That is the value of the annual pay package Mr. Cook was awarded when he was named Apple chief executive last August, about two months before Mr. Jobs died. Nearly all of the compensation stems from a grant of one million shares of restricted stock, valued at $376.2 million, based on Apple’s stock price at the time.

Mr. Cook’s 2011 compensation is the highest recorded in The Wall Street Journal’s annual CEO pay survey since at least 2006, when the Securities and Exchange Commission changed its rules for reporting executive pay.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

According to Apple’s 2012 Proxy Statement, Cook received a jaw-dropping $377,996,537 in total compensation last year — which is $377,996,536 more than his late predecessor made.

Cook made a little more than $900,000 in salary in 2011, but a massive bonus in restricted stock units, vesting in two five-year increments and doled out with his appointment to the CEO slot, sent his total compensation into the stratosphere.

Of course this isn’t the first time Apple has showered a CEO in stock options. A similar scenario played out in 2006, when Steve Jobs received $646.6 million, much of it in stock.

• A base salary of $1 per year. In doing so she’s following the example of another well-known CEO who just stepped down from his job: Former Apple CEO and now Chairman Steve Jobs.
• An option to purchase 1.9 million shares of HP under its 2004 stock incentive plan. The exercise price would be equal to the market value of the share price on the grant date. The options will vest over eight years, but are considered fully vested only if HP’s share price rises by 40 percent or more. As of today that number of shares is worth $45.2 million.
• 100,000 of those shares will vest on each of the first three anniversaries of Whitman’s anniversary of service, provided she’s still on the job.
• An additional 800,000 of those 1.9 million shares will vest after one year, provided HP’s share price has risen by 120 percent and stayed that high for at least 20 days.
• Yet another 800,000 of those shares vest on the second anniversary of her date of service, provided the share price is up 140 percent or better for 20 consecutive days.
• Whitman will also get the same annual cash bonus of $2.4 million each year, with a maximum equal to 2.5 times the target of HP’s existing incentive plan, which is tied to cash flow performance.
• If she’s fired, she receives a severance benefit payment equal to 1.5 times the sum of her annual base salary — a whole $1.50 — plus the average of her bonuses paid during the preceding three years.

Potentially, he could walk away with a lot. His contract, on file with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, grants him a series of cash payments, company shares and other things, some of which he’ll keep, some of which he won’t.

First off is the cash: Apotheker’s base salary was $1.2 million a year and according to my reading of his contract, he’ll be eligible for a severance plan that will pay him that salary for 18 months after termination.

He also received a $4 million cash signing bonus for joining HP. But depending on when and how he’s fired — with or without cause — he may have to give some of it back. The contract says that if he’s terminated within 18 months he has to return some of that signing bonus, specifically: “an amount equal to the Signing Bonus multiplied by a fraction with the numerator equaling 18 less the number of whole months that have elapsed from the Effective Date to the date of Executive’s termination of employment (the “Date of Termination”) and a denominator equal to eighteen (18).” I’m not going to do that math for you because I don’t get what the contract aims to say. Given that it’s been less than 12 months since he joined HP, let’s just assume he’ll be required to return most about 40 percent of it.

He’s also entitled to an incentive bonus that amounts to between 200 percent and 500 percent of his annual salary, based on HP’s existing incentive plan. The incentive plan isn’t spelled out in the contract, but since these plans are usually tied to stock performance I can’t imagine what payment he’d be entitled to under it. The contract stipulates that he gets at least some of it. More on that below.

Apotheker has also accumulated a fair amount of HP stock. He was granted 76,000 shares of HP stock, half of which vested on Oct. 31, 2010. The next day, HP shares closed at $42.49 a share, making the grant worth $1.6 million. Another grant of 38,000 shares is due to vest on Oct. 31 of this year. This block is worth a lot less: $889,000 as of the price of HP shares at the moment.

There were also one-time grants that were essentially a signing bonus package: 80,000 non-forfeitable shares, half of which are due to vest on Oct. 31, 2011, and the other half due to vest on Oct. 31, 2012. If terminated without cause within three years, these shares become fully vested. That’s another $1.9 million worth of HP shares. However, if terminated “with cause” then all the unvested equity goes poof and isn’t considered vested. This will make the “with cause” and “without cause” portion of the discussion with the board important.

Apotheker also got a lot of cash in relocation benefits, and was said to have purchased a six-bedroom house in Atherton, Calif., for $7 million. His relocation allowance amounted to $4.6 million, of which $2.9 million was to be devoted to the actual, uh, relocation, and $1.7 million of which was to compensate him for the forfeiture of payments and benefits he lost upon leaving his old job at SAP. This payment was fully vested right away and is not subject to repayment.

Update: Many thanks to reader Yogi who in the comments below appears to have done all the math much better than I could. His findings:

• $8.6 million: signing ($4 million) and relocation ($4.6 million) bonus.
• $3.6 million earned for one year of service (base $1.2 million + $2.4 million minimum bonus minimum according to contract).
• 156,000 shares of HP works out to about $3.8 million based on today’s price. Remember that all stock grants vest upon termination.
• $4.8 million severance payment: 2x the base salary plus minimum 2x bonus. This would be paid over 18 months and would stop if he gets a job with a competitor.
• 728,000 PRUs: This one is flexible, and is based on performance of the company, but automatically assuming cash flow has been achieved. Since PRUs are used as incentive for all HP management, Apotheker’s estimated achievement will be the same as for everyone else. Even at 50 percent, this would be worth about $9 million (364,000 shares), and at 75 percent it would be worth $13.5 million.

The range works out to be in the neighborhood of $28 million to $33 million.

See the clear-as-mud contract below.

apothekercontract

In the end — the bitter end, that is — there really is no good time to fire someone.

But the timing of the ouster of Carol Bartz as CEO of Yahoo is one of the more curious things about the corporate mishegas at the Silicon Valley Internet giant of late.

That included drastically moving up the clock on Bartz, which was not part of a plan until recently. In fact, several sources were told only last month by Yahoo board members that evaluation of her status — her contract ended at the beginning of 2013 — would not take place until the end of 2011.

That obviously changed.

And, because it is Yahoo — which never met a crisis situation it could not hopelessly complexify — there are numerous and conflicting accounts about the reasons it was done so quickly and abruptly.

They include the board’s feeling that Bartz had not responded to their requests for a credible strategic plan; worries that she would not ever meet annual performance goals, including improving its stock price; upcoming weak third-quarter numbers, which will continue a troublesome downward trend in Yahoo’s key advertising business; and, perhaps most intriguingly, the need to make a move before it was revealed that another activist investor, this time Third Point’s Daniel Loeb, had decided to target Bartz and the Yahoo board.

One thing is certain: The firing of Bartz was messier than it needed to be, mostly because several sources said she was caught unawares.

“She did not know it was happening, even if she probably should have seen it coming,” said one person familiar with the situation. “And she had no allies at the company to warn her, either.”

Indeed, at the time Bartz was fired over the phone by Chairman Roy Bostock — who had until late this summer been her fervent supporter — she was set to appear at a high-profile Citigroup investor conference in New York.

“It had to happen then, because you can’t put a CEO in front of investors and analysts and then fire her soon after,” said one person close to the situation.

Actually, former Yahoo CEO Terry Semel stepped down only days after appearing at the company’s annual meeting and telling the gathering he was in for the long haul.

The Loeb problem also played a part. According to several sources, while Loeb did not surface until after Bartz’s firing, several directors and Silicon Valley players were aware of his plans to target Yahoo.

While Loeb was not the more heavyweight threat that activist investor Carl Icahn had been in the past, sources said he was planning to call for Bartz’s firing, as well as a board re-do.

The large part of the reason for letting her go finally, of course, centered on not meeting performance goals set by the board.

While the overhaul of a hairball of systems and a rejiggering of staff was quickly done by the longtime and experienced manager, the turnaround and renewed product innovation promised by Bartz was slow in coming.

In addition, advertising sales results had worsened and recent quarterly reports showed little progress.

To remedy the situation, directors had asked Bartz to present a strategic plan earlier this year, which she did with the help of top execs. It further underscored the idea of Yahoo as a top-level digital media company.

But the board pressed for more details and felt Bartz was not the right exec to carry out the kind of dramatic renewal of Yahoo that is needed.

Looming, too, was the third-quarter earnings results on October 18, which sources said will show continued weakness at Yahoo.

For that, it’s likely the fired Bartz will get the blame, giving the board — which is also being criticized by large shareholders and others — a bit of breathing room as it figures out what to do next.

In other words, with no good news to report, the Yahoo board decided to deliver some bad news to Bartz.

(In related news, according to an 8-K filing by the company, interim Yahoo CEO and also CFO Tim Morse got a small bump in base salary from $600,000 to $750,000, effective September 15, 2011.)

And here is a video I did on WSJ.com’s Digits show yesterday about the buyer interest in Yahoo I previously wrote about, as well as its weak board:

A survey found that although independent developers make far less money than salaried employees, they felt the industry was more innovative than ever, calling 2010 “the year of the indie.”

Electronic Arts echoed those sentiments yesterday after it announced that it had acquired Firemint, a 60-employee game studio in Australia known for its blockbuster iPhone hit Flight Control.

EA Interactive’s EVP and GM Barry Cottle said the videogame industry will continue to see a flurry of smaller mobile and social acquisitions as larger studios see the value in picking up small, creative teams of developers. “We are always on the lookout.”

The survey’s results and EA’s perspective contradict what Nintendo said earlier this year during its keynote at GDC, the annual game developers conference. Nintendo’s President Satoru Iwata warned that there will be consequences to developing free or very low cost titles.

“The majority of people here are creating games for social and mobile. I fear our business is dividing, and that threatens the employment for those of us who make games for a living,” he said.

If Satoru was addressing the indie developers in the crowd, it’s true that they make less money. However, it’s also these developers who are the most optimistic–and represent potential acquisitions for more established game makers.

With the rise of open platforms, like social networks and mobile, developers can make original games on very small budgets that can reach millions of consumers through these channels. Likewise, new business models that allow consumers to play games for free have spurred adoption among those who were never willing to invest in an Xbox, Wii or PlayStation.

Game Developer magazine, which released results of its 10th annual salary survey, found that salaries of all types of developers increased over the year-ago period.

Developers working on console, emerging social and online titles saw a 7 percent salary increase in 2010 over 2009, reaching $80,817. Meanwhile, independent contractors earned an average of $55,493.

At the bottom of the ladder were self-identified “independents,” trailing with a $26,780 average. However, those indies also saw a nice salary boost, earning some $6,000 more compared to the year earlier.

Furthermore, the study said that while salaried game developers earned vastly greater average income, they had a bleaker outlook on the industry. Anecdotally, the survey’s respondents said that working in the traditional structure is “frustrating,” lamenting that larger studios are “trimming talent” and crunching harder.

Photo Credit: Roberta W.B.

Schmidt, who once earned just $1 a year as CEO is now drawing a base salary of $1.25 million with a potential $6 million annual bonus, according to a securities filing on Tuesday.

A nice raise for Schmidt, who stepped into his new role on April 4–not that he’ll even notice it. He currently owns some 9 million shares of Google, with a market value of about $4.8 billion.

Mr. Elop, recruited from Microsoft Corp. to revive the ailing handset maker’s fortunes, received a payment of €2.3 million ($3.17 million) in October and is entitled to a payment of $3 million in October 2011, according to a Nokia filing at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

He also received €509,744 to reimburse fees paid to Microsoft and €312,203 in legal expenses.
Mr. Elop’s annual base salary is €1.05 million before bonuses, below the €1.23 million base salary of his predecessor, Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo.

Rea the rest of this post on the original site

In 2010 CEO Steve Jobs retained his $1 annual salary and some 5.5 million shares of Apple stock as well. “Since rejoining the company in 1997, Mr. Jobs has not sold any of his shares of the Company’s stock,” the filing reads. “Mr. Jobs holds no unvested equity awards. The Company recognizes that Mr. Jobs’s level of stock ownership significantly aligns his interests with shareholders’ interests.”

COO Tim Cook earned $59.1 million for the fiscal year, thanks to a $5 million bonus and $52.3 million in stock awards. Quite a spike from the $1.64 million he earned in 2009, but well-deserved given his performance, particularly when he filled in for Jobs during his medical leave of absence.

Included in the proxy statement is a shareholder proposal asking Apple to adopt a CEO-succession-planning policy and appended beneath it is a strongly worded statement from the company opposing it. “The Company recognizes that a highly talented and experienced management team, not just the CEO, is critical to Apple’s success,” it reads. “Accordingly, the Board already implements many of the proposed actions and maintains a comprehensive succession plan throughout the organization. While the Board strongly supports the concept of succession planning, it recommends a vote against [the proposal].”

Why?

Evidently, the board feels a written succession plan would give Apple’s rivals unfair advantage by publicizing its objectives and plans. It also fears that identifying potential successors to Jobs would invite other companies to recruit those people away from Apple. Finally, the board feels that its directors and Apple’s leadership can handle succession planning on their own. “The Company takes succession planning seriously, and the board has adopted a comprehensive process to ensure continuity and maintain the superior quality of its management team,” Apple said in the filing. “This process also allows flexibility to adjust to unanticipated changes in the market.”

Plus, Steve doesn’t like talking about it.

During HP’s earnings call on Monday, Apotheker announced that the company was reversing pay cuts for a majority of the employees affected by a February 2009 salary-reduction plan under former CEO Mark Hurd.

HP also reinstated a company 401(k) plan matching contributions as a fixed benefit, and instituted a new share-ownership plan that would allow employees to buy company shares at a five percent discount.

“HP employees are a highly competitive group who want to win,” Apotheker said on a call with analysts. “They also want to be rewarded for their performance….I believe in the performance-driven culture, and our employees have been performing.”

The moves appear aimed at lifting the morale of a company that’s been reeling from yet another turbulent leadership transition, and helping Apotheker feel more welcome at the iconic Silicon Valley company once admired for its employee-friendly culture.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

Yahoo’s CEO Carol Bartz has been under pressure of late, due to everything from executive turmoil to flat revenue to lack of vision to, perhaps most importantly, a flaccid stock price.

And, as of yesterday, you can add excessive pay to the pile.

That’s because Bartz just topped the list of 25 overpaid CEOs, which is done annually by proxy adviser Glass, Lewis & Co.

A dubious distinction, to say the least.

The San Francisco-based firm pointed to the $39 million Bartz garnered last year from Yahoo (YHOO), which–to be fair–includes both salary and options she has not yet sold.

Still, the huge sum also recently put her atop Fortune magazine’s list of highest-paid women.

Glass Lewis, of course, was using Yahoo’s top exec to make a point:

“Bartz represents a problem we find at many other firms with poor pay-for-performance grades: excessive compensation awarded to executives to encourage them to join or remain with a company.”

Indeed, this big number–however loaded with options based on some level of performance–is one that is sure to draw shareholder ire, due to the fact that the well-paid Bartz is simply not delivering what had been hoped for when she was brought on to shake up Yahoo.

It will be interesting to see if the board of Yahoo–hands down the weakest and most mistake-prone in Silicon Valley–will act in the same way the Microsoft (MSFT) board did with CEO Steve Ballmer.

Although a small thing, especially given how wealthy Ballmer is, the company pointed to the ill-fated venture that was the Kin phone and the slow response to the Apple (AAPL) iPad juggernaut, when giving him only half his maximum bonus recently.

This was despite record revenues at Microsoft, yet still a tiny but encouraging sign that the board has the courage to say: Not good enough.

Will Yahoo’s mousy board members manage to squeak out any such message to Bartz in the months ahead?

Having seen them in action for many years of stumbles now, which has been like watching someone throw himself continually down a flight of stairs, here’s my educated guess: No.