Does Steve owe Apple shareholders $85 million?

Hmm. Wonder if Graef Crystal typed the original article on a PC or a Mac...?

Sorry. Couldn’t resist the question. (grin)

Crystal's article wrongly assumes that shareholders would not want to reward Jobs. Apple is not a charity, and I don't think anyone expects Jobs to work for free--although he pratically did that when he came back to Apple in 96. It is obvious that the Board wanted to reward Jobs with stock (an ownership stake--not cash). The fact that they exchanged options for restricted stock shows that they reward level was what the board wanted him to have. Shareholders, obviously agreed at that time--and I'm certain they still do. Cryrstal's article is asinine, and a thinly veiled attack on Apple for not paying dividends--which is a separate issue.

How much Michael Spindler and Gil Amelio did earn for almost kill Apple?

The missing link in my previous post is

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2000/jan/19ceocomp.html

reinharden

What the author fails to take into account is that this particular stock grant is the least suspicious of those thus far cited. January 12, 2000, was the low price for the month; however

One, on January 19 (the same date that Apple reported earnings), Apple announced (see ) that Jobs had received the grant the week before. This rather severely limited the possible dates.

And two, had Jobs kept those 10 million shares, they would have turned into 40 million options with an exercise price of $21.80. At the current price of $73.23, those options would be worth over two *BILLION* dollars. Add to that the 7.5 million other options he handed in (which post split would be another 15 million shares with an exercise price of $9.15) and he would have had another 960 million dollars.

So the options he didn't keep would have grossed him *THREE BILLION* dollars.

So, odd though it sounds, I don't begrudge the man trading in his options for restricted stock since, at the moment, it's cost him 2.5 billion.

reinharden

Considering most Mac users and their chronic fudging of numbers for the sake of market share, it comes as no surprise they'd give benefit of the doubt to fuzzy math that might keep Steve in a good light.

The naivety of business-related posts here is practically tragic.

He certainly deserves whatever legal compensation he's earned. However, if that compensation is, in fact, illegal, I can assure you that his forgoing any real salary at Apple won't balance the scales of bilking shareholders in the eyes of the SEC.

I empathize with the Apple faithful in that Mr. Jobs has increased the value of stockholder wealth many times over since his return. But, ill-gotten compensation is what it is….if that’s what it is. I have no problem with creative accounting as long as it’s legal. Unless, we really understand the financial transactions in view of the tax-code, amongst other statutory issues, we shouldn’t jump to anyone’s defense based on our emotions.

The article is pure Tomfoolery and what's with all this Anti Apple banter on TUAW of late. First I read some crap about the Apple cube in NYC offending Muslims
now this suggestion that Steve Jobs ripped off shareholders. What's with all this can we get back to cool Mac apps, tips and tricks, UI enhancements, new Apple/ Mac products and the like.

everything he got, i think is well earned, and cheap at half the price!

i agree with Derrick and bago, Steve's salary is nothing compared to what other CEOs get, so if he DID owe anything (which he doesn't in my view) he would have more than paid it back already in what he has forgone in salary all these years. and bago is very right, steve jobs is a very big part of apple, and if he leaves, the love is doubtful to hang around.