6 ms·

The key word there is "received". He didn't buy stock himself, he was given it, he is a wage worker. He is purely out for his own wealth. He is one of the most

The key word there is "received". He didn't buy stock himself, he was given it, he is a wage worker. He is purely out for his own wealth. He is one of the most absurdly overpaid execs in the US. How anyone can become a billionaire as an employee is utterly beyond me. Taking no risk, getting all the reward.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
robocat 5y ago
> How anyone can become a billionaire as an employee is utterly beyond me. You are thinking of all employees as fungible replaceable units, but employees are capitalistic units that can get monopoly power or economic rents. An employee can provide a function that can’t be replaced, and that employee can capture a lot of the business profits, well beyond their actual “value” to the business. For example, Tim Cook’s personal relationship with Chinese officials might be very hard to replace. Alternatively there is a kind of blackmail value, where losing a prominent employee can have high costs to the business, and the employee can get paid more than they are “worth” due to that. For example, perhaps Tim Cook leaving would cause more than a few billion damage in profits or valuation due to perceptions.
- hogFeast 5y ago
  No, I didn't. I said execs are replaceable...and they are. If you replace Tim Cook with a ham sandwich, it will make no difference to AAPL at all. It is very rare (I have never seen it) where the SP will fall because of a CEO leaving, it is more common for it to rise when a CEO leaves. Again, it is important to realise too...there are probably no other CEOs that have made as much as Tim Cook. Even amongst execs, he is wildly wildly wildly overpaid. Corporate governance at AAPL is basically non-existent.
  - robocat 5y ago
    I would presume that the board know what they are doing: hogFeast why do you presume you are better informed and can make a better decision than they can? The obvious relevant example of replacing a CEO with a ham sandwich is John Sculley, which the organisation probably still has some fear about. The other relevant example is Paul Allen, a lost decade for Microsoft.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

robocat 5y ago

> How anyone can become a billionaire as an employee is utterly beyond me. You are thinking of all employees as fungible replaceable units, but employees are capitalistic units that can get monopoly power or economic rents. An employee can provide a function that can’t be replaced, and that employee can capture a lot of the business profits, well beyond their actual “value” to the business. For example, Tim Cook’s personal relationship with Chinese officials might be very hard to replace. Alternatively there is a kind of blackmail value, where losing a prominent employee can have high costs to the business, and the employee can get paid more than they are “worth” due to that. For example, perhaps Tim Cook leaving would cause more than a few billion damage in profits or valuation due to perceptions.

hogFeast 5y ago
No, I didn't. I said execs are replaceable...and they are. If you replace Tim Cook with a ham sandwich, it will make no difference to AAPL at all. It is very rare (I have never seen it) where the SP will fall because of a CEO leaving, it is more common for it to rise when a CEO leaves. Again, it is important to realise too...there are probably no other CEOs that have made as much as Tim Cook. Even amongst execs, he is wildly wildly wildly overpaid. Corporate governance at AAPL is basically non-existent.
- robocat 5y ago
  I would presume that the board know what they are doing: hogFeast why do you presume you are better informed and can make a better decision than they can? The obvious relevant example of replacing a CEO with a ham sandwich is John Sculley, which the organisation probably still has some fear about. The other relevant example is Paul Allen, a lost decade for Microsoft.