Results 1 to 5 of 5

Your favorite Apple, iPhone, iPad, iOS, Jailbreak, and Cydia site.


Thread: S&P: Tim Cook Raked in $74M Last Year

  1. #1
    MMi Staff Writer Michael Essany's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Valparaiso, Indiana
    Posts
    3,852
    Thanks
    17
    Thanked 1,482 Times in 568 Posts

    Default S&P: Tim Cook Raked in $74M Last Year


    On Friday afternoon, as stocks tumble led by the technology sector, many investors are checking their portfolios and 401Ks to see what kind of damage has been done. All told, it's perhaps not a good time to remind investors that the individuals that lead many of these companies did really, really well for themselves last year.

    But according to the latest data from Standard & Poor's, which was shared publicly today, we're getting an in-depth look at which CEOs made the most money last year. Of the 500 companies that filed proxies with the Securities and Exchange Commission between Jan. 1 and March 27, 2014, annual compensation reports reveal that Tim Cook had a banner year.

    The Apple CEO brought home $73.9 million (mostly in stock, some in salary) during 2013. In fact, the only CEO in tech who made more was Facebook boss Mark Zuckerberg, who rang the register on $3.3 billion in stock options last year.

    "The extremes are getting bigger and run smack dab into the debate of income inequality," compensation consultant Alan Johnson tells USA Today. "Boards are quite concerned over how executive compensation will be perceived. There's very little of, 'Let's make Mr. Big happy because we're all friends and he's a nice man.' But you try to balance what's competitive. I tell boards that their primary goal is to do what's best for shareholders. If a CEO has created shareholder value, whether they're good or lucky, and things look like they're going to go well, you're probably going to have to pay a lot."

    To check out the full executive compensation log, click here.

    Source: USA Today

  2. #2
    Notice they didn't tell him his salary was located "offshore"

  3. #3
    This seems conflicting with the article from last week with his pay being less than Samsung Exec.

    I would think stock payout is still considered a "salary", maybe just me tho

    Samsung Elec's mobile head paycheck hits $5.8 mln, beating Apple's Cook | Reuters

  4. #4
    These misleading compensation stories are so annoying...

    He didn't "make $74 million last year" For that to be true, all his stock options would have to be exercisable immediately, which they are not. The options are exercisable over a period of years, so you have to spread them out over those years. And I'm sure there are certain clawback contingencies tied in if he doesn't perform his job to some minimum standard or leaves the company early.

    What you're saying would be like saying an athlete who signs a 5 year $10 million contract last year "made $10 million last year." Nobody says that.

    Having said that, I honestly think CEO's runaway compensation is a problem. If you look at it historically, it has ballooned massively! They should be directly tied to some sort of metric. Like a magnitude of the lowest level employee compensation, or directly to some company performance metric, like a percentage of EBITDA or set at a base level and only increase or decrease with EBITDA increase or decrease %. And any non-cash compensation should be long-term with a 5 year minimum to keep CEO's from making decision that result in short-term gains and long-term losses.
    Last edited by fleurya; 04-06-2014 at 09:17 AM.

  5. #5
    Livin the iPhone Life bigboyz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    North East Coast
    Posts
    1,748
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 270 Times in 175 Posts

    Quote Originally Posted by fleurya View Post
    These misleading compensation stories are so annoying...

    He didn't "make $74 million last year" For that to be true, all his stock options would have to be exercisable immediately, which they are not. The options are exercisable over a period of years, so you have to spread them out over those years. And I'm sure there are certain clawback contingencies tied in if he doesn't perform his job to some minimum standard or leaves the company early.

    What you're saying would be like saying an athlete who signs a 5 year $10 million contract last year "made $10 million last year." Nobody says that.

    Having said that, I honestly think CEO's runaway compensation is a problem. If you look at it historically, it has ballooned massively! They should be directly tied to some sort of metric. Like a magnitude of the lowest level employee compensation, or directly to some company performance metric, like a percentage of EBITDA or set at a base level and only increase or decrease with EBITDA increase or decrease %. And any non-cash compensation should be long-term with a 5 year minimum to keep CEO's from making decision that result in short-term gains and long-term losses.
    I tend to agree that they should be tied to a metric of growth/performance. Not just given a bulk of money cause they are at the helm when a company is successful. Sounds like the NFL. Blame the QB when they lose the game. Give the QB all the glory when they win, even if he didn't do much to cause the win. All the fame and all the shame.

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •