3 ms·
This is a lot any way you look at it, but before everyone jumps in to compare to other things, it's worth noting that this was agreed 10 years ago, and the valu
by danpalmer 5y ago
This is a lot any way you look at it, but before everyone jumps in to compare to other things, it's worth noting that this was agreed 10 years ago, and the value is down to two things: 1) hitting targets that earned him this amount, and 2) the amount being in terms of shares, not dollar value, which he has essentially 10x'd the value of in his tenure.
If Apple had not roughly 10x'd in value over the last decade this would be a ~75m payout, and that's not even accounting for the fact that a lot of this was likely tied to increasing the share price.
It's an obscene amount of money, but it's not today's Apple giving Tim Cook $750m, it's 2011's Apple agreeing to give him 5m shares if he did well.
Edit: Misread the article, "191.83% over the last three years"!
- Bud 5y ago"Roughly doubled"? You might want to double-check your research. Apple is worth about 11x what it was worth 10 years ago.
- danpalmer 5y agoThanks, misread the 3 years in the article. Have edited.
- user-the-name 5y ago> which he has essentially 10x'd the value of in his tenure Think there might have been one or two other people involved in that. Maybe even a few more than that.
- danpalmer 5y agoI think you can say that about anyone who makes anything based on work from anyone else. While it's important to recognise those others (as those at Apple with stock based compensation have been), I don't think it nullifies the point because they didn't do all the work themselves.
- jaggederest 5y agoIn what possible world could Tim Cook personally have done anything worth $75m, let alone $750m? How can any single human being create value at that scale? I don't understand the apologia for what is, on its face, a massively skewed system of compensation completely unrelated to any possible basis in reality.
- Veen 5y agoThat’s not really relevant. The relevant reality is that he has a contract that awards him X if he achieves Y. He achieved Y so he gets X. Whether it’s justified is a matter for the shareholders and the board.
- user-the-name 5y agoWe are not talking about the terms of a contract here. We are talking about a post that credits him with this achievement, and him alone.
- PeterisP 5y agoIn your opinion, can a bit better CEO (not outrageously better, just somewhat better than the other guy/gal with a bit brighter long-term strategy and a bit different focus for the subordinate top managers) personally make a 1% total difference in company growth across ten years? If you don't accept that, then I'll just have to disagree based on how I've seen companies are managed, IMHO personalities matter at least that much. But if you do accept that, then that obviously means that a single human being can create value at that scale, as 1% impact on Apple's growth over 10 years would be something like $20 billion. Being in positions with extremely high leverage means that your decisions have extremely high impact on value. Of course, there are also opposite examples of CEOs who have personally destroyed billions of value through their decisions.
- user-the-name 5y agoOne person absolutely can not do that. Only a big team of people can do that. One person will be leading the team. That does not mean that it is they who creates that impact.
- ZephyrBlu 5y agoAnd a lot of those people would have also had stock based compensation.
- fighterpilot 5y agoSort of like how Michael Jordan's teammates helped him in the Bulls. But you would be a damn fool to not pay him to ensure that he doesn't go anywhere.