Apple CEO Tim Cook sells over over 600,000 AAPL shares netting $65 million

“SEC filings reveal that Apple CEO Tim Cook has sold a little over 600,000 of his AAPL shares over the past couple of weeks, netting him approximately $65M,” Ben Lovejoy reports for 9to5Mac. “He continues to hold more than a million shares worth some $110M.”

Lovejoy reports, “Apple stock forms the majority of Cook’s income, his salary being a comparatively modest $2M last year.”

“It’s not known why Cook has sold such a large number of shares,” Lovejoy reports. “He announced last year that he would be giving away almost all of his wealth in the course of his lifetime.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Cook still has about 3.5 million shares in Apple that are set to vest over the next five years and he still holds over 1 million shares in Apple that are currently worth around $110 million.

These sort of sales are usually programmed in advance and are used to pay taxes. As these are large sales, perhaps Cook is setting up a foundation or something as he seems to prefer to live modestly, eschewing large mansions, yachts, jets, etc.


    1. Cook is likely setting up a foundation and paying taxes.

      As for your other nonsense:


      Introduction: The provision of the Patriot Act, Section 326 – the “know your customer” provision, compelling financial institutions to demand identity documents before opening accounts or conducting financial transactions is a fundamental element of the outline below. That section authorized the executive branch to issue detailed regulations on the subject, found at 31 CFR 130.120-121. It’s an easy decision for Mexico: make a one-time payment of $5-10 billion to ensure that $24 billion continues to flow into their country year after year. There are several ways to compel Mexico to pay for the wall including the following:

      • On day 1 promulgate a “proposed rule” (regulation) amending 31 CFR 130.121 to redefine applicable financial institutions to include money transfer companies like Western Union, and redefine “account” to include wire transfers. Also include in the proposed rule a requirement that no alien may wire money outside of the United States unless the alien first provides a document establishing his lawful presence in the United States.

      • On day 2 Mexico will immediately protest. They receive approximately $24 billion a year in remittances from Mexican nationals working in the United States. The majority of that amount comes from illegal aliens. It serves as de facto welfare for poor families in Mexico. There is no significant social safety net provided by the state in Mexico.

      • On day 3 tell Mexico that if the Mexican government will contribute the funds needed to the United States to pay for the wall, the Trump Administration will not promulgate the final rule, and the regulation will not go into effect.

      • Trade tariffs, or enforcement of existing trade rules: There is no doubt that Mexico is engaging in unfair subsidy behavior that has eliminated thousands of U.S. jobs, and which we are obligated to respond to; the impact of any tariffs on the price imports will be more than offset by the economic and income gains of increased production in the United States, in addition to revenue from any tariffs themselves. Mexico needs access to our markets much more than the reverse, so we have all the leverage and will win the negotiation. By definition, if you have a large trade deficit with a nation, it means they are selling far more to you than the reverse – thus they, not you, stand to lose from enforcing trade rules through tariffs (as has been done to save many U.S. industries in the past).

      • Cancelling visas: Immigration is a privilege, not a right. Mexico is totally dependent on the United States as a release valve for its own poverty – our approvals of hundreds of thousands of visas to their nationals every year is one of our greatest leverage points. We also have leverage through business and tourist visas for important people in the Mexican economy. Keep in mind, the United States has already taken in 4X more migrants than any other country on planet earth, producing lower wages and higher unemployment for our own citizens and recent migrants.

      • Visa fees: Even a small increase in visa fees would pay for the wall. This includes fees on border crossing cards, of which more than 1 million are issued a year. The border-crossing card is also one of the greatest sources of illegal immigration into the United States, via overstays. Mexico is also the single largest recipient of U.S. green cards, which confer a path to U.S. citizenship. Again, we have the leverage so Mexico will back down.

      Conclusion: Mexico has taken advantage of us in another way as well: gangs, drug traffickers and cartels have freely exploited our open borders and committed vast numbers of crimes inside the United States. The United States has borne the extraordinary daily cost of this criminal activity, including the cost of trials and incarcerations. Not to mention the even greater human cost. We have the moral high ground here, and all the leverage. It is time we use it in order to Make America Great Again.

        1. So since drug addicts rarely can help themselves what is your solution if not a wall to help stop distribution at the source? I believe Barney Fife said it well “Nip it in the bud” – dry up the source and the temptation ceases to exist. With so much money to be made unfortunately where there’s a powerful will there always seems a way. But we don’t have to make it easy.

          1. Drying up the source merely creates a stronger Supply-Demand imbalance, which will drive up the cost of the goods … and the net result will be more crime to raise the cash to pay for the drugs.

            The smarter way to fight the drug war is to eliminate the economic incentive of the black market. Yes, that basically means to legalize it and make it dirt cheap…basically, dump on the market so that the competition starves. True, this approach does have secondary adverse effects, but these can be identified and managed: historical precedents exist with tobacco and alcohol, for example.

            1. Yes I have heard this before on numerous occasions elsewhere. I think that’s about the only solution that hasn’t been tried primarily because society doesn’t have the stomach for it or is not to willing to go to what they see as narcotics capitulation. The growing legalization of pot gets many people’s goat already but as an older generation dies off the newer gens might be more willing with the harder stuff. I’m an old timer but would be willing to give it a try. SOMEthing needs to be done.

      1. GeoX. Shut up.
        Family members and others that work at Apple (and yes, get good reviews) get nothing but a pat on the back while the CEO who is basically accumulating as much cash as he possibly can corporately and personally walks away with tens of millions.

    1. So by your definition all Apple employee owned shares should never be sold in order to show their confidence? Is this something you do with your finances? My wife sells her company stocks when it makes sense for us and has nothing to do with “confidence” in the company.

Reader Feedback

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