3 ms·

That’s my question. How does this benefit Apple as a company or shareholders?

webinvest 5y ago
The shareholders decided that providing a share incentive for raising the share price higher than other company shares was a great way to align the interest between the shareholders (who own the company) and the CEO. It’s as simple as that.
- code_duck 5y ago
  Why does Tim Cook need an incentive? It seems like he's plenty motivated already and there's very little chance he might leave for a different position.
  - webinvest 5y ago
    Because otherwise he might decide that Apple’s share price doesn’t matter to him and then Apple shareholders would be sad or mad when it doesn’t go up. Aligning interests is a best way to get the outcome you want from any person. Berkshire Hathaway owns a massive amount of Apple and they help appoint/vote members to Apple’s Board of Directors who influence the CEO. Warren Buffett is likely a very happy man with the way Apple performed and I doubt he is concerned about another man becoming super wealthy as long as they become wealthy together <3. I’m sure that’s the whole point.
    - code_duck 5y ago
      This is a reward for past performance, not an incentive for future performance. I’m sure that Tim Cook was already extremely wealthy prior to this, to an extent that would exceed any capability to spend it on himself. So now that he has an additional 750 million dollars, what is his incentive to continue performing? He needs another 750 million dollars? For what? Is he supposed to be excited that he might receive some other ridiculous sum of money for which he has no realistic use?
      - webinvest 5y ago
        No, this share plan was decided years ago around the time Steve Jobs died. Apple’s outlook wasn’t so clear then.
        code_duck 5y ago
        What do you mean by 'no'? That agrees with the statement that this is a reward for past performance and I don't see how that is relevant to my other statements.
        webinvest 5y ago
        > “This is a reward for past performance, not an incentive for future performance.” It _was_ an incentive for future performance. The shares for this reward had already been set aside years in advance incase he hit his share price targets —- when they were worth much much less.

The shareholders decided that providing a share incentive for raising the share price higher than other company shares was a great way to align the interest between the shareholders (who own the company) and the CEO. It’s as simple as that.

code_duck 5y ago
Why does Tim Cook need an incentive? It seems like he's plenty motivated already and there's very little chance he might leave for a different position.
- webinvest 5y ago
  Because otherwise he might decide that Apple’s share price doesn’t matter to him and then Apple shareholders would be sad or mad when it doesn’t go up. Aligning interests is a best way to get the outcome you want from any person. Berkshire Hathaway owns a massive amount of Apple and they help appoint/vote members to Apple’s Board of Directors who influence the CEO. Warren Buffett is likely a very happy man with the way Apple performed and I doubt he is concerned about another man becoming super wealthy as long as they become wealthy together <3. I’m sure that’s the whole point.
  - code_duck 5y ago
    This is a reward for past performance, not an incentive for future performance. I’m sure that Tim Cook was already extremely wealthy prior to this, to an extent that would exceed any capability to spend it on himself. So now that he has an additional 750 million dollars, what is his incentive to continue performing? He needs another 750 million dollars? For what? Is he supposed to be excited that he might receive some other ridiculous sum of money for which he has no realistic use?
    - webinvest 5y ago
      No, this share plan was decided years ago around the time Steve Jobs died. Apple’s outlook wasn’t so clear then.
      - code_duck 5y ago
        What do you mean by 'no'? That agrees with the statement that this is a reward for past performance and I don't see how that is relevant to my other statements.
        webinvest 5y ago
        > “This is a reward for past performance, not an incentive for future performance.” It _was_ an incentive for future performance. The shares for this reward had already been set aside years in advance incase he hit his share price targets —- when they were worth much much less.