you're probably right, but in the short term we need to pay off debts, and no amount of sustainable spending cuts are going to make that happen. WWII was ultimately financed by the rich, and the wars of the past 20+ years will likely need to be as well.
 
400 million in a year is simply rape. He cannot possibly be doing anything that valuable. For his salary they could have 10k assembly people working in the US.
He's running a company that pulled in over $100B in revenue last year. $400M is comparatively not that much.
 
No paycut. Tax evasion FTFW. What a scumbag. Creative rerouting is all the rage with high level guys and corporations in general these days. There are financial consulting firms that specialize exactly in this area - setting up complex routing systems spanning the globe with the endgoal of sidestepping the tax revenue system. I know because I've seen it firsthand.
 
400 million in a year is simply rape. He cannot possibly be doing anything that valuable. For his salary they could have 10k assembly people working in the US.

Very much agreed. If I saw that as a shareholder, I'd shit.
 
Where does it mention anywhere that the numbers represent his "Salary"? All I see is that those numbers represent his "overall compensation" which again likely came almost all from stock.

So, that's why it's so low this year?! BUUUURRRRRRNNNNNNN!
 
If I saw that as a shareholder, I'd shit.

Doubt it. Since most of the money probably came from stock, as a "shareholder" you would have benefited from those same upswings in the stock price, and likely made plenty of money yourself.
 
So, that's why it's so low this year?! BUUUURRRRRRNNNNNNN!

That's what happens, stocks go up sometimes, and sometimes they go down. Of course you don't see sensationalist news articles about CEO compensation when they lose money in the stock market...
 
Where does it mention anywhere that the numbers represent his "Salary"? All I see is that those numbers represent his "overall compensation" which again likely came almost all from stock.

This is little more than a twisted news headline aimed at getting page clicks by stoking divisions in society. Sad to see so many buying in, hook, line, & sinker.

Easy on the conspiracy theories. I don't think there was as much insidious intention behind this article as you suspect.
 
Doubt it. Since most of the money probably came from stock, as a "shareholder" you would have benefited from those same upswings in the stock price, and likely made plenty of money yourself.

I made almost $2 last year off my 1 share. WE BLINGIN' LIKE A MOFO UP IN THIS ONE!!!!
 
Poor baby. I guess he'll just have to make those hundreds of millions last from previous years :rolleyes:
 
You have to be an utter fool to think there is a real difference between salary and "stock based compensation." The BOD handed him hundreds of thousands of shares knowing he will return the favor on other BODs, it's a giant incestuous "corporate governance" rape conspiracy.

And divisions...newsflash, the divisions exist. What exactly do you think is the nefarious agenda behind reporting on them? Do you think news reporters are Marxists fomenting a revolution? Damn do you people have your head jammed right in the Kool Aid jug.
 
Oh, and "you could have bought Apple stock and done the same."

Please. That's so pathetic.
 

Looking at your second chart, it looks like the spike in CEO pay took off right about the time people like Jeff Bezos were beginning to become billionaires overnight. Is the growth rate due to depriving workers to the point of subsistence pay, or is it possibly due to the insanely high rate of growth these companies go through, particularly with regard to stock prices?
 
Rofl there is such a disconnect by most tech enthusiasts when it comes to the stock market and compensation for owning securities. Please post with a level-head, and not with the self-righteous rage that stems from the classroom :p
 
Some stats:

Apple Inc. brings home 160 billion dollars every year in revenue.

Compensation of 400 million is about 0.0025% of that revenue.

The question you have to ask yourself is this: Is it worth 0.0025% of the year's revenues to keep the guy in charge, the brains of the operation?

What if a rival company snags him for 300 million if you cut his salary (compensation)? Your stock drops like a rock and you lose credibility. Worse yet the rival company knows all your weaknesses.

The particular thing with cook is that his compensation was mostly in Apple Inc. RSUs. So he already has plenty of motivation to stay at apple and work hard so his shares keep their value. What would happen if he accepted another position? He would lose all those shares since they haven't vested yet.

So is Cook worth his compensation? At first glance it seems reasonable, he is the top executive of the most profitable company in the world and he is also the most compensated.

The thing is that leading huge technology company is a rare skill. It's not that his compensation is a reflection of the effort he put in. It's a reflection of his importance to the operation and the scarcity of people with experience running huge, successful tech companies.
 
In the long run you're probably right, but in the short term we need to pay off debts, and no amount of sustainable spending cuts are going to make that happen. WWII was ultimately financed by the rich, and the wars of the past 20+ years will likely need to be as well.

Yet the rich are already paying a larger share of the taxes than 40 years ago.
Just becase the rate is lower, doesn't mean they are paying less.
When the rate was 70%+, many of the rich paid little or no taxes, because of all the tax shelters and writeoffs.
 
Looking at your second chart, it looks like the spike in CEO pay took off right about the time people like Jeff Bezos were beginning to become billionaires overnight. Is the growth rate due to depriving workers to the point of subsistence pay, or is it possibly due to the insanely high rate of growth these companies go through, particularly with regard to stock prices?

That would explain the spike in the CEO pay in US companies, but why hasn't a similar spike occured for German CEOs?

It sounds like those charts are more food for thought than straight up condeming US CEOs in general.
 
Yet the rich are already paying a larger share of the taxes than 40 years ago.
Just becase the rate is lower, doesn't mean they are paying less.
When the rate was 70%+, many of the rich paid little or no taxes, because of all the tax shelters and writeoffs.

Do you have citations?
 
Pay ratios vs average worker:
Germany 12:1
vs
US 475:1
Wow, talk about corruption/inefficiency.

Such pestimism

Wow, talk about the great opportunities we have in this country!



You have to be an utter fool to think there is a real difference between salary and "stock based compensation."

You can blame the "stock based compensation" and the huge incomes that resulted when the stockmarket goes up, on Bill Clinton. It was during the Clinton administration that there was a cap put on the amount of CEO pay that could be deducted as a business expense. (normally all salaries paid by a business is considered an expense just like buying equipement). This cause many large companies to switch much of the CEO's pay to stock options since they are still deductable.
 
That would explain the spike in the CEO pay in US companies, but why hasn't a similar spike occurred for German CEOs?

Does Germany have a business community to compare with Silicon Valley? Where was their tech revolution? Additionally, Germany hasn't had a financial market as inflated and bloated as the Dow Jones and other America-based institutions.

What I'm saying is that some people seem to look at that ratio and immediately assume that the divide can only be due to the CEO fucking over everyone else in the company, rather than considering that immense success allows for such exorbitant salary without putting any hardship on the lower tiers(and often quite the opposite).
 
Back
Top