Jobs Earns More Than A Buck A Year 77
The Only Druid writes "Well, though we've all heard about Steve Jobs only being paid $1 per year for being CEO of Apple, it turns out Apple pays him in other ways. He gets $1.2 million for renting the jet to them -- a jet that Apple bought for Jobs."
How incredibly lame... (Score:1)
Daniel
RTFA (Score:5, Interesting)
$1.16mil for two years of jet renting
and even if you consider the $1.16mil to be a salary: $1.16mil for 2 years == not that much a year, compared to other major company's CEO's salaries.
Re:RTFA (Score:1)
And, since he's already worth over ONE. BILLION. DOLLARS! he's not as worried about cash as most other CEO's.
Not to mention the expense accounts, limo services, all meals paid, clothing, computers (obviously), and all the other little perks that come with the job, 90% of which we'll never know exist.
Re:RTFA (Score:3, Insightful)
Be nice. He's saving millions.
Re:How incredibly lame... (Score:2, Informative)
and BusinessWeek ranked Apple's as one of the ten worst Boards of Directors [businessweek.com]: "...Founder Steve Jobs owns just two shares in the company. Recently departed director Larry Ellison had none and had missed more than 25% of meetings in the past five years. The CEO of Micro Warehouse, which accounted for nearly 2.9% of Apple's net sales in 2001, sits on the compensation committee. Since 2000, the board has awarded Jobs 27.5 million stock options and a $90 million jet. There is an interlocking directorship--with Gap CEO Mickey Drexler and Jobs sitting on each other's boards..."
jet thing (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:jet thing (Score:1, Funny)
Re:You forgot (Score:2)
you're = contraction of you are - You're flaming again, aren't you (note the advanced use of "aren't" , we'll learn about that in the next lesson).
If you're going to try and be a smart ass on
It makes sense to me.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Private jets are expensive machines to operate, but they save companies an incredible amount of time. I doubt any of you would say "sure, borrow my jet that costs $15,000/hour to operate and never pay me back, my salary of $1 will cover it".
There are many advantages for Apple to rent instead of own the plane. Think of the insurance premium on a Lear jet.
The yearly operating costs of a jet are way over 1.2 million, so its cheaper for apple to rent it. Since its steve's jet, they still get to use it whenever they want.
If you are unconvinced that it is more effective to rent a jet than own a jet, do a google search on NetJets or Executive Jets.
So, its probably not "steve jobs" who owns the plane, but a company owned by Steve Jobs. And apple rents the plane from that company for a fair price. And I'm sure that Apple doesn't stiff Pixar everytime we have a cool new animated Mac commercial. Nobody seems to be whining about that....
Re:It makes sense to me.... (Score:4, Interesting)
I checked google and it seems the Gulfstream V has a direct operating cost (DOC) of about $1813.88 per hour [corporatejetsales.com]. I'm not an executive so I don't know how often the plane is in use, but lets say 12 hours a day, 365 days a year, by multiple people.
If I did the math right, that puts the DOC per year at $7,944,794.40 (round that to $7.95 million). So if the DOC number is I calculated is correct, they're "saving" about $6.75 million a year.
But Apple paid $99 million for the plane. The whole point of buying instead of renting is that you get to sell your asset later on. If they were merely renting the plane for $1.2 million, that would be rather cheap. But you don't normally rent something that you've already paid for. The rental price is cheaper than the insurance/maintenance but Apple essentially lost $99 million when they gave the plane away. With the cost savings of $6.75 million a year for maintenance/insurance, they will have to rent the plane for almost 15 years to make up for the $99 million they lost when they gave the plane away.
Think about it, would you buy a house then give it to someone so you can rent it back from them? Even if the rental price is cheaper than the upkeep of the house, you no longer own the house!Re:It makes sense to me.... (Score:5, Insightful)
then, as part of the plan, they rent it from jobs, to compensate him in ways other than salary. the cool part is that the people renting the plane pay for the upkeep. Jobs is making quite a good killing on that plane, and i say he deserves it. he pays taxes on the rental money, and since it is regular income, he's not doing anything shady by doing this.
and the whole point of buying instead of renting is that it is cheaper in the long run, not so you can sell the thing later. not everything is an investment property.
Re:It makes sense to me.... (Score:1)
I just think Apple should just be upfront. Why not pay Jobs the $1.2 million as a salary and handle the plane like a normal company asset? It makes it look like the deal is shady, especially when Jobs' salary gets reported as $1.
Re:It makes sense to me.... (Score:1)
And, as another piss-poor analogy, let's say that the school gives me a laptop. I can do with the laptop as I please. Now, say, they want the laptop back and they're willing to rent it from me. If I let them rent it for, say, $30 per week, then that's money in my pocket, plus I can do what I want with it. If I just give them the laptop and they give me $30 a week in the form of an addition to my paycheck (lifeguard at pool), then it's just not the same. I just lost a laptop, plus $30 a week isn't going to be enough to buy a new laptop until a year after they start paying me.
Also, by giving Jobs the plane, now Jobs has to insure it, maintain it, and report it on his taxes. Instead of Apple. Pretty slick, eh?
Re:It makes sense to me.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It makes sense to me.... (Score:2, Insightful)
It makes MORE sense to me (Score:4, Insightful)
Lets compare Apple to eBay:
Apple - a world wide company with offices, manufacturers, suppliers, and facilities scattered through out the world.
eBay - A company built from a script a guy wrote to sell Pez dispensers, ie a building with a bunch of servers and programmers.
What advantage does a Lear jet offer to eBay? How often is Meg Whitman traveling to 3 different foreign countries in the same day?
I'm sorry I just can't picture a jet being useful to eBay (so its just a toy), whereas I can picture Apple sending a team of people to check up on operations at several different facilities scattered around the globe.
Basically I'm just jealous, cause I want a jet too dammit!
Re:It makes MORE sense to me (Score:2)
Let me tell you, that last time the server went tits up in Chicago and they flew my ass up there to fix it in the Lear has ruined commercial flying for me forever. An hour and ten minutes - street to street - from Atlanta to Chicago by yourself in the plush environs of a Learjet is the ONLY way to fly. Granted we usually only get to use it if the boss is heading to the same place, but in emergencies it can be a huge money saver.
What a perk! (Score:3, Funny)
"Gosh, Boss, I have no idea why the servers in LA are down. Even rebooting doesn't seem to fix it. I guess I'll have to be flown out there - such a shame since it's 75 and sunny over there and we're buried in snow here."
$ cat
if (LA.server == true)
{
if (CH.temperature < 15 || CH.expectedSnowFall > 10)
{
shutdown -halt now
}
}
Well, what goes around... (Score:5, Insightful)
blakespot
Re:Well, what goes around... (Score:2)
blakespot
Re:Well, what goes around... (Score:1)
Re:Well, what goes around... (Score:2)
Re:Well, what goes around... (Score:2)
Stock holders are like that... I have infinitely more faith in privately owned companies, because stockholders would sell their own mother if you could convince them they would get a dime back, eventually.
you don't say... (Score:1, Funny)
goddammit.
Re:you don't say... (Score:1)
Oh, and this just in, the New York Times (unofficial slogan: yadda yadda yadda) is reporting that life is inherently unfair. Film at 11.
(Actually, I kinda doubt the NYT would report that, though The Washington Times might.)
Not to be crass... (Score:3, Interesting)
So long as Apple would have otherwise rented a jet and Jobs pays taxes, fine. The airplane was originally reported as compensation (right?). If I were to question anything, it would be giving him the plane in the first place, although execs can negotiate pretty freely [fortune.com] (the new post-Enron law did ban the multimillion dollar "loan" trick). Jets are often enough used for abuses on the company's tab -- golf "business" trips and the like -- as a way to provide disguised compensation and evade taxation.
Executive compensation gets pretty unbelievable. On the other hand, and unlike typical executives, without Jobs this mutlibillion dollar company would be dead, close to dead, or bought out. (Remember when Michael Dell said if he owned Apple he'd liquidate it to try to give shareholder something back?) Hmm, maybe not a bad quid pro quo.
Fortune Magazine does a nice business in tallying obscenity, check out year 2000 [fortune.com].
Um (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Um (Score:2)
(Just kidding. I agree with everything said in the parent post except the peppering of obscenities for no apparent reason.)
Re:A screw-up, never the less... (Score:2)
Re:Um (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Um (Score:1)
speaking of, Apple Centre Maastricht, NL is open! w00t!
Who cares? (Score:4, Insightful)
- John
Apple annual report (Score:5, Informative)
the 1$ is just the standard minimum for a contract. do you suppose he gets health benefits worth more than $1 too. i'd say so.
the thing with steve is that he loves running apple and it shows. that's why I did not worry about voting stock options for him. I did not have the sense he was going to pull an enron, goose the stock price and bail. On the other hand I was a bit nervous about the rest of the board. What made me less owrried was that some of the principles ate the time was larry ellison and the head of genetech. These people are also into their own bussinesses in the same way steve is into his. So i felt reassured.
maybe i'm wrong basing investment decisions on personality, but its the only stock I own I have not lost money on in the past several years.
But the tone of this post, that the $1 salary is a hypocritical lie just does not past the reality test. only a naive dupe would think that was his only compensation.
Re:Apple annual report (Score:2, Interesting)
No, you're not wrong. Character counts; it's not everything, but it compensates for a lot. People deny it, and a lot of popular opinion is against the idea. However, the longer I live, the more I see that character counts.
Re:Apple annual report (Score:1, Informative)
He earned it (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple brought in a number of people to try to fix the company, and Amelio nearly ran it into the ground. Scores of analysts had given Apple up for dead. Jesse Berst of Ziff Davis even moronically suggested that Apple should shut down its R&D labs and give the money to start ups. Then Jobs returned, made strong decisions, and today Apple is a different company.
So, I'd say that Jobs earned his money. He is one of the few "rock star" CEOs that has earned the money he made. It's a lot harder to fix a terminally broken company than it is to keep one going.
I would say that the business world is certainly a "what have you done lately". 1997 is receding fast, and Jobs is going to have to continue to lead Apple towards success to be worth that kind of compensation. Now that Apple is healthy, the next benchmark is increased market share. Dell has shown in its quarterly earnings that a company can do well in this economic downturn. It's time for Apple to do the same.
Geez! (Score:4, Informative)
Steve had originally agreed, AFAIK, to work for $1 a year (+ benefits that all other employees get) until Apple got turned around. It's turned, so stop whining already.
[Disclosure: yeah, I still work there.]
check the facts, looks are sometimes deceiving (Score:1, Informative)
and BusinessWeek ranked Apple's as one of the ten worst Boards of Directors [businessweek.com] due to: "...Founder Steve Jobs owns just two shares in the company. Recently departed director Larry Ellison had none and had missed more than 25% of meetings in the past five years. The CEO of Micro Warehouse, which accounted for nearly 2.9% of Apple's net sales in 2001, sits on the compensation committee. Since 2000, the board has awarded Jobs 27.5 million stock options and a $90 million jet. There is an interlocking directorship--with Gap CEO Mickey Drexler and Jobs sitting on each other's boards..." (a repeat post)
Wait let me get this straight (Score:3, Interesting)
Hate to Sound Like a Clinton Basher (Score:3, Interesting)
Because billionaires care about $1.2m (Score:5, Informative)
What's the big deal? (Score:1, Insightful)
If he owns the jet, no matter how he got it, he is entitled to be compensated for any business use of it.
The big deal is...? (Score:3, Interesting)
You mean the jet that costs Jobs money to maintain and use? You bet your ass he rents it to them, and why shouldn't he? Why should Jobs foot the bill for the use of his property? I realize that it seems odd that a CEO would rent his jet to the company he runs, but this is no Enron. Let's keep the overreacting to a minimum, shall we?
There are some things... (Score:2, Funny)
- Gulfstream V jet: $30m
- Tricked-out XServe: $8248
- 12" Al-Book $1299
Getting the company that bought you the jet to rent it from you: priceless.There are some things money can't buy. For everything else, there's Steve Jobs [apple.com].
Well.. (Score:2)
Just kidding Woz. Love ya work
Blah. What bothers me... (Score:1)
What bothers me is this hoopla about how he makes only $1 a year. Basically, he's making such a big deal out of being an almost-unpaid CEO that it makes him look like a politician who yelling and screaming about being honest - it has sorta the oppisite effect, you suspect that something's up.
It makes it look as if he thinks it would look unseemly if he were taking in lots of money. Almost as if he's going overboard trying to look like a saint. Well, he's not - he's their CEO, and there's nothing dirty about getting rewarded for his services. I wish they would just pay this guy upfront.
Gil Amelio did the same thing (Score:2)
This is very common (Score:1)
There are like 8 gazillion ways to avoid taxes via corporate uses - getting paid salary $1 means no tax on his salary and then he can live off of company perks that he would otherwise have to pay for were he doing it out of pocket.
Then again, the last one I heard of doing something like this was when Enron had that dude... don't recall his name - they bought him a house, then sold it to him for cheap, and then bought it back off of him.
They are all accountings ways out of company policies of the size of bonuses, as well as legal tax loopholes.
the main issue with them is that they cause us "normal folk" to look more closely at it and then it can expose other things that they might be doing that are... less legal.