“It sounds noble. A top executive takes a $1 salary, opting to base his pay on the performance of the company’s stock, and thus the company itself,” Michael Brush writes for MSN Money. “At a time when the average CEO makes about $10 million a year, the $1 salary makes for good public relations. But dig into the pay packages and you’ll find a different story. As a rule, CEOs on the dollar menu have some of the richest pay packages around.”
“Steve Jobs has a golden touch, having founded Apple and having played a big role in the development of Pixar. But he collects just $1 a year as Apple chairman and CEO and gets nothing for doing both jobs at Pixar. Even so, he’s well-compensated for his time,” Brush writes. “In 2003, Jobs convinced Apple to exchange the options he held on 15 million Apple shares for 10 million restricted shares of Apple stock. Both numbers are adjusted for stock splits. Options only pay off if a stock rises beyond a pre-set target price, and Jobs options were below their ‘strike’ price. In essence, he received a smaller number of real shares in exchange for a larger batch of potential shares. Restricted shares are not registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and, typically, there are restrictions on when the shares may be sold. As it turns out, though, he would have made more money holding onto the options because of how well Apple’s shares have performed.”
“When the swap was made, the company said Jobs wanted to eliminate the ‘overhang’ of unexercised options that might depress Apple’s stock price. Apple said the move also freed up options that could be used to compensate other employees. It wasn’t the first creative pay maneuver at Apple for Jobs, who returned to the company in 1997. In 1999, Apple gave Jobs his own Gulfstream jet plus compensation for related expenses like taxes. Total value of the package: $90 million,” Brush writes. “Jobs has done even better at Pixar despite the lack of any formal pay there, too. In lieu of pay, Jobs owns 60 million shares, or 50.6% of the company. He originally paid $10 million for that stake and later injected $50 million of his own money into the company, according to BusinessWeek. With Walt Disney’s deal to buy Pixar, that slug of stock was worth more than $3.4 billion.”
Full article here.
Advertisements:
• MacBook Pro. The first Mac notebook built upon Intel Core Duo with iLife ’06, Front Row and built-in iSight. Starting at $1999. Free shipping.
• iMac. Twice as amazing — Intel Core Duo, iLife ’06, Front Row media experience, Apple Remote, built-in iSight. Starting at $1299. Free shipping.
• iMac and MacBook Pro owners: Apple USB Modem. Easily connect to the Internet using dial-up service. Only $49.
• iPod Radio Remote. Listen to FM radio on your iPod and control everything with a convenient wired remote. Just $49.
• iPod. 15,000 songs. 25,000 photos. 150 hours of video. The new iPod. 30GB and 60GB models start at just $299. Free shipping.
• Connect iPod to your television set with the iPod AV Cable. Just $19.
B.S.
“I’ll take Jobs’ private, more humble giving”
How the do you people know what Steve does or does not give? I just read this article and it didn’t mention Steve telling us all how much he gives privately or humbly for that matter. What are you talking about?
There have been two articles on this forum on this subject already. This one “isn’t” one of them. This one has nothing to say about charity. Why are you people making this stuff up?
Steve may give millions. Or, he may be a stingy bastard and give nothing for all we know. Either way, if you don’t know which one it is, how can you be impressed to no end? That just sounds stupid. Otherwise you’re awfully easy to impress.
Jerry T — You can find some of this stuff if you look hard enough. But anyway, just figure the odds. The odds say that Jobs gives his share if not more, as does his character and his well-known social interests.
Sometimes it’s easy to read between the lines.
And sometimes it’s even easier when bombastic, self-important, insecure twerps with more money than God like Gates make a donation every now and then after notifying their PR machines.
B.S.
I’m sorry to post twice on this.
But I’m astounded. You are impressed to no end? No end mind you!
You have absolutely no idea what, how or even if this guy gives to charity. And still, you’re impressed to no end.
Now, I too am impressed to no end. Not by Steve though, but by you. I didn’t believe in blind adoration. But when you are impressed to no end by someone and have absolutely zero evidence to support what you are impressed with, yet still are impressed to no end. Well, that impresses me.
There’s a short story by Ron Jones called “The Wave” that a few of you ought to read.
Do your own research elsewhere,
Why “would” I look hard enough? That sounds a little creepy. Are we Steve Jobs spies now? Don’t you guys see the bizarreness of what you’re saying? Read between the lines? Why?
“The odds say that Jobs gives his share if not more, as does his character “
What odds? How do you know? Most people think that their Priest has great character, until he’s caught molesting someone. The point being that you can’t be sure of the character of anyone, least of all people you’ve never met.
If you are very close friends or married to Steve you could know what he does with his money, but otherwise it’s crazy to say things like some of you are saying. I don’t even discuss my financial info with my closest friends. That’s why it’s called private.
If it’s not “blind” adoration. What do you call it when you feel “compelled” to “look hard enough” and “read between the lines” to defend someone that you don’t even know, against accusations “not” even made?
Hey Jerry — Take a chill pill. Steve’s history of being attached to benevolent causes is part of the record.
Here’s a valium for you . . .
Angelus520,
My situation is the same. The owner’s are husband and wife. Husband’s president, wife handle’s accounting and spouts off that she get’s paid a dollar. At the end of the year whatever profits are there most likely bonused out to her husband.
Madhatter, you don’t know the first thing about economics, do you? You do know that Steve’s parents were those “poor working class peons”. And, a realestate boom does not directly lead to skyrocketing rents. How does more supply lead to higher prices? And how does food and basics go up to cover higher rents? Pure and utter nonsense.
And, then you go on about some poor fscker busting their ass for 20 years to pay for their house, but you seem to forget without those low interest rates, that you blame the Fed for, those poor fsckers would never be able to buy a house in the first place. What a dilemma!
I’m amazed you could have made any money in real estate. Then again, even a blind squirrel can find an acorn.
Ain’t life grand?
Edward, did you see the interview with the board member of Apple? They had to convince Steve to take the options originally. Point of fact, Steve DOES NOT own more than 50% of Apple stock. In fact, I think Steve owns zero shares, until his 850k restricted shares vest, later this year.
And, just because you own assets, doesn’t mean you have cash on hand. You could have an expensive home, but it doesn’t pay the monthly bills, so going without a salary IS a sacrifice, not just a tax dodge.
As for you opinion of Steve’s social contribution, we don’t know what he does, so how can you come to your conclusion? First, his wealth is tied up in his ownership of Pixar. It’s very likely his shares in Pixar are restricted. And, even if they were not, his ability to sell shares would be closely watched by stock analysts. So, really where is the money for him to contribute to social causes? His assets are tied up. He’s only been wealthy in the last decade as Pixar’s stock price has risen. While someone like Bill Gates, one can conclude he’s your hero, is essentially retired and can spend his time reshaping his image by creating foundations, Steve is running two companies.
And, if it makes you happy, I imagine that Steve will release a red shuffle in the next month to raise money for AIDS. Will that make you happy?
Sheesh,
I’ve chilled. I just go nuts by some of the crap some people say about Steve or the Mac. Unless you are his his wife or at least work at the charity he “humbly” gave to, you can’t possibly know what he spends his money on. He may give millions to charity anonymously, “or” he may use his private jet to go to Bangkok and buy little kids for fun. You just don’t know. So blind defense is a little weird.
Even if it is the minority Mac user opinion, like all train wrecks it gets the most news attention. My PC friends always joke about Mac cults or Mac nuts. While I know they’re jerking my chain, you also have to wonder why so many people think this. Well, that is until you read some of the things people post here.
And yes I know some hardcore PC people, that wouldn’t switch for anything. But not because they “love”, follow or idolize Bill either. They love the hardware side. They love the ability to customize and run multiple video cards and stay on the bleeding edge. They “DO NOT” love Windows. It is their only choice to have the customization they want and still run all the mainstream software. They don’t feel like they fit into the neat little “i” series for you or “Power” series for you box. They like to think different.
We think different with our OS but live in a hardware mono culture. They think different with their hardware but live in an OS mono culture. So we all think different in our own little ways. Except all those drones that buy Dull because you get a monitor, printer, car wash and coffee maker all for $1.95.
Ken,
No, no, no, please not more of that stuff about Steve’s money being tied up.
You just asked Edward how he knew what Steve’s contributions are. Then you slide right into speculation about Steve’s money being tied up and how he must put his poor wife out to work to pay the bills for their big expensive house. Why did you do that?
There are also other ways to give to charity too you know. If money is tight for Steve, and his big house is too expensive for him to help out someone living in the street as you seem to conclude. He could always donate some ipods to a raffle or something.
Also, before you come to any more brilliant conclusions, I do not adore Bill Gates. Nope, not Window either.
Dude, I don’t want to check Pixar’s SEC filings, but it’s not a reach to imagine Steve’s shares in Pixar being tied up.
Edward concludes based upon nothing. I make reasonable assumptions. You’re almost as daft as he is.
Ken,
I don’t want to check the SEC either. And what if Steve’s shares in Pixar are tied up?
Do you “know” that he didn’t ground floor invest in Starbucks in the eighties and make a fortune with that? Do you “know” that he “only” invested in Apple and Pixar? Or are you just “assuming” that based on nothing? You know kinda like Edward did.
Why am I daft to think Steve in all his genius may have “diversified” his portfolio? Now, if you are privy to Steve’s portfolio then I apologize, other wise you’re a little daft yourself.
Jerry, Edward makes the accusation that Steve hasn’t made any social contributions. Presumably he’s comparing him to Bill’s largesse.
I point out that Bill’s wealth-creating career appears to be on its downside, and that he’s taken on a lower profile at MS. Essentially, you could say he’s retired, with plenty of time to spend on socially good programs like dispensing some of his wealth.
I point out that Steve, unlike Bill, is still very much active in not just one company but two. He’s not yet at Bill’s stage of his career, working on his golf game and shining up his resume with ideas from his wife on how to rehabilitate his name.
As for Steve’s portfolio, let’s just say we take the Forbes 400 appraisal of Steve’s net worth, published recently at $3.3B. This was published at the end of last September. Since then, the value of Steve’s total Pixar and Apple shares have increased in value to about $4.2B.
Hmmm….I’ve done the heavy lifting, now you do some of the light lifting. You go back and find out how much those Pixar and Apple shares have appreciated since late September, then discount the $4.2B by that percentage. Then, let’s compare that figure to $3.3B. I have a feeling, there’s not much left over for Steve to be donating. With only a back of the envelope calculation, it seems likely that Steve didn’t make a fortune investing in Starbucks. If I’m wrong, you can blame Forbes.
Does that help you?
By the way, when I make assumptions, they are CLEARLY labelled, and that’s the difference. Please re-read my posts, and look at the modifiers. I know hypocrisy, but your supposed hypocrisy detector is broken, or perhaps was never working to begin with.
Ken,
I understand what you’re saying. No need to be so smug because “you read the Forbes 400 appraisal”. Were you giving you head that little “shake” as you said that?
My point is, I, you, Edward or any of us for that matter cannot know Steve Job’s financial situation. For you to say he’s strapped for cash because Forbes says his stock is tied up is nothing more than speculation.
The point I was making with the Starbucks scenario wasn’t to refute Forbes but to illustrate that we can’t know what he has or doesn’t have. We don’t know what is in his wifes name. We don’t know that there isn’t liquid in his brother-in-laws holding company, etc. You can only speculate based on the information you are able to read. An educated speculation, sure. But speculation it is.
When you speak in absolutes like “Steve can’t afford” to give. Or “all of his money” is tied up. You sound as silly as Edward. Because you “don’t” know what Steve can afford. You make it sound like Steve is broke and wears that same turtleneck because he can’t afford to buy another one.
I don’t have anywhere near the wealth that Steve or Bill have. But I know how to look tied up on the books and still have access to liquid. If you don’t think that these guys do too you aren’t nearly as smart as you think you are.
Having said all of that. My opinion is, it doesn’t matter what these guys give, it’s none of our business. If Steve is giving privately, (and yes he can afford to give. I know very poor people that still give) it’s his business. If he doesn’t that’s his business too.
BTW, when you are proving someone wrong, you don’t have to be a smug asshole when you do it. And, I never claimed to have an “hypocrisy detector “. I never claimed that you were being hypocritical. Hypocritical about what? You claim that one wealthy guy can afford to give and the other wealthy guy can’t give, he can barely make his monthly rent. I claim you don’t know that.
Jerry T, aka Master: Mirror, mirror on the wall, who here is the smuggest asshole of them all?
Mirror: You are, Master!
disclaimer: the above is pure speculation!
Ken,
Now see, you can learn a lesson that isn’t in Forbes.
I like the disclaimer, you clearly stated the speculation. Can you make it bold though?
M/W: PUT. As in put that in your pipe and smoke it. (Sorry, I just had to).