What is Digg?41 Comments
- WiseWeasel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19You were expecting a press release maybe?
- centic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17It's quite common for executives to take a $1/yr salary and be compensated in stock options. Why? Because theres less tax!
- noseeme, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15Everybody project negative energy at him!
- fuggo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@kasted
I hope someone explains the irony of your comment to you. - FrankieB078, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7What is this whole $1 salary deal? On the surface, you'd think he's lived off 2 packs of Ramen noodles all year and sleeps in his office with that kind of salary.
- PLUMCRAZY, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7So they fired the person who filled out the paperwork for the illegal activity and let the people who benefit from it slide? I agree she needed to go because a lawyer caught creating false documents doesn't look good, but there is still a BIG unanswered question.
On whose orders was she acting? - dougmc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7`Why? Because theres less tax'
No, they do it because it looks good. You're right, there's less tax, but there's also less money in his pocket.
But which is more valuable? $10M in stock options + $200K in salary, or $10M in stock options + $1 in salary + the perception (among the naive, of course) that you're `not in it for the money' and are instead in it for the `good of the company'.
If somebody works for $1/year AND gives up all his stock options AND all other forms of compensation from the company, THEN I'll be impressed. Though really, $1/year total compensation tells us that he's got some other money to fall back on. I'd be even more impressed with him taking a $30K/year than $1/year.
(Of course, this is all assuming that they drop their salary down to $1 and don't touch their stock option grants. If they drop their salary down to $1 in exchange for more stock option grants, then you may be right.) - LilRabbitFooFoo, on 08/11/2008, -1/+6agreed 100%...this is a lower staff member falling on her sword to take the heat from the real crooked dealers here.
- skidogallard, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Well, it appears that they didn't do it quietly enough.
- rocket000, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@Supaman223 - He said "your" instead of "you're."
- mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8I am currently frowning in his general direction.
- Katarn, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6He also happens to own Pixar where he doesn't make $1 a year.
- reverb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3That's incorrect, assuming you mean Fred Anderson. He was CFO for several years before he retired. After that, he joined the company's Board of Directors. He stepped down from the board last October as a result of the stock options investigation. Anderson's successor as CFO, Peter Oppenheimer, was never implicated.
- heaintheavy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Are you sure? They keep saying it is "for the good of the company" and "adds to the bottom line." If I am not mistaken, you are implying that the $1 salary thing is for selfish reasons...
Hmmmm. I never looked at it that way. - nanoguy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3He doesn't own Pixar since he sold it to Disney, now he is Disney's biggest shareholder. He also gets big gifts like say Gulfstreams at the company's expense, so if you work that out as part of his compensation, he gets quite a bit.
- SpacedCowboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@exalpius
Now I'm no options law expert, but every expert I've heard chime in on this has said it is *not* illegal to backdate options, as long as the company reports and takes a charge for the difference in options price (from the backdated time to the current one).
It seems odd to me that "As a person who has been in both positions" , you would say "I can tell you that you sweat the date of options issue to make sure it is never backdated - which is illegal, and what Apple has done here."... Perhaps you're just blowing chunks ?
Now granted, Apple didn't take the charge, and are therefore operating illegally, but your statement is wrong, as far as I can see. Who's to say it wasn't this woman's job to make sure the charge was assessed against the company, after all ?
Simon. - noseeme, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Shhh.......
- mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8Could at least post your spam in relevant topics?
- rkettner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This isn't for everyone... fortunately he already has a lot of wealth to live off, so why take a taxable income when he can see his personal net worth improve with growing stock or a growing company.
- nanoguy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2What a maroon
- t3hX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1>Netposer, you don't seem to understand options backdating.
He's a MS fanboy, what DO you expect? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2News? or common sense.
- rocket000, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3nevermind
- HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That question isn't unanswered. They already tagged Fred Anderson as the scapegoat for this. He couldn't be fired because he already retired.
Is that the real end of the story? Probably not. Will it be the end of the story for the SEC and such? Probably.
It isn't like Apple invented this. When you see Neutron Jack Welch start taking heat, then you'll know the SEC is serious about taking on CEOs who engage in shady dealings .
Apple is small time in the grand scheme of these things, best to start with the real movers and shakers and then work down to Apple. - unit101, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ dougmc
If a CEO didn't get a salary, stock options, or any other form of compensation what would motivate him to make the best decisions for the company? I personallly wouldn't trust a CEO that didn't get any compensation whatsoever. - ironyinc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Netposer, you don't seem to understand options backdating. Backdating doesn't hurt investors, all it does is set a good time for employee stock options to judge their worth from. The only thing it means is that Apple is paying their employees who have stock options the most that they can. It is common practice in many businesses and is completely legal as long as the company files the correct paperwork.
- farm3r, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I always thought that the world would be better if lawyers, managers and journalists knew their place :-)
- LilRabbitFooFoo, on 08/11/2008, -3/+3Indeed. This woman is clearly "falling on her sword" for something everyone on the board and the executives knew ALL about. As a person who has been in both positions, I can tell you that you sweat the date of options issue to make sure it is never backdated - which is illegal, and what Apple has done here. I can't believe that the senior execs and board members who benefited from this are essentially getting away with it. I assume Apple is paying for the shortfalls, but what about punitive damages/penalties? Backdating options is major corporate fraud against the stockholders and should be treated as such. I'll bet this woman has one hell of a cushy parachute and a job waiting for her at another company owned by one of these board members, or a friend of theirs. Ahem.
- futureb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1i saw this quote in the article:
"he leaves it up to other people to award him hugely valuable piles of stock in Apple Computer"
YEAH RIGHT. You think Jobs has no input into what option awards he's getting? You think he doesn't have his people on the Board? You think he doesn't have bankers, lawyers, consultants, advisers, etc., all working for him...not CEO Jobs, but Steve Jobs? It's the height of naivete to think he just sits around dreaming up products while waiting patiently for a bonus check that may or may not come.
there have already been CEOs that have resigned or been fired over their handling of the backdating scandal. i'm not saying Jobs has to go, because it's obvious that nobody wants that. but all the apple junkies out there have to recognize that a CEO is ultimately responsible for the corporate governance culture of a company. shareholders & the board would be within their rights to seek a change in leadership. - flag564, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3It's the fanboy code.
Look the other way and keep their mouth shut. - starrd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Did anyone notice the reference to the General Counsel, Nancy Heinen, being fired earlier in 2006? For those of you who think Apple might be a fun place to work, this should be a nice clue. Someone who clearly has the knowledge and skills to protect herself, still could not. The only way to truly function at Apple is to be on the bottom of the totem pole, keep your head down, mouth shut, and do what you're told...and hope that what you're told to do is not illlegal. Unfortunately for the legal dept, apparantly that was not possible. Great products, again, but think of it as the difference between visiting the Emerald City and working there. I would rather experience the thrill, without seeing behind the curtain.
- mikesbaker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1the woz - "You want to exercise you options before apple tanks for being a bunch of DRM and sh*tty product pushers????? F U B you are fired!"
- macfanboi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1I thought the internal company audit found Apple of no wrong doing?
- 4ndr3w, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1apple's CFO didn't get fired, but 'stepped down' because of the stock options too
- epiccollision, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2but most understood what he meant, thus the purpose of language....
- kasted, on 10/12/2007, -11/+6Your a ***** retard.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1lol
- Supaman223, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3^^^ What Irony?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -65/+0http://www.myspace.com/911falseflagop
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is