4 ms·

one could argue that giving the executives those shares is investing into company operations.

sabat 16y ago
It's just investing in the executives. Actually investing in company operations means spending money to get things, not giving away money. Giving Tim Cook a ton of money doesn't actually get Apple anything. He could quit tomorrow and Apple wouldn't feel it at all.
- philwelch 16y ago
  He could quit tomorrow and Apple wouldn't feel it at all. If any C-level executive at any corporation could quit tomorrow and the company wouldn't feel it at all, that executive needs to be fired. Employees are an investment like anything else.
  - sabat 16y ago
    It's a rare employee who is not expendable. Tim Cook is not that employee.
- stuff4ben 16y ago
  It seems your argument is that executives don't provide any value to a business. That's a pretty shortsighted view of how a real company works. Just because you didn't get a physical "thing" from paying an exec that kind of money doesn't mean he didn't provide value to the business. I guarantee that if you replace Tim Cook with me at Apple's helm, that the shareholders will feel some pretty significant pain.
- jonknee 16y ago
  Tim Cook held the ship steady while Jobs was away. Few people could have done that, Jobs is very central to the day to day operation of Apple. I'd say the stockholders got off cheaply, it amounts to a nickel in share price currently.
akadien 16y ago
That's a weak argument. Tim Cook is talented, no doubt, but he is not unique. And $59 million is excessive compensation for any interim CEO. This is an example of why great companies oftentimes make lousy long-term investments. APPL is a speculative play if they aren't paying stockholders for the risk of investing their money in the company.
- protomyth 16y ago
  Well, given that pro athletes get much more and how well Tim Cook has done for the stock price, I am pretty ok with his pay.
  - philwelch 16y ago
    $59 million in a year is something only the very highest echelon of pro athletes get after taking sponsorships and the like into account. Among American athletes, only three athletes (Tiger Woods, Phil Mickelson, and Floyd Mayweather Jr.) earned more than $59 million. Among foreign athletes, only Roger Federer earned more. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/specials/fortunate50-2010/index.html http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/specials/fortunate50-2010/i... http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/specials/fortunate50-2010/index.20.html http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/specials/fortunate50-2010/i...
    - protomyth 16y ago
      Yeah, and given what Mr. Cook does, that is probably about where he should be. The Apple stock price went from 210 to 322, so it was a very good year.

sabat 16y ago

It's just investing in the executives. Actually investing in company operations means spending money to get things, not giving away money. Giving Tim Cook a ton of money doesn't actually get Apple anything. He could quit tomorrow and Apple wouldn't feel it at all.

philwelch 16y ago
He could quit tomorrow and Apple wouldn't feel it at all. If any C-level executive at any corporation could quit tomorrow and the company wouldn't feel it at all, that executive needs to be fired. Employees are an investment like anything else.
- sabat 16y ago
  It's a rare employee who is not expendable. Tim Cook is not that employee.
stuff4ben 16y ago
It seems your argument is that executives don't provide any value to a business. That's a pretty shortsighted view of how a real company works. Just because you didn't get a physical "thing" from paying an exec that kind of money doesn't mean he didn't provide value to the business. I guarantee that if you replace Tim Cook with me at Apple's helm, that the shareholders will feel some pretty significant pain.
jonknee 16y ago
Tim Cook held the ship steady while Jobs was away. Few people could have done that, Jobs is very central to the day to day operation of Apple. I'd say the stockholders got off cheaply, it amounts to a nickel in share price currently.

akadien 16y ago

That's a weak argument. Tim Cook is talented, no doubt, but he is not unique. And $59 million is excessive compensation for any interim CEO. This is an example of why great companies oftentimes make lousy long-term investments. APPL is a speculative play if they aren't paying stockholders for the risk of investing their money in the company.

protomyth 16y ago
Well, given that pro athletes get much more and how well Tim Cook has done for the stock price, I am pretty ok with his pay.
- philwelch 16y ago
  $59 million in a year is something only the very highest echelon of pro athletes get after taking sponsorships and the like into account. Among American athletes, only three athletes (Tiger Woods, Phil Mickelson, and Floyd Mayweather Jr.) earned more than $59 million. Among foreign athletes, only Roger Federer earned more. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/specials/fortunate50-2010/index.html http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/specials/fortunate50-2010/i... http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/specials/fortunate50-2010/index.20.html http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/specials/fortunate50-2010/i...
  - protomyth 16y ago
    Yeah, and given what Mr. Cook does, that is probably about where he should be. The Apple stock price went from 210 to 322, so it was a very good year.