Jump to content

Apple's Tim Cook gets 1mn share "retention" award


dwy000
 Share

Recommended Posts

It's a lot of money, but Tim Cook is pretty much -the- reason why Apple is where it is today. Before he arrived their supply chain was in shambles and all the great designs in the world weren't going to help them dig themselves out of that mess.

 

Why not give him $5 Billion then?  Rounding error right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but there is no excuse for paying somebody $400mn+ as a retention award.

 

Not sure if Tim Cook deserves $400mm. But saying that "there's no excuse" is wrong, IMO. There are definitely cases where $400mm+ would be justified, and maybe this is one of them.

 

I'm not an Apple shareholder, but if I had been over the last few years, I would not look twice if the board had given Steve Jobs $2bb+ as a bonus. Would have been well worth it. So, it may be the case that Tim Cook doesn't deserve $400mm but there definitely exist good "excuses" for doing so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but there is no excuse for paying somebody $400mn+ as a retention award.

 

Not sure if Tim Cook deserves $400mm. But saying that "there's no excuse" is wrong, IMO. There are definitely cases where $400mm+ would be justified, and maybe this is one of them.

 

I'm not an Apple shareholder, but if I had been over the last few years, I would not look twice if the board had given Steve Jobs $2bb+ as a bonus. Would have been well worth it. So, it may be the case that Tim Cook doesn't deserve $400mm but there definitely exist good "excuses" for doing so.

 

Actually the board did give Jobs a stocks options worth about 10B$ at today's stock price at the beginning of the 2000s. He later forfeited them for a lump sum... a great visionary but not a great capital allocator ;)

 

BeerBaron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Capital allocation at Apple isn't as bad as the value crowd makes it out to be. Unlike most tech companies which typically get involved in high valuation M&A, Apple has for the most part sidestepped bidding wars and instead has built a pretty big mountain of cash.

 

I actually think the cash is pretty important for giving them a moat, because it means if they ever need to, they can fund suppliers and monopolize key aspects of the supply chain. Maybe there's too much cash sitting there, but I'd rather it sit there than go to buy something be used to bid on Yahoo or Facebook.

 

My guess is that if we were back in 2000, most of the people on this board would be demanding that Apple go into runoff and liquidate its business (back then it was a net-net).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest valueInv

Capital allocation at Apple isn't as bad as the value crowd makes it out to be. Unlike most tech companies which typically get involved in high valuation M&A, Apple has for the most part sidestepped bidding wars and instead has built a pretty big mountain of cash.

 

I actually think the cash is pretty important for giving them a moat, because it means if they ever need to, they can fund suppliers and monopolize key aspects of the supply chain. Maybe there's too much cash sitting there, but I'd rather it sit there than go to buy something be used to bid on Yahoo or Facebook.

 

My guess is that if we were back in 2000, most of the people on this board would be demanding that Apple go into runoff and liquidate its business (back then it was a net-net).

 

Couldn't agree more. Apple has had fantastic capital allocation when compared to most Silicon Valley companies. Take a look at how Google's purchase of Motorola "for patents" is turning out. Most tech companies destroy tremendous amounts of value in acquisitions enriching startup founders.

 

As for Tim Cook's bonus, I have been an Apple shareholder since 2001 and I am fine with it. This is a company with $100B+ in revenues income growing at 80%+, a feat many people considered impossible. I would happily pay $400M to get the best guy I can find to keep it on course.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest valueInv

yep. they think the cash is theirs and they think shares are "free". wouldn't surprise me to see them start the long slide down the hill. they haven't ever paid a divvy not bought back a single share.

 

If they slide downhill, then the package won't be worth much. Half of them vest in 2016 and the other half in 2021 - a lifetime in tech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yep. they think the cash is theirs and they think shares are "free". wouldn't surprise me to see them start the long slide down the hill. they haven't ever paid a divvy not bought back a single share.

 

If they slide downhill, then the package won't be worth much. Half of them vest in 2016 and the other half in 2021 - a lifetime in tech.

 

That's what I was thinking. And this stock is either going to be worth a lot more or a lot less in 2021 than it is now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...