Tim Cook Hits Billionaire Status With Apple Nearing $2 Trillion (bloomberg.com) 87
Apple CEO Tim Cook's personal net worth has recently crossed the $1 billion mark as the company nears a $2 trillion market value, reports Bloomberg. From the report: It was valued at about $350 billion when Jobs died. Cook, meantime, has joined one of the most elite clubs for CEOs who didn't actually found the companies they run: his net worth has eclipsed $1 billion, according to calculations by the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. Cook's net worth estimate is based on an analysis of regulatory filings and applying the market performance of a typical wealthy investor to his proceeds from share sales. Cook, 59, said in 2015 that he plans to give most of his fortune away and has already gifted million of dollars worth of Apple shares. His wealth could be lower if he's made other undisclosed charitable gifts.
typo or truth? (Score:3)
Cook, 59, said in 2015 that he plans to give most of his fortune away and has already gifted million of dollars worth of Apple shares.
Singular?
Re: (Score:3)
Hopefully, for sake of charities everywhere, the typo is at the lack of a plural amplifier at million, and not the mistaken amplification of dollar(s).
Thank the Federal Reserve (Score:3, Informative)
Money printer go brrrrr
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yup, Wall Street price supports to the tune of a trillion a month, that's why there's no money for unemployment insurance.
In the stock market, we have truly fake news, about fake money, just spinning derivatives.
Time for some delicious claim chowder (Score:1, Offtopic)
Hey, remember back years ago when people claimed Apple's stock price was so high the law of large numbers [investorplace.com] prevented future growth and you shouldn't buy the stock?
From that article:
Even after a 7-for-1 split, the Apple stock price of nearly $100 is too high for many retail investors to swing.
AAPL closed at $450 today [yahoo.com]... just sayin'.
Re: Time for some delicious claim chowder (Score:2)
No, but I remember when they called a stock on selling Apple shares because they where dropping so fast.
Re: (Score:2)
In retrospect, that makes you an idiot.
Idiot:
a technical term in legal and psychiatric contexts for some kinds of profound intellectual disability where the mental age is two years or less, and the person cannot guard himself or herself against common physical dangers
Actually, it doesn’t make him one. And people aren’t usually idiots “in retrospect”.
Is it your position that every stock pick you’ve ever made has succeeded?
Wait, it’s the Internet and cannot be verified.
A fool certainly (Score:2)
My horses worked out very well. I didn't think Microsoft would do as well either. I am very nervous of Apple as a share. They are very resilient, but I am not a believer in their new services and accessories replacement for real phone growth, an antitrust lawsuit could do real damage to their share, and China is a real but I suspect overblown issue. Today has FFS several articles on both. As I said I remember Apple shares collapsed.
Re: A fool certainly (Score:1)
As I say nervous (Score:2)
Thank you for putting effort into the post. I know why the iPhone still sells well despite its stagnant OS and lackluster overpriced hardware. Boutique branding, nostalgia, media relevance, accounting and marketing, monopolistic abuse...and it works. Apple have been resilient to things that have challenged these, but as we saw with the massive drop in Apple shares they are fragile to too much challenge. In context of this article Cook has been incredible as a politician navigating the company through challe
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Keep in mind that that 7-for-1 stock split occurred before new brokerages like Robinhood, SoFi, Betterment, etc. became popular with young(er) investors and traders as they offer fractional share buying. Even Fidelity offers fractional shares now.
Fractional share buying + zero commissions allows a larger portion of the population who don't have much money access to buy high priced stocks like Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway, Google, Netflix, Tesla, and yes, even Apple.
Maximum wage (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Maximum wage (Score:5, Funny)
The super-rich won't have any motivation to work hard if they can only be very rich. We'll have wealthy, educated people sitting at home on their couch, refusing to work. A total collapse of the system!
Re: (Score:2)
At some point money just becomes a number in a bank account. Do you really think having one billion dollars or two makes any kind of difference? At some point you just have more money than you could possibly spend in a lifetime.
At what point does that lose all meaning and just becomes some sort of dick measuring contest?
Re: (Score:2)
At some point you just have more money than you could possibly spend in a lifetime
Challenge accepted!
*Holds out hands, palms up, making pitiful grabby motions*
Re: (Score:2)
some sort of dick measuring contest
It's hard to write a response to this without sounding jealous, but yes, at some point it's just monopoly money. Yes, a person COULD spend $1B in their lifetime, but you'd have to try pretty damn hard or be buying some exceptionally frivolous stuff. He could literally buy 8 or of the top 10 most expensive yachts on the planet [marineinsight.com] and still have more money that I'll ever see in my lifetime.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no such thing. It looked like billionaires were running out of things to buy but then they discovered rockets, health research and manipulating education systems.
When you get that kind of money it's not really money anymore, it's power. So the real question is, has this person demonstrated enough ability that they should be entrusted to wield that much power, or should they be taxed sufficiently that, in a democracy, some of their power is transferred to the people?
Some billionaires have been reason
Re: (Score:2)
Slight correction:
some of their power is transferred to the people
some of their power is transferred to the politicians
Re: (Score:2)
It's sad how cynical one of the early examples of modern democracy has become. It's tragic that cynicism is reasonably justified.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Why bother pay them at all then? They should be paying Apple for the privilege of working there.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
and it's exposing what a twat you are.
Try looking in a mirror. I'm done with your juvenile bullshit. Good day sir.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"They show up because they care about what they're doing."
Citations please.
I've worked with plenty of people at that level and I've seen no evidence that is systematically true. Greed is boundless.
Re: (Score:2)
They show up because they care about what they're doing.
Most people do. It's the "what" that's significant.
Re: Maximum wage (Score:5, Interesting)
We'll have wealthy, educated people sitting at home on their couch, refusing to work.
It would be like the Enlightenment all over again. A gentleman wasn't expected to work, he was expected to partake in "leisure," which meant writing poetry, hunting, and partaking in other hobbies like science. Interestingly enough, that propelled science forward because if it weren't for a bunch of aristocratic nerds then there wouldn't have been an economic incentive to fund a lot of the basic research that would lay the groundwork for the Industrial Revolution.
For example, in Gulliver's Travels, Swift mocks aristocratic scientists (his primary target is Newton) for being obsessed with abstractions that have no practical value. He especially missed the mark by making fun of agricultural science, insisting that generations of farmers know much better than some piddly scientist who has never tilled a day in his life. If I could Bill & Ted Swift into the present, it would be great to rub the Green Revolution in his face.
uhh, what was the topic again?
Re: (Score:2)
How little things have changed. Except for scientists being rich dudes, of course.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, but banks aren't afraid at all of imaginary wealth. Mr. Cook can borrow a nice big fraction of that billion if he wants to, at extremely low interest rates. If his accountant is worth his fee (and you can bet he is) he can even write off a bunch of that interest as tax deductions!
Wealth is power, and Cook's power is concentrated (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Ruined? I'm up about 50% since this COVID thing started.
Re:Maximum wage (Score:5, Insightful)
You aren't getting money's worth because of the executives, your shares are increasing in value because so many people are dumping their retirement funds into "tech" stocks and there aren't enough of those to go around.
Is Cook worth as much as 1/2000th of Apple? If so, what does that say about the value of the other employees?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple's employees are some of the most valuable in the world. "Valuable" in that they make much more money for shareholders than they cost.
Keep in mind that Tim Cook "only" actually gets paid about $10 million a year. He also gets about ten times that much in stock, which has done incredibly well, which is why he's now worth so much. If a $100 k/y Apple employee also invested most of their income in Apple stock they would also be "paid" much more than their actual salary would indicate.
So is Tim Cook worth
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
A little touchy, huh? The OP didn't even mention Apple in his comment, and why do you think owning Apple stock is relevant?
Also, how do you know you're "getting your money's worth" and how does that impact the comment you are replying to?
Greed and tribalism are equally ugly, so perhaps you should also get yourself one.
Re: (Score:2)
Jealously is a very ugly emotion.
Not as ugly as smugness.
BTW, I think you meant envy, not jealousy.
Re:Maximum wage (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Maximum wage (Score:4, Insightful)
It's called a progressive tax rate. While on paper our income taxes are progressive, since the mega-rich get most their income from investments and their accountants take advantage of a system that provides them tons of loopholes, the middle-class pays the largest amount of taxes (as a percentage of their income/wealth). Our taxes are stupid. Poor people often end up paying a negative amount in taxes and rich people, while they pay a large portion of our taxes collected overall, it's minuscule compared to their wealth.
If we taxed the poor a bit and if we had income tax brackets that extended all the way to 99% it would 1) bring in a lot more revenue that would perhaps pay for things 2) discourage ridiculous executive pay 3) discourage ridiculous quarterback pay so we no longer have great quarterbacks playing on shitty teams because the QB sends them above the salary cap. Okay, that last one may not matter to everyone.
Re:Maximum wage (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
People who make these comments should learn what these terms mean and admit that they haven't experienced these things either.
Re: (Score:3)
While on paper our income taxes are progressive, since the mega-rich get most their income from investments and their accountants take advantage of a system that provides them tons of loopholes, the middle-class pays the largest amount of taxes (as a percentage of their income/wealth). Our taxes are stupid.
Only if you are naive.
The progressive tax system does exactly what it's supposed to do - it provides a cap to ensure that working class people can't become rich. No matter how good and successful you are, thanks to progressive taxes you can't "make it" on a salaried income.
You must become an investor, company owner or other kind of player in the financial markets business. That will ensure you have or quickly gain the correct mindset to not rock the boat.
Re: (Score:2)
All of this is complete bullshit. First, that is not the purpose of progressive taxation, nor is it the result. Furthermore, plenty "make it" without becoming an investor.
Wealth has a substantial element of luck associated with it, and the "correct mindset" flows out of a desire to retain wealth, not any special training. Your conspiracy theory is poorer than average.
Re: (Score:2)
All of this is complete bullshit. First, that is not the purpose of progressive taxation,
Says who? The official law commentary? The same one that, in a slightly different world, would say that we've always been at war with Oceania?
nor is it the result. Furthermore, plenty "make it" without becoming an investor.
Show me one superyacht owner whose main source of income is a salary.
Wealth has a substantial element of luck associated with it,
That is absolutely correct, I agree.
and the "correct mindset" flows out of a desire to retain wealth, not any special training
And that is exactly what I said. Once you are used to being wealthy and how passive income and investments and rent-seeking are the way to become and stay rich, you are much less likely to work towards any "leftist" reforms that would, say, tax investment income as
Re: (Score:3)
How about a maximum income ratio. Take the combined income of the CEO and say the lowest paid person at Apple must get at least 1/100th of that. If he makes $50,000,000 from all his Apple salary, shares and benefits then the janitor must be paid at least $50,000.
Suddenly there is a financial incentive to pay people a decent wage.
Re: (Score:2)
How about you can make as much as all the people for whom you're responsible for combined. But if one of them commits a crime as a member of your organization, you share the blame, and the punishment. Let's get some accountability in there!
Re: (Score:2)
I like the idea but it will be hard for someone with a large org, say 10,000 people, to monitor them all for criminal activity. I'd suppose failing to have systems in place to prevent crime itself being a crime though.
Re: (Score:2)
I like the idea but it will be hard for someone with a large org, say 10,000 people, to monitor them all for criminal activity.
The same logic will apply to all managers. Everyone has to be managed by someone, and then everyone will share the responsibility with a manager.
Re: (Score:2)
Yann LeCunn proposed implementing a corporate tax based on the GINI coefficient of employee compensation. The more unequal the pay within your company, the more tax you'd have to pay.
Caps tend to be problematic because thresholds are always at least a bit arbitrary. Appropriately progressive tax schemes are better because they allow exceptions (and the converse) where they make economic sense.
Math fail. (Score:2)
Your subject and body are at odds (Score:2)
We don't need a maximum wage. All we need is to tax capital gains as if it were the same as any other income, and a properly graduated taxation scale. Then when some people make all the money, it will fund the government. And then it can spend money on UBI, to keep the whole system going. Can't have people getting super-wealthy if The People can't afford to buy anything.
Cook, 59, said in 2015 that he plans to give most (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
It's also anti-democratic. Having such massive amounts of wealth grants an individual excessive amounts of power and influence.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Democracy? You mean that thing that gives the majority power, regardless of whether that majority are intelligent or not? Democracy only works if the majority are intelligent, and that isn't always the case. It's not all it's cracked up to be.
The solution is to provide better education and social programs that help preserve families so that people can grow up to be better-educated and better-adjusted. Then they will make better decisions.
Both parties but especially the Rs have sacked education for decades because they love low-information voters who are easy to lead. Then they act all surprised at how dumb everyone is.
Re: (Score:2)
The solution is to provide better education and social programs that help preserve families so that people can grow up to be better-educated and better-adjusted. Then they will make better decisions.
Both parties but especially the Rs have sacked education for decades because they love low-information voters who are easy to lead. Then they act all surprised at how dumb everyone is.
That's false. 10 seconds on Google would have prevented you from looking like a fool. 10 Facts About K-12 Education Funding [ed.gov] "Total education funding has increased substantially in recent years at all levels of government, even when accounting for enrollment increases and inflation."
Re:Cook, 59, said in 2015 that he plans to give mo (Score:5, Interesting)
Bill Gates has given away over $50B and gives away $5B per year. He's actively trying to stop getting richer, but Satya Natella is governing Microsoft competently and the Fed is inflating asset prices like crazy, stymieing Gates's efforts to give away money faster than he gets richer.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
They should buy a car company... (Score:1)
Mitsubishi is dirt cheap, immediat factories and know how on hte car making process.
Apple's annual stock dividend is ~0,75% (Score:1)
Hoping for altruism is not a plan (Score:5, Insightful)
Contemporary capitalism redistributes wealth up. Even though it's a non-zero-sum game, the benefits of capitalistic economies accumulate at the top end at the expense of the rest of the population. The rising tide raises all yachts, leavng everyone else treading water.
Right now the stock market is soaring while an ever increasing number of households are facing poverty, homelessness and loss of health care. How can this be? It's because there is no such thing as "the economy." The economy of Wall Street is largely decoupled from the economy of the rest of the country. The ever growing inequality of income, the lack of savings and the burden of household debt are symptoms of this divide.
Framing the discussion around the "good deeds" of a few renegade capitalists is a form of propaganda. It's misdirection intended to hide the intrinsic dysfunction of our economy. The economic and political system is disintegrating in real time, and the pandemic is only speeding up the process. At some point there will be hell to pay.
So Tim is as rich as J.K. Rowling (Score:2)
I'll accept both have done a lot of work that many people consider of high value
But Plato's argument kicks in. Once you own that kind of wealth, why would you bother working well? What's the motive?
I'm willing to concede there might be one, but I'm not willing to concede that money has worth in itself. Yes, I'm a heretic.
I'm not a communist and don't think they should just give money for no reason, nor am I opposed to them earning it. Earning is fine. But you have to do something for something.
There's only
Perverted (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Couldn't have said it better myself, except for the last sentence.
American corporatist philosophy would have tossed him out on his ear long ago. I've worked my way up. Most companies you always know where you stand. Not so well, you go down. You're doing well you go up. At a company called PRC they used to have "move day." You knew it was coming and they would move your office based on where you were in the company. Sometimes that was out the door.
I'm not aware of Cook doing anything to have his position. I
Proof the man is immoral (Score:1)
This would be the guy running one of the world's richest and most powerful companies... who keeps telling the government he needs his slave workforce in China. Why, Apple would collapse into bankruptcy if it paid middle American class people middle class American wages!. Somehow it's not going bankrupt as HE pockets a bazillion. With China trade looking tougher right now, he's apparently looking for other places to get super-cheap captive workers, because Apple is simply a poor little company that cannot af
All this means is devaluation of your money in you (Score:2)
So cheer ya livestock! Cheer for the market! This is a great thing! Hang yo tits out, cause it's even more milking the empty cows time!!