Apple’s CEO Steve Jobs took $1 salary again in 2006

“Apple Inc. said Monday that Chief Executive Steve Jobs got a salary of $1 last year – as he did in 2004 and 2005,” Jared A. Favole reports for MarketWatch.

“The Cupertino, Calif., tech company said in a proxy statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission that… Jobs has received the majority of his compensation through an equity grant and isn’t eligible for a bonus, according to Monday’s filing. He doesn’t receive any other compensation, the company said.”

Full article here.

Related articles:
Forbes’ list of world’s richest people: Apple CEO Steve Jobs 132nd with $5.7 billion – March 09, 2007
Apple’s CEO Steve Jobs took $1 salary again in 2005 – March 13, 2006
Apple’s CEO Steve Jobs took $1 salary again in 2004 – March 15, 2005
Apple’s CEO Steve Jobs took $1 salary again in 2003 – March 11, 2004


  1. He doesn’t exactly paid for the company’s success. He gets paid for an increase in the stock price. While it would seem that these should go hand-in-hand they frequently don’t. There is a great deal of correlation between the performance of the overall market and the performance of an individual stock. Price is impacted by future expectations more than current performance. His rock-star persona fuels these expectations which increase his compensation.

    Price falls whenever a company pays a dividend. Apple is sitting on a mountain of cash but if it chose to pay a dividend it would hurt Jobs’ compensation. Is this fair? (if he got paid those dividends it should net out but only before taxes)

    I’m not saying that the comp plan is or isn’t good or fair or anything else. I’d be curious to know what an executive compensation specialist thinks of paying on price vs current performance.

  2. Dear Pervis,

    An equity grant is where an employee or manager is paid via stock options. This is seen as an incentive for compensating good employees.

    A possible downside of equity grants is that it can dilute the value of shares own by existing shareholders. Also where an employee is in a non-core position there is little incentive to work harder because these employees never get access to such options.

    One final downside of such grants is that somebody comes into a firm with a specific goal which they achieve and then go to the next organisation achieve the goal and then hop on to the next firm and so on and their main compensation are via equity grants.

    Summing up this explanation, I guess you could say that equity grants are an example of the new economy. And the argument for and against are linked to the old economy verses the new economy.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.