Apple's Tim Cook takes 11th on list of 'Best-Value' CEOs

On Tuesday Apple's leader, Tim Cook, placed 11th in a Bloomberg ranking of CEOs considered to be the best value to their companies in terms of pay versus performance.

Cook's most recent compensation is estimated to be nearly $10.3 million — partly salary, but mostly non-equity incentive, Bloomberg said. The publication singled out Cook in its introduction, noting that while his compensation "isn't chump change," it makes him a "bargain" to Apple considering the many billions in profits the company has generated in the past three years.

Specifically Cook is estimated to have received about $2 million in salary, but some $8 million in incentives.

Cook's position on the list might have been higher except that a number of people above him, such as Berkshire Hathaway's Warren Buffet, accept much lower compensation. In fact the top two people on the list — Fossil Group's Kosta Kartsotis, and Ubiquiti's Robert Pera — aren't currently accepting any formal compensation. Kartsotis however owns more than $200 million in Fossil stock, while Pera owns nearly 70 percent of Ubiquiti.

Another person of note is Alphabet's Larry Page, who claims a salary of just $1, much like former Apple CEO Steve Jobs. Again like Jobs, though, Page is thought to make up for this with stock ownership.

7 Comments

macxpress 5911 comments · 16 Years

About 7 years ago

Seems to me the CEO's who take a $1 salary should be omitted. I don't think this chart represents stock options, just the base salary. Of course someone who makes $1/yr is going to seem like a good value with any profits, or hell any losses.

zoetmb 2655 comments · 17 Years

About 7 years ago

macxpress said:

Seems to me the CEO's who take a $1 salary should be omitted. I don't think this chart represents stock options, just the base salary. Of course someone who makes $1/yr is going to seem like a good value with any profits, or hell any losses.

I think it only has meaning if you calculate total compensation based on a chosen day's value of their stock and/or options. And should the evaluation be based on market cap or on earnings? One could also argue that a CEO of a small company who makes $150K per year, but returns 30% earnings is actually the better bargain.

And maybe the evaluation shouldn't be based at all on the CEO, but on the entire senior management team. What is their combined compensation as compared to company earnings?

And while the pure capitalists here will disagree with me, I believe all of these CEOs are paid far too much. A CEO who works 52 weeks a year, 50 hours a week and earns $10 million is earning $3846 per hour. How can someone who earns that much understand what it's like to live in the real world and therefore produce products or services for that world or compensate their employees fairly? Maybe if Apple's executives (and this applies to other companies as well) didn't earn that much money, they wouldn't price a MBP that tops out at $4200.

holyone 398 comments · 8 Years

About 7 years ago

This seems dishonest to me these guys aren't really being payed this little, how is being payed in assets that are as good as cash worth millions counted differently, there are people actually earning and living on a dollar per day, and here are these millioners being flaunted in this pageantry of the most high echelon of the one%. But you've got to admit though, that iMac on Tim's desk looks goddamn sexy ;) ,best Jony Ive design by a country mile IMHO

paxman 4729 comments · 17 Years

About 7 years ago

zoetmb said:

macxpress said:

Seems to me the CEO's who take a $1 salary should be omitted. I don't think this chart represents stock options, just the base salary. Of course someone who makes $1/yr is going to seem like a good value with any profits, or hell any losses.

I think it only has meaning if you calculate total compensation based on a chosen day's value of their stock and/or options. And should the evaluation be based on market cap or on earnings? One could also argue that a CEO of a small company who makes $150K per year, but returns 30% earnings is actually the better bargain.

And maybe the evaluation shouldn't be based at all on the CEO, but on the entire senior management team. What is their combined compensation as compared to company earnings?

And while the pure capitalists here will disagree with me, I believe all of these CEOs are paid far too much. A CEO who works 52 weeks a year, 50 hours a week and earns $10 million is earning $3846 per hour. How can someone who earns that much understand what it's like to live in the real world and therefore produce products or services for that world or compensate their employees fairly? Maybe if Apple's executives (and this applies to other companies as well) didn't earn that much money, they wouldn't price a MBP that tops out at $4200.

I don't see how 'best value' can be based on how much they earn without somehow calculating how much the company benefits from their employment. And how that should be done is anybody's guess. I certainly have no clue, though the company's financial performance during the CEO's tenure would be an obvious place to start.

I think you can be a capitalist and still find $3,846.- per hour is too much. It is more of an ethical and political issue. Paying anybody that much per hour is just capitalism out of control. I think you can believe is social welfare, national health care, regulation of communal services etc etc, and still operate in a capitalist context.

1st 428 comments · 18 Years

About 7 years ago

Years ago saw compensation evaluation that Japanese Co CEO is 10 to 50X of average workers salary... only US is totally out of control... however, i still feel Cook's value is OK. (2 million base salary is possibly in line with 10 to 50X).