Apple CEO Cook more than doubled his paycheck to $9.22 million in 2014

“Apple Inc. Chief Executive Officer Tim Cook received compensation valued at $9.22 million last year, more than double from his pay in 2013, as optimism for new products pushed the iPhone maker’s stock to a record,” Tim Higgins reports for Bloomberg. “Cook’s package includes salary of $1.75 million and $6.7 million in non-equity incentive compensation for the fiscal year that ended in September, the Cupertino, California-based company said today in a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Cook was granted a pay package valued at $4.25 million in 2013.”

“The company’s stock rose as high as $119.75 in November, sending its market capitalization to more than $700 billion, a milestone that no other U.S. company has reached,” Higgins reports. “Cook also rolled out a mobile-payment system called Apple Pay, and this year will debut the company’s first smartwatch.”

“Cook, who joined Apple in 1998, was named CEO in August 2011 to succeed co-founder Steve Jobs, who died later that year,” Higgins reports. “Cook received compensation in 2011 of $378 million, one of the biggest pay packages on record, boosted by $376.2 million in stock awards that he’ll get over a decade.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Cook is worth every penny and then some.


  1. As I have stated before, I disagree with MDN on this topic. I believe that Tim Cook deserves substantial compensation – far more than the CEO bozos milking a lot of other corporations for their own ends. But I also maintain that Cook’s original pay/retention package was excessive.

    1. Tim Cook, Apple, $9.22 million

      Elon Musk, Tesla Motors, $78.2 million
      Larry Ellison, Oracle, $77 million
      Mario Gabelli, Gamco Investors, $69 million
      Robert Kotick, Activision Blizzard, $64.9 million
      Leslie Moonves, CBS, $62.2 million
      Robert Hammergren, McKesson, $61.7 million
      David Zaslav, Discovery Communications Class, $49.9 million
      E Hunter Harrison, Canadian Pacific Railway, $49.2 million
      Richard Bracken, HCA Holdings, $46.4 million
      Gerald Rubin, Helen of Troy, $41.6 million

      1. you present an incomplete analysis.

        what was the total compensation for each of these overpaid schmucks, including frills, exclusive benefits, bonuses, and stock options? When do their options vest? What other income do these people have as a result of being members of their friends’ corporate boards?

        It is disgusting to have a circle jerk of company leaders each one-upping themselves on compensation as if peer comparison was an accurate way of determining a salary. Performance of the company is a better indicator. In 2014, Apple sales and operating incomes each rose 7%. But in Cook’s case, 60% of his stock awards are based on “performance goals comparing the Company’s TSR to the TSR of other companies in the S&P 500”. Apple’s compensation committee increased both base salary and cash bonuses, by 200% and 400% respectively.

        Sorry, but that doesn’t compute for me. Nobody deserves a 200% raise per year for doing exactly what was done last year.

        Fact is, current CEOs take multitudes of rewards more than CEOS did in the past regardless of company performance. Thanks to woefully inadequate corporate governance, there seems to be almost nothing the investor can do to shame these people from skimming off all the cream for themselves. In a well-run organization, ALL members win and lose together. At Apple, just like any other pyramid organization, the leadership declares that both skilled and unskilled workers are replaceable and moves their jobs to the lowest wage communist nation they can find. Then they spend their days giving speeches, listening at meetings, and attending political rallies and declare that their skills cannot possibly be duplicated. They are irreplaceable … because they say so. The whole world has been duped into thinking CEOs are geniuses when in reality they are well-connected cheerleaders.

        Steve Jobs took approximately 100% of his compensation in company stock, which was indeed overly generous, but his base annual salary was $1 and if i recall correctly he didn’t lavish insane cash awards and signing bonuses on himself just for showing up.

        1. If you’re so damned smart, show us compelling proof of the multi-billion dollar company that you’re CEO of.
          “Those who can, do; those who can’t, criticise”
          All I hear from you is a high-pitched whining noise.

          1. …and those that can’t criticize teach gym.

            From what I remember, it was Jobs that ok’d the giant package Cook got. And it’s still less over a 10 year period than any of the other guys on that list…

            1. Just because others are even greedier doesn’t make obscene income inequality morally defensible. Greed is the only justification for any one person to take so much when other critical professionals in the same company are paid only tiny fractions of what the execs do.

              I make a decent living, and I’m not complaining, but as a small business owner, I work my ass off compared to anything Cook does. As an investor, I see every professional executive lining his own pockets first before distributing it to the investors and hard workers who are every bit as essential as the bigwig at the top.

              If Apple had stumbled financially and Cook still doubled his salary, would MDN be singing a different tune?

            2. CEO pay is out of control, period, Why? There is no counterforce that balances out the fairness. Here, in Canada, Target is shutting down after 2 years. CEO is going to walk away with $61 million. In hindsight Target could of saved a lot of money if they just bought a magic eight ball and used that for making decisions.

        2. You are right, no one deserves a 200% raise per year for doing exactly what was done last year

          unless last year he increased my stock portfolio and implemented amazing devices and services for us to enjoy,,,

          then I would do that 200%, maybe every few years

          oh wait, he did

        3. You make excellent points. Cook is likely one of the very few CEOs who don’t care what their compensation package is. Unlike Larry Elisson, for example, with his ultra-mansion, cook still lives in a relatively modest home, and lives a modest life. His compensation package is so high as it must reflect what the board thinks is the value of a CEO of the most valuable company in the world, compared to the peers.

          Ever since executive packages became transparent (by law), boards have been steadily increasing the worth of their CEOs by looking at average package of their peers and rewarding their own CEO above that average. This only makes logical sense; nobody wants to give their CEO the compensation package that says the CEO is worth less than the competition. Not only because it would reduce the motivation for that CEO, but also because that would say that the board didn’t pick the best person for the job. Every time reward packages are renegotiated, these boards spring into the game of one-upping each other to tell everyone (and especially themselves) how their CEO is better than everyone else’s. Regardless of company performance.

          Cook is, unfortunately, caught in the same game of this one-upmanship.

          Ever since

      2. Sparkles, I was referring to the $378M that Tim Cook received in deferred stock. To put it in perspective, that is on the order of 6000 well paid regular workers for one year. Cook is a great CEO, but that is a heck of a retention package for someone who would not likely have left Apple, anyway.

        So your list actually proves my point. Cook is easily worth $9.22M. I wouldn’t balk at $20M a year for TC. But many CEOs who currently earn much more are not.

        It is also important to distinguish between elected CEOs and those who founded or co-founded a company. Company founders naturally pull down massive salaries. So your list is flawed.

      3. Tom Brady $27.1M salary + $4M endorsements
        Peyton Manning $32.4M salary + $10M endorsements
        Eli Manning $18.6M salary + $8M endorsements

        Tiger Woods $59.4M
        LeBron James $53M
        Kobe Bryant $52.3M


        Tim, enjoy your fraction of what these athletes “earn”

  2. Guys like Tim Cook and Steve Jobs, completely devote themselves to their work and the company 24/7 to make a difference and create the value that enriches everyone. Without that level of intesity and dedication their ain’t nothing in iinovation, product and investment returns that enable the critics…

  3. This pisses me off.

    It’s not just Cook lining his pockets, Apple’s compensation committee is off its rocker. In order to attract a retail chief, Apple paid Ahrendts $73 million to walk in the door, $400k for driving in each day, a $500k bonus just because Apple is a nice place, and $70 million in stock just to underscore how fucking stupid corporate compensation is these days.

    Did it really take $150 million to persuade her to leave her $37 million Burberry job? REALLY???? WTF has she done to earn this ??????

    1. $150 million? you’ve got to be kidding!!! Luca Maestri as CFO was paid only a tenth of that. Doesn’t even seem fair even withing the executive office. We all knew that it was insane compared to the salaries that Apple retail employees are paid.

    1. There’s nothing stopping any company from hiring Cook. He previously worked at IBM and Compaq. He might as well complete the rotation and do a stint at Dell too.

        1. When Apple hired Ahrendts, they paid her in cash to compensate for all the deferred Burberry stock options that she gave up. …. and then more than doubled her salary, tacked on a signing bonus, and millions in Apple stock options.

          In this morally corrupt era, performance isn’t even measured before corporate executives are given magic carpets on which to ride the ratcheting scale of obscene compensation.

          Those who think an executive is “worth every penny” should look a lot more closely at the work that HUNDREDS of talented professionals could do with the same amount of money. Seriously, what is the moral or logistical justification for this waste of money? Does anyone really think that Cook would have left if his salary wasn’t doubled?

Reader Feedback

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