What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
See the new YouTube feature trailer for Dragon Age: Origins view!
youtube.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
94 Comments
- chriskzoo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+50How will Digg zelots who love Apple, yet hate greedy CEOs comprehend this? Head explodes.
- slightlyoffbeat, on 10/12/2007, -4/+47If i had only been born 30 years earlier, worked with apple in its early years, invented the ipod and itunes, and wore turtle necks...then I would be the one making 646 mil...and not Mr. Jobs.
So many regrets - hoos30, on 10/12/2007, -6/+47I guess that backdating of stock options thing really worked out, huh?
- n8r0n, on 10/12/2007, -6/+46Man, that would by alot of black turtlenecks and smug.
- bhavi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+35Link to the actual Forbes' article: http://www.forbes.com/home/leadership/2007/05/03/highest-paid-ceos-lead-07ceo-cz_sd_0503ceo_land.html
- xjoi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+25So last year he made roughly $661 a SECOND. $56,000,000 a month. Man, thats a lot of white plastic.
- noseeme, on 10/12/2007, -18/+37Yay for Jobs being a douche when it comes to philanthropy.
- ChumpChief, on 10/12/2007, -3/+22I can't even begin to comprehend that kind of an income. That's like winning the lottery jackpot tens to hundreds of times in a single year...
- timdorr, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17@meatmcguffin
That's true, but apparently everyone who meets him thinks he's kind of a dick. (not my words) - tfinniga, on 10/12/2007, -6/+17Yay for a CEO increasing the value of the stock in sustainable ways.
- superKduper, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13HIS $1/year "Salary" MEANS he doesn't pay ANY social security or payroll tax.
He simply pays 20% "long term capital gains" on his (backdated) stock option profits.
THAT'S PROBABLY LESS than YOU PAY. - KSUdesigner, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12It's his money, he can do with it what he pleases. If he really wanted to, I'm sure he could spend all of that money in a day or two. Also, where is your proof that he doesn't donate? I'll guarantee you that he donates some portion to charities every year. Just because you didn't hear about it doesn't mean it didn't happen.
- KibibyteBrain, on 10/12/2007, -11/+20I have no problem with any CEO who makes money for his stockholders making as much as the stockholders are willing to give him. What makes me upset is when a company is being driven into the ground, and the CEO wants to make ANYTHING for doing it. Even a dollar at that point is crazy, and the fact that many CEOs make millions for doing just that is an embarrassment. So as long as Steve jobs can sell himself to shareholders as the x-factor in turning Apple around, he can enjoy his millions.
- fkr3, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12WTF else are you going to spend that much money on every year?
I'm not some sort of hippie, but I think if you have assloads of cash you could at least throw a handful at the poorest, hungriest people in the world. And an income of $646 million for a single person constitutes "assloads of cash" in my books.
The guy makes nearly $100,000 an hour ... least he could do is donate some to OLPC or any of the many organisations doing good in the world - the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for a laugh. - fkr3, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10The second he donated anything it would be front page digg news. Since I haven't seen it on digg, where so many of his fans congregate to discuss the beauty of his bowel movement, I'm inclined to believe he just doesn't do it.
- JurneyAhed, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Well, I remember him being listed in the Guiness book of Records as the lowest paid CEO in terms of salary a few years ago, so there can't be as MANY MANY similar CEO's as you claim =P
- ThatsUnpossible, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Are you joking? There hasn't been a cell phone in history that has received more press before its release than iPhone.
- trghpy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8You guys do know that stock based comp. requires that the stocks reach a maturation date.
Meaning if Jobs ***** Apple up next month he'll loose out on a huge chunk of change.
Steve also believes in his companies, and rarely sells shares unless he needs the cash.
Its not like he's pumping the company up just to make a quick buck; he creates value and its that value that pays him. - xjoi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Or pie.
- zweben, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8@timdorr
"That's true, but apparently everyone who meets him thinks he's kind of a dick. (not my words)"
Regardless, he does an excellent job of running the company. He may not be popular among Apple employees as a guy to have lunch with, but he has a lot of support for the job he does. - dreicher, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Actually, YOUR math is wrong. Even with your numbers of $650M/5 years that equals $130M per year (about $11M per month). Based on a $15.2M avg in the pool...well, $130M > $15.2M
- KSUdesigner, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6That's called a christmas bonus, and I'd be willing to bet that Apple employees take home huge bonus checks, a hell of a lot bigger than $200 too.
- winampman2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4No.
- C00001, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4whoops. yeah, we're both wrong. calculated the $11 mil/month, and forgot what i was doing.
- ricksite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Do you think this money sits in a cookie jar? He doesn't have ass loads of cash. It is stock. It is creating jobs and benefiting the economy. He doesn't live in a vacuum. I agree with Milton Friedman on the social responsibility of business.
http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/friedman-soc-resp-business.html - locnguyen, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8How do you know he doesn't do that? Is he suppose to put out a press release everytime he does? Does he have to blog and tell everyone how much he gives and how great of a guy he is?
Get real. - petefriedman, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8Any Boss that makes that kind of money better take a percentage of it and spread it out among the employees. With just 1 million of his 640+ million salary he could give a 5000 employee company $200 dollar bonus checks..........but we all know that would never happen
- cthellis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3What Occidental Petroleum's stock did in 2006: Began - $44. Ended - $49. (Now - $52) CEO paid - $322 million.
What IAC's stock did in 2006: Began - $30. Ended - $37. (Now - $36) CEO paid - $295 million.
What Fidelity National's stock did in 2006: Began - $37. Ended - $24. (Now - $25) CEO paid - $179 million.
What Yahoo's stock did in 2006: Began - $43. Ended - $26. (Now - $31) CEO paid - $174 million.
(And yes, I'm measuring by calendar year, as I don't know if they're all on the same FY. No, I don't know offhand which of those might be multi-year packages, either. Though Diller's probably isn't, since he topped the list in 2005, too.)
...what Apple's stock did in 2006: Began - $76. Ended - $85. (Now - $101) CEO paid - ~$130 million
Looks pretty much in-line with the others, doesn't it? Only with a better "Now" and him getting less compensation for better performance.
Now let's stretch back to the start of 2001 and see where everyone was at:
OXY - $12, IACI - $39, FNF - $20, YHOO - $15 (after the 2000 nosedive from the $100-120 high).
AAPL - $8 (their 2000 crash was only from a year's high of $35)
*** as a quick point of reference, each company had a 2:1 split in that time period, except FNF which had 4 micro-splits, and IACI did a 1:2 (not sure of the implications, but that's when the stock dived, which seems counter-intuitive for a reverse stock split so I might be off-base) ***
At any rate, the only company that comes anywhere NEAR the performance gains is OXY and... well... gee, who'd a thunk that a petroleum company would do well since the US invaded Iraq? ;-) ...and Apple's gains was more than three times THAT.
You don't normally get to use the word "tenfold" in any serious way on Wall Street; not for companies valued $10 billion and up. And yet... there you go. Diller, meanwhile, has appeared multiple times on the Top 10 salary list since that time, presiding over a company that about doubled in stock value over that amount of time, then went right back to where it started. (Jobs had one $90 million 3-year compensation before the 5-year one we're talking about now.)
What would Jobs' current package be worth if his performance was the same as Diller's? Some $65 million for all five years? (Again, that's just price. I don't know how the whole "stock split vs. reverse-splitting" would factor in.)
Admittedly, none of this is all that simple... but numbers are fun to compare. ;-)
It is without question, however, that Jobs created the value of the stock we're now ogling; if there's a more hands-on CEO of a company that large whose personal vision, drive and stubbornness spurs on a whole company, I'd like to know it. - dreicher, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@saints
Not an "Apple hater" and I honestly couldn't give a rip how much he gives away. Its really not my business. I would hope he's being socially responsible with his prosperity as I would hope anyone would be, but thats between him and his accountant as far as I'm concerned. I do take issue with the $1 salary which is nothing more than asserting a tax "loophole" to minimize his capital gains tax liability. I can't really fault him for that, but all the "Apple lovers" who claim Jobs to be some sort of "God" need to look that materially his is just another greedy businessman trying to extract as much wealth for himself as possible - no different than all the favorite targets from Exxon or Haliburton. Again, it doesn't particularly affect my life one way or the other, but lets not put him up for sainthood so fast either, k? - Boondoggle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2 by noseeme 19 hours ago
"Yay for Jobs being a douche when it comes to philanthropy."
-----------------------------------
Yay for Jobs not publicizing his philanthropy and turning an otherwise private endeavor into a poorly camouflaged advertising campaign. - bsiviglia9, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If I just work a little harder will I get to be CEO someday?
- dreicher, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4The tax rate on long-term gains was reduced in 2003 to 15%, or to 5% for individuals in the lowest two income tax brackets. That one sentence is the sole reason that Jobs (and many other CEO's) take a $1 salary. $1 certainly places him in the lowest income tax bracket and therefore (on $650M in options compensation) mean a $65M reduction in his tax outlay versus a $35,000+ salaray.
- KibibyteBrain, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@fitzfan If I end up driving my company into danger, then yes, I should be fired. Little mistakes, not so much. The problem is that its hard for a CEO to make a small mistake because of the scale of his control. But that doesn't mean he deserves special sympathy in comparison to any other officer making an error of the same scale. The bigger you are, the harder you fall, so the saying goes.
- cthellis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@dreicher
You are completely off; there is only a small cushion that would apply at that 5% rate. The first $XX,XXX.xx of his capital gain would be taxed at 5%, but the moment that gain pushed him above the 15% income tax bracket, the rest would hit at the usual 15% capital gains tax rate. If you seriously think it works like you presented it, then why aren't ALL CEO's EVERYwhere getting paid $1? They're be morons not to.
The amount he's likely to sell at any one point would make the difference infinitesimal. Since the 15% income tax bracket ceiling right now is around $30k, he'd only be saving ~$3000 on what would likely be a sale of tens if not hundreds of millions. He'd probably apply the 15% rate universally simply to A) save on extra paperwork silliness, and B) not be called out on it in the future by those in the press.
Anyone who's a frickin' CEO couldn't give a rat's ass about that point. The reason they get paid a dollar is because that have to get paid SOMEthing... but are otherwise saying "I'm putting MY money where my performance is at." (I think anyone doing that is forgoing big cash bonuses, too, though they certainly get other perks. ;-) )
Meanwhile, might I add that superKduper seems to be pretty damn loopy, and doesn't appear to know that stock backdating itself is NOT illegal? (Though it has a tendency to be tied to the shifty bookkeeping and hiding-from-investors chicanery that MAKES it illegal.) - winampman2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@fkr3
dugg for 'beauty of his bowel movement' - digga, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8He's "a *****" because he gets paid more than you? Interesting....
- trghpy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4He did offer OS X to OLPC
- strangewill, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3My wage is $0 (haven't released software...) Do I win?
Actually counting server and software costs, I'm like -$200. - hexodeci, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Ok, so another 10 companies I am not investing in.
- Boondoggle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1 by meatmcguffin 18 hours ago
@blapierre
"Since when did a CEO's financial status determine how popular (or even competent) s/he is?"
---------------------------------------------------------
When they only get paid if the stock goes up. Jobs receives no salary, just stock options. - FastZ, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Seems like anybody can be a "*****" nowadays.
- h0dg3s, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You know, there's an old saying. "A fool and his money are soon parted."
Steve did an excellent job (no pun intended) of turning this into a business model.
As far as a "legendary" company is concerned, keep dreaming. - Swift2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm sure it's been pointed out before, this $650 million is "income" for the last five years' work, not an annual thing, unless, of course, Jobs has plans that will make Apple stock climb another 2,000%. That's unlikely. Really, going from $11 a share five years ago to $200 -- remember, it split, as well as being $100 now -- I'd say, buy that CEO a beer. OS X Tiger with Leopard to come, the iPod, iTunes, Final Cut Pro -- I mean, take your pick. Love him or hate him, the man delivers. And remember, he went back to the company he founded, rescued it from extinction, and now has -- sorry, haters -- the hottest property in the computer business.
I do wonder about executive compensation, yes. I don't think it's good for the country for execs to make so many times what the average worker makes. But this is the result of a (legal) stock grant -- the questionable issues had not vested, and he's turned them in -- and the amount was settled by his contribution to the value of the company. If Apple stock was still at $11, would he have cleared $20 million?
I'd say generally, that's the way this was supposed to work. Stock options were brought in as a cure-all during the Reagan era. Executives were doing a crummy job, the thought went, because they weren't being paid enough money. Since it was hard, during the early '80s, to find a BOD that would give a salary of say, $100 million a year, the idea was, give them stock options, the value of which would be determined by the Glorious Market (which is infallible, in Reagan-speak.) What has often happened is that stock values were pumped with buybacks and all kinds of trickery, to inflate the compensation. Pump and dump. So money-losing companies would pay out $100 million to a CEO who had put them in debtors' prison.. That's what's wrong.
I think that ordinary Apple employees who got Apple shares -- at least they used to -- are very happy to have Jobs there. They just don't want to run into him on the elevator. - cthellis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1When he cashed out of Apple the first time (after being ousted), he probably paid an amount many multiples of what you and everyone reading this thread is likely to hand over as our total LIFETIME tax burden. Imagine just what will be due the next time he does a major sell-off? (I think he has even more shares now than he did back then, and Apple is certainly WORTH way more...)
You should consider making sense sometime. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Unlike many CEOs who make millions for running a company into the ground, Steve Jobs brought Apple back from the brink. He deserves the salary.
- Dayyve, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Not I'm not joking and yes you are correct about the press but I'm talking about the buzz on the consumer end. How many people do you know that are going to buy this compared to people you know that purchased an iPod. My mom for crying out loud has an iPod, no way in hell an old lady (sorry mom, oldER) is going to pay for that phone. Yet people love music and the simplicity, ease of use, and cool look of the iPod made it work.
If you can sit there and honestly tell me that there is a buzz and a can't wait mentality among the consumers who control the market and the media who just reports on it then that's cool, we agree to disagree and time will prove one of us right. - hoovcluck, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I wonder if Hillary Clinton is going to try to take Steve’s money like she is with BIG OIL?
The double standard makes me want to vomit. - Dayyve, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Hey Super K. Duper that was pretty good except you should replace the "cuddling up to the Democrats" to "cuddling up to the politically elite." Then you don't sound so angry or like you have an agenda and an intern for your Senator may actually pass your mail up the ladder instead of tossing it in the "to be recylced" bin.
- chostin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1agreed completely that Jobs saved Apple from the brink and brought out innovation after innovation. I'm not saying he's god by any means, yes I am a creative Apple user who also is running Vista on a intel duo imac, it's decent. But that's not the point, I think if any ceo deserves a hike it would be him.
- orangysb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1he makes roughly 20 bucks per second, not 661
and the 2nd richest man in the world Carlos Slim Helu gained almost 20 billion last year, go figure that
that is almost 660 per second -
Show 51 - 94 of 94 discussions
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