Tim Cook Made R1.8 billion in Apple’s 2019 Fiscal Year

rpm

Admin
Staff member
Joined
Jul 22, 2003
Messages
66,450
Tim Cook Made $125 Million in Apple’s 2019 Fiscal Year

Apple Inc. Chief Executive Officer Tim Cook made $125 million (R1.787 billion) in the company’s 2019 fiscal year, less than the year before due in part to a lower bonus.

Cook got a $3 million salary, a $7.7 million bonus and $884,466 in perks and other compensation in the latest period, the Cupertino, California-based technology giant said in a filing Friday. The executive also had $113.5 million worth of Apple stock vest.
 

Pegasus

Executive Member
Joined
May 17, 2004
Messages
7,382
Some say you don’t get rich when you’re working for a salary.
 

cguy

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
7,174
Well salary was the minority figure in his income. He may as well have not worked for all the salaried income he received.

The principle is, I think, a guaranteed share of the profit (ownership) versus granted compensation (by board, shareholders or manager), rather than the form of the compensation (ie, shares, bonus, salary, benefits).

People can do very very well as employees. Generally, better than business owners. The distribution is just a bit more skewed with the few wealthiest business owners being way above everyone else, and the many poorest business owners essentially going into the red.
 
Last edited:

Unreal

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2006
Messages
543
If you convert my salary to US$ then you might as well round it of to the nearest 0
 

WalkWithMe

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2016
Messages
371
This is such a skewed thing. Less than 10% was cash, stock options has many rules. Its only matures after a period of time. You can't sell all of it at once, even if you could you most likely will crash the price and it will be worth a lot less. A lot of mega rich are only rich in stock and not cash in the bank....
Yes he got a fair amount of cash but nothing scary for a CEO of a multinational.
 

Jopie Fourie

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2019
Messages
2,251
For the job he did, this is an ungrateful compensation, it should have been at least 300 times that. I would have walked out on the company working at that package, irrelevant how it was structured.
 

Genisys

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Messages
10,944
For the job he did, this is an ungrateful compensation, it should have been at least 300 times that. I would have walked out on the company working at that package, irrelevant how it was structured.
Oh I'm sure Tim Cook doesn't give a **** about what you would have and would not have done.
 

SauRoNZA

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
39,864
I hate this kind of reporting as it’s all wrong.

He hasn’t “made” that money. He has most of it stuck in shares in the company and the values as so high because the stock price is that high.

He will only “make” the money if the sells them. And the price would have gone up or down since this was published.

Only money that goes into his bank account is “made”.
 

Jopie Fourie

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2019
Messages
2,251
Oh I'm sure Tim Cook doesn't give a **** about what you would have and would not have done.

Yep, I am sure about that too. If you are hardup for money... hell, he would probably have worked for US$10,000 a month too.
 

Genisys

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Messages
10,944
Yep, I am sure about that too. If you are hardup for money... hell, he would probably have worked for US$10,000 a month too.
So you are worth a Trillion USD, considering you want to judge someone who is worth a few Billion USD?
 

Jopie Fourie

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2019
Messages
2,251
So you are worth a Trillion USD, considering you want to judge someone who is worth a few Billion USD?

Not judging anyone. Just saying his remuneration was way too little for the position he held and services he provided to the organization.
 

Johnatan56

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 23, 2013
Messages
29,161
Not judging anyone. Just saying his remuneration was way too little for the position he held and services he provided to the organization.
If you work at a high enough level that your choices heavily impact the company you should always be given stocks instead of a salary increase, you should be rewarded if your decision turns out well for the company (or make a loss if you mess up).
 

cguy

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
7,174
This is such a skewed thing. Less than 10% was cash, stock options has many rules. Its only matures after a period of time. You can't sell all of it at once, even if you could you most likely will crash the price and it will be worth a lot less. A lot of mega rich are only rich in stock and not cash in the bank....
Yes he got a fair amount of cash but nothing scary for a CEO of a multinational.
The article is talking about vested stock, so this is stock given earlier that has now vested, so he can sell it whenever he wants. Selling $114m of stock is hardly going to move the price, never mind crash it.
 

cguy

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
7,174
I hate this kind of reporting as it’s all wrong.

He hasn’t “made” that money. He has most of it stuck in shares in the company and the values as so high because the stock price is that high.

He will only “make” the money if the sells them. And the price would have gone up or down since this was published.

Only money that goes into his bank account is “made”.
It’s not stuck anywhere, they are reporting on vested stock. Anything essentially fungible with cash is correctly termed “made”.
 

SauRoNZA

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
39,864
It’s not stuck anywhere, they are reporting on vested stock. Anything essentially fungible with cash is correctly termed “made”.

Vested stock means he gets ownership of it, not that it gets paid out.

So it remains tied to the stock price and therefore isn’t “banked” as a final profit as it can collapse at any moment should the stock price dip.

Basically it’s a floating target.

The article is only accurate for the mere split second in which it is published, after that its essentially false and the terminology of “made” is incorrect.
 

cguy

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
7,174
Vested stock means he gets ownership of it, not that it gets paid out.

So it remains tied to the stock price and therefore isn’t “banked” as a final profit as it can collapse at any moment should the stock price dip.

Basically it’s a floating target.

The article is only accurate for the mere split second in which it is published, after that its essentially false and the terminology of “made” is incorrect.

You can elect for immediate sale-on-vest. I have done this several times to avoid the complications of short term capital gains tax.

Regardless, vested stock not being equivalent is just a pedantic argument. If you’re concerned about stock movement over the selling period, you’re probably worried about currency fluctuations and bank fees too.
 

SauRoNZA

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
39,864
You can elect for immediate sale-on-vest. I have done this several times to avoid the complications of short term capital gains tax.

Regardless, vested stock not being equivalent is just a pedantic argument. If you’re concerned about stock movement over the selling period, you’re probably worried about currency fluctuations and bank fees too.

And someone like Tim Cook isn’t going to just immediately vest at least not in these very large sums as that will immediately upset the stock price.

I just find it to be bad reporting as it leads to the misinformation of already almost financially illiterate populace.

It’s just another form of click bait essentially.

The very reason he gets paid in vested shares and not paid out directly is to keep him around and it’s literally where the term “vested interest” stems from.

Similarly I despise it when it’s reported that X individual has “lost” Y millions of dollars because of stock price fluctuations.

It couldn’t have been lost as it was never sold at that price.
 

cguy

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
7,174
And someone like Tim Cook isn’t going to just immediately vest at least not in these very large sums as that will immediately upset the stock price.

I just find it to be bad reporting as it leads to the misinformation of already almost financially illiterate populace.

It’s just another form of click bait essentially.

The very reason he gets paid in vested shares and not paid out directly is to keep him around and it’s literally where the term “vested interest” stems from.

Similarly I despise it when it’s reported that X individual has “lost” Y millions of dollars because of stock price fluctuations.

It couldn’t have been lost as it was never sold at that price.

Tim Cook's stocks did vest. Do you mean that he wouldn't sell them immediately? If so, they're still only one 10000th of the company value, and will also likely be sold on a schedule so it's not exactly going to cause a landslide.

Vested shares don't keep anyone anywhere - unvested shares are the golden handcuffs. They also align the goals of the CEO with those of the shareholders. If he keeps his vested shares in Apple, it's because he chooses to do so - it's equivalent to getting the value in cash, and then buying Apple shares with it.
 
Last edited:

SauRoNZA

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
39,864
Tim Cook's stocks did vest. Do you mean that he wouldn't sell them immediately? If so, they're still only one 10000th of the company value, and will also likely be sold on a schedule so it's not exactly going to cause a landslide.

Vested shares don't keep anyone anywhere - unvested shares are the golden handcuffs. They also align the goals of the CEO with those of the shareholders. If he keeps his vested shares in Apple, it's because he chooses to do so - it's equivalent to getting the value in cash, and then buying Apple shares with it.

I’m simply talking about shares vs cash.

Vested simply means the ownership has been changed from the “virtual owner” to the real owner based on whatever the contractual obligation was.

Their value isn’t set in stone and like any share remains a moving target.

The money is only “made” when the shares are sold, so no its not equivalent to cash as he doesn’t receive cash to then buy the shares, he receives the shares the he needs to sell to convert to cash.

Having shares in the company means he has a vested interests and as you rightly say aligns him with shareholders. When he starts selling the shareholders immediately wonder what’s up and therefore he’ll keep them there as long as possible and in doing so retains a vested interest in the company as it’s directed tied to his fortune.

So no it’s not quite the handcuffs of share options before they’ve vested, but it’s certainly nothing like receiving in in pure cash terms either.

I just feel it’s a false representation of value in many ways, especially when it comes to net value as often they are so tied up in equities that they can’t reasonably sell due to the implications.

Dividends pay well though.
 
Top