Apple's chief operating officer Tim Cook got a cash bonus of $5m and a bunch of share options for filling in while Steve Jobs was off sick For covering the top job for six months while Jobs got a liver transplant Cook got $5m in cash and 75,000 share options - half will vest in March 2011 and the other half in March 2012, as …
Six months work?
Although Jobs has typically taken the credit for Apple's success over the past decade it has been Cook that has driven the company's growth, which is why Apple never even missed a beat when Jobs was off ill. Considering the return he has delivered for the shareholders nobody should have any issue with him taking this bonus.
last time I covered my boss for sick absence (18 months due to anxiety (wtf=stress)), I got a thanks pal, and that was it. needless to say 3 months later, I left and setup for myself, and doing quite nicely now THANK YOU, and with a few extra customers that I didn't expect, being that some of them were the bosses better accounts at that time.
Stress is a potentially debilitating condition which can make it totally impossible to do even the simplest job, and can render life virtually unbearable for the person suffering it. The earlier it's addressed by stepping away from the causes of it for a while, the quicker it is to fix. Unfortunately some people assume that they are immune or that it is not a real problem and work until they are virtually destroyed, leading to extremely long recovery times.
Covering someone's job for 18 months and not asking for any more money though = just plain stupid
gotta love it
There are children in sweatshops building computer parts for pennies on the dollar so that the top brass can get millions in bonuses. I don't doubt that he worked very hard and is extremely talented - but $120,879 A DAY talented? Not unless he works 24 hour days with no coffee breaks. Not when 90% of his fellow countrymen don't earn that in a year.
Not that it's an Apple specific problem of course, it's the grunts and prols of the world that are lining the richest pockets even as we speak. I have no right to complain either, seeing as a great deal of the things I buy make me complicit in the suffering of whoever made them.
.... no wonder terrorists hate us.
Everyone is keen to slag off bankers for being greedy bastards but they seem to overlook the fact that just about everyone is at it in the corporate world. Before anyone says "but Apple's share price hasn't disintegrated" there are also banks like Standard Chartered whose price is up since October 2007. Huge bonuses are just part of large corporates modus operandi. Despicable? Yes. Unusual? Not by any means.
Even public servants are on the bandwagon and those bastards are paid directly from taxation. That's way worse but they love the fact that the public are overlooking it because of others greed being the current target. The expenses scandal seems all but forgotten now.
Wasn't he leaving to be CEO of GM?
I guess the bonus is just to keep him at Apple to fill Job’s shoes If he gets ill/dies/leaves or whatever.
It’s a pretty big incentive to stay, I’ll say that!
btw mine’s the one with the golden apple in the pocket…
re: gotta love it
"There are children in sweatshops building computer parts for pennies on the dollar so that the top brass can get millions in bonuses."
I know you weren't specifically talking at times in your post, but what are you going on about? What sweatshops? What children? As per that recent report by Apple, that didn't seem to be a problem amongst its suppliers.
Terrorists hate the rich?
@AC: .... no wonder terrorists hate us.
That is crap. Terrorist don't hate the US because there are some rich people in the US. They hate you, because they were told that you represent a threat to their way of life. And in some cases, it is true. Freedom and equality are a threat to their (potential terrorists) way of life. Freedom and equality will eventual erode their unequal social institutions, just like they have in the US. Think about universal suffrage. This didn't always exist in the US, but does now. This force of progress will hit their society as well, and they want to stop it. They view this current conflict through the history of the Crusades, except the "Crusade" of 2010 is just plain everyday progress.
All of the countries housing terrorist grounds have plenty of rich people. bin Laden comes from such a rich family, that none of his siblings ever need to work a day. Ever. All terrorists know rich people from their own countries. Wealth is not an issue for terrorists.
I appreciate your point. The point is also though, that I maintained my job, and ny bosses job at the same time, so, tell me is it also not down to how the individual handles stress as well.
PS I didn't need the extra money, I took the fuckin+ business, compensation enough, I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT.
Stress is also...
I heard that ranting in upper case on Internet forums is a classic sign of stress.
If he helped make billions for Apple then $22 mil is fair enough. And Apple sell physical products that many people are very happy to pay for. Sure, the people making the stuff in sweatshops are paid chickenfeed, but there's probably a few billion people in the world with the physical and mental capacity to put some iPhone components together with a minimum of training, and there are only a handful who can successfully manage a global company like Apple.
Bankers bonuses is a whole other story, they're not selling physical products that people use and enjoy, in many cases they're using legal and accounting loopholes to create money from thin air or (vide latest Lehman Bros case) engaging in dodgy transactions and getting their auditors to hide said dodgy transactions (ie ranging from questionable to outright criminal) to increase their bottom lines. AND they also have 'guaranteed' bonuses (wtf??) so they get the bonuses whatever the performance.
So bankers are like footballers then
Not selling physical products - check
Engaging in dodgey transactions - plenty of that from agents/managers
No real profit being made - check
Guaranteed bonuses and stupid wages - you bet. Sign-on fees etc. are essentially no different - oh you like the job and the wage, here have a lump sum too. Difference is that hardly any top football clubs ever turn profit. Spanish ones are even permanently propped up by the taxpayer.
Try getting a fixed-rate mortgage from Wayne Rooney - I'm sure people in places like Australia (and UK eventually) will be enjoying having locked in before rates went up; will have saved money; but, hey, it's not a physical product.
Lesson - high pay for seemingly nothing and other bullshit happens everywhere, just be glad if you can get a slice of the action.
Why the negativity?
There's nothing wrong with rewarding success. The banker's got big bonuses for running their industry into the ground, hence the public anger. What exactly has Tim Cook done wrong? He's grown the company he manages, increased its workforce, allowed it to develop more competitive products, and increased the value of shareholders' holdings by a massive 5000% in just six years? Worth every penny that sort of performance.
Not when a lot of customers are racking up debt to buy those products. They didn't build up that debt with Apple, its at a bank. Whether a company produces a physical product or a service is irrelevant to profit and therefore should be irrelevant to compensation. Sorry you cannot see that. Apparently you believe that bankers are THE PROBLEM. They are not and never were. The progressive removal and dilution of legislation linked to the incompetence of the overseeing bodies is and was a far bigger problem and is what allowed banks to do what they did.
Actually bankers mainly got big bonuses during the good years and were therefore rewarded for success, but feel free to remain ignorant of that little fact. Or would you be slamming Tim Cook if Apple's share price tumbled and the profits fell? I think it more likely you would blame good competition.
I do love how people pick on bankers. Maybe they deserve it, but people didn't make the same level of fuss about all sorts of other government sponsored bail outs in the past or even other government aid.
Lets see here, taking Europe as an example, Airbus get massive state aid, British steel got state aid, BT still gets the state aid of owning the local area loop, farming subsidies, oh it goes on and on... Where are your complaints about all that??? I don't hear them...
Come on lets here you bitch about that state aid too...
If consumers buy stuff with money they don't have, it's primarily their fault. The bankers' fault is that of lending money to people who they know have a high probability of not being to pay that loan back. Yes, that is mostly a failure of regulation, but the bankers have (a) consistently and continuously lobbied for less regulation and for basically being allowed to do as they please and (b) fail to realise that their long-term stability is more beneficial than making gazillions NOW and to hell with tomorrow. The way bonuses were structured to reward short-term gain rather than long-term profitability and stability reflects this.
Of course you are right, bankers are far from unique in this respect, I can very happily bitch about state aid, government corruption / incompetence etc, whoever is involved from whatever sector of the economy. Bottom line (and what's actually relevant to this story) - It's perfectly fine for people to make loads of money if done legitimately and ethically.
But since we've gone off at a bit of a tangent - It's also a proven fact through human history that some people will do anything for a quick buck, and therefore need to be controlled. The bad thing is that our control mechanism (democracy) over the mechanisms that control business (regulators) has been subverted so that now business controls the regulators
Hold up there
Bankers were encouraged by politicians to lend to people who essentially had little chance of paying the money back in order to facilitate the mystical "home ownership for all". Happened in the US and it happened in the UK too. Why do you think the oversight was so lax all those years? It suited them, that's why.
It is also worth mentioning that, in the search for return, once the rump of the AAA-rated have been lent to you then have to move down the scale or accept diminishing returns - everyone wants to lend to good payers so margins tighten. As you go down the scale you take on more risk but can lend at a higher spread. However, everyone else starts doing this so margins then tighten. Rinse, lather, repeat. Before you know it anyone gets lent to because that's all you can make money from.
So he get $5 mil in cash and option to BUY 75,000 shares half at March 10 and 11 prices right?
So if the stock price goes up he makes the profit based on the difference between the price at the time he is able to buy (and then divest) and March '10 or March '11. If the stock price goes down he doesn't buy the stock and loses no money...
money made = $5 mil + (difference in stock price between when he can sell and mar '10/11 * 75,000 if > 0)
which does not equal $22 mil unless el reg got a copy of the encyclopedia galactica that had fallen through a time warp and can reveal that the APPL stock price went up 100 % -- it's possible
i could be wrong but isn't this how it works?
Re: stock options?
"""i could be wrong but isn't this how it works?"""
Yeah that's how it normally works. The SEC filing should say what the option price is, but unless they're back dated (Apple should have learned to avoid that tactic by now) the price should be the closing market price on the day they were granted. I'm too lazy to actually look up the filings though, so who knows.
I just hope this guy has to hand over a decent chunk of the bonus to the IRS. I imagine all the rich people have ways to avoid paying taxes on their $5m bonuses and just let the country fund itself with 50% of my $3k yearly bonus.
Stress the great excuse of the modern world.
Its not really a disease but plenty of people make their living from telling us that it is and plenty of people want to believe it is because it makes their issues seem more important if a doctor tells them they are ill.
Back on the subject of this stupid bonus, its a stupid bonus. No-one's job is that much harder than anyone else's, or requires that much more intelligence. His decisions may have consequences that affect the whole company, but at the end of the day he is not some sort of magician. He can only give the decision that he thinks is best and it either works or it doesn't.
There are only so many jobs at the top, and far more people below who are capable of those jobs. We never get to see what those people could do if they were given the chance because there is only so much room for debate in a company. In the end a few people have to make the decisions. They are no more special because of this. Smart, talented but far from being so smart and talented that they should receive the equivalent of a small country's savings.
I'm with Tim Cook on this one. In fact, I think he should have MORE in bonus.
Err... you don't happen to have his address and 'phone number, do you?
Big deal he ran the company for 6 months. By all accounts he runs it anyway. Personally I rather feel it runs itself. I reckon if I'd have sat in that seat for 6 months, iPods and Macs would still have sold, the iStore would still have sold apps and "re-invest in Microsoft stock" would have remained my mantra. Nobody is "worth" this kind of money.