|
Post by aaplsauce on Feb 17, 2022 22:42:05 GMT -8
|
|
chinacat
Moderator
AAPL Long since 2006
Posts: 4,438
|
Post by chinacat on Feb 18, 2022 6:24:01 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by artman1033 on Feb 18, 2022 6:27:17 GMT -8
Funds in Focus Fidelity Cut Back Tech Exposure in Late 2021 Information Technology stocks helped drive the S&P 500 Index higher in 2021, but active manager Fidelity Research & Management reduced stakes in key companies by year end. The S&P 500 Information Technology Sector rose 35% last year, ahead of the broader cap-weighted benchmark’s 28%, and represented a whopping 29% weighting at year end. Given the strong performance, it is understandable that Fidelity took profits in some of its larger positions in the sector. For example, Fidelity ended 2021 with 114 million shares of semiconductor company NVIDIA, 9% fewer than it held at the end of the third quarter, according to Capital IQ data. The asset manager boosted its stake in the first quarter of 2020 by 15% to 141 million shares but had been trimming exposure since then. In mid-November, NVDIA (NVDA 245 ****) posted Oct-Q EPS of $1.17, which was more than double the prior year, and more importantly, the company beat the $1.11 consensus estimate. Sales grew 50%, better than expected, led by an increase of 42% from gaming and 55% in data centers. Despite the recent selling, NVDA remained the top overall position in Fidelity Growth Company (FDGRX 36 ***), ahead of Apple (AAPL 169 ****) and Microsoft (MSFT 291 *****). While the asset manager’s stakes in AAPL and MSFT rose slightly in the fourth quarter (1.4% and 0.5%, respectively), fellow Information Technology constituents Visa (V 225 ****) and Mastercard (MA 374 ****) were not as fortunate. Fidelity slashed its share count in V by 17% and cut MA’s back by 11% in the final three months of 2021. The 35 million shares owned of V was the lowest quarter-end tally ever, with Fidelity’s share count at less than half it was at the end of the first quarter of 2020. In contrast, some energy positions were boosted in the fourth quarter. Fidelity increased its share count in Exxon Mobil (XOM 78 ****) by 14% to 76 million shares, the highest quarter-end level since mid-2008. The share count is also approximately 70% higher than it was two years earlier. XOM ended 2021 as the fourth largest holding in Fidelity Growth & Income Portfolio (FGRIX 52 *****) and contributed to the fund’s significant overweighting of the energy sector, according to our analysis. The asset manager also boosted its exposure to Hess Corporation (HES 94 ****) by 7.3%. The 31 million shares owned of the oil & gas exploration & production company was also the highest on record and rebuilt the position after selling occurred throughout 2020. Though not an energy company, but a consumer discretionary one, Fidelity was also a buyer of Tesla (TSLA 876 ****) in the fourth quarter. The 13% share count increase in the fourth quarter stands in contrast to the selling that occurred in the second half of 2020 and first half of 2021; the share count was fractionally higher in the third quarter of 2021. TSLA ended 2021 as the eighth largest position in FDGRX. Conclusion While Fidelity offers index-based ETFs and mutual funds, the asset manager remains a leading provider of actively managed equity products. These portfolios are far from static and advisors as well as end investors need to understand more than the track record before determining if they are suitable. CFRA’s star rating methodology for mutual funds combines holdings-level analysis as well as a fund’s performance record and costs. research.ameritrade.com/grid/wwws/common/reports/report.asp?YYY600_lzzTHhDYPw3+06LNp1dttO3NrOaJc66x0FX4m6NB4fDZTNSnVrYImXg/T3K/nVis9B5SsZlthyF6FtIrm8p/MqbDG6HC3DFWva4a0QPSUiMPZt0hJY9aZQyPrOVTJInPmrjUCTNTBO4C1Rshd1Hnv7g5DPJSUkLJ&a=
|
|
|
Post by artman1033 on Feb 18, 2022 6:37:35 GMT -8
HORACE keeps it all in perspective!
|
|
4aapl
Moderator
Posts: 3,867
|
Post by 4aapl on Feb 18, 2022 8:43:22 GMT -8
I'm not so big on unions in the US in this day and age, partially due to the crap they have pulled over the years, such as the unions at the ports being against automation or other things that would have helped speed up processing (at the longer term loss of some union employees, though probably workable with just attrition), and the crap we heard of the San Jose Bus System Union, from our neighbor who was getting into the union management. And then there are the teacher unions, keeping some teachers that should have been let go years ago. It just seems much different now, compared to when unions were first started in the US and working conditions at some places were poor, where they really did need to band together to get improvements. Now in most cases it seems to be just to strong-arm the situation to get more pay than comparable jobs elsewhere are paying. But looking at these large stock grants as a one year reward instead of as a 10 year cycle bugs me. While they could choose to grant Tim more shares each year, the award is normally specific about the number of years it vests over. While I might think that ~$20M (annualized award, plus base, plus other awards, plus other perks) is still a ton of money, especially compared to the average or even low end employee, it's not outlandish. Especially compared to other CEOs at top 10 or top 50 companies. Now, if Tim really wanted to make a change, a dent in the tech universe, he could come out and say that he was going after pay structure issues, and he didn't want more than 50x more than the average employee, or 100x more than the lowest full time employee. If an entry level Apple store employee in Georgia gets $18/hr, that would be nearly $40k, though probably more than $50k with benefits (and possibly even up to $60k). At 100x, that could still be $5M/year. This could be like the "giving pledge", pressuring other CEOs to take similar pledges. Maybe CEOs just earn less? Or maybe they share and spread the love, upping salaries or bonuses a bit if the company does exceptionally well. One "problem" of course is that Apple is a strange hybrid of tech and retail, so that skews things. But putting it in terms of "total package" might even wake normal people up to the huge costs of health insurance. There's room for change here, and Tim and Apple are in a great leadership and visible position to do something about it, if they want to.
|
|
chinacat
Moderator
AAPL Long since 2006
Posts: 4,438
|
Post by chinacat on Feb 18, 2022 9:16:45 GMT -8
|
|
mark
fire starter
Posts: 1,632
|
Post by mark on Feb 18, 2022 11:56:10 GMT -8
Now, if Tim really wanted to make a change, a dent in the tech universe, he could come out and say that he was going after pay structure issues, and he didn't want more than 50x more than the average employee, or 100x more than the lowest full time employee. If an entry level Apple store employee in Georgia gets $18/hr, that would be nearly $40k, though probably more than $50k with benefits (and possibly even up to $60k). At 100x, that could still be $5M/year. This could be like the "giving pledge", pressuring other CEOs to take similar pledges. Maybe CEOs just earn less? Or maybe they share and spread the love, upping salaries or bonuses a bit if the company does exceptionally well. This would be ABSOLUTELY terrible for people like us who invest in publicly traded shares of companies. If something like this takes hold in the world, many of the most talented CEOs would simply migrate to large private companies and we wouldn't have access to invest in and share in their success.
|
|
4aapl
Moderator
Posts: 3,867
|
Post by 4aapl on Feb 18, 2022 13:52:08 GMT -8
Now, if Tim really wanted to make a change, a dent in the tech universe, he could come out and say that he was going after pay structure issues, and he didn't want more than 50x more than the average employee, or 100x more than the lowest full time employee. If an entry level Apple store employee in Georgia gets $18/hr, that would be nearly $40k, though probably more than $50k with benefits (and possibly even up to $60k). At 100x, that could still be $5M/year. This could be like the "giving pledge", pressuring other CEOs to take similar pledges. Maybe CEOs just earn less? Or maybe they share and spread the love, upping salaries or bonuses a bit if the company does exceptionally well. This would be ABSOLUTELY terrible for people like us who invest in publicly traded shares of companies. If something like this takes hold in the world, many of the most talented CEOs would simply migrate to large private companies and we wouldn't have access to invest in and share in their success. I'm not so sure. It seems like a CEO could "get by" on 50x the median pay package. Most CEOs aren't making it to Billionaire status on their employment alone. With all of the highest up, it's from starting the company, and having a huge percentage of the shares. Gates, Ellison, Bezos, Zuckerberg, Musk. It wasn't their compensation package that got them there. At some point it is all just play money. That's why the board choose to give Steve a jet. He didn't need more money, but a sizable personal jet, along with the related ongoing costs, could be a nice benefit that he could appreciate. If Tim really needs $20M a year to keep him happy instead of just 5, that's something for him and the board to discuss. I wouldn't want Apple to lose him over money, but I don't think they would. OTOH, if Tim wanted to change tech, more than just changing his individual pay package, I think now could be a good time to strike.
|
|
|
Post by hledgard on Feb 18, 2022 14:03:20 GMT -8
Nice post, 4aapl ! !
|
|
mark
fire starter
Posts: 1,632
|
Post by mark on Feb 18, 2022 14:44:27 GMT -8
This would be ABSOLUTELY terrible for people like us who invest in publicly traded shares of companies. If something like this takes hold in the world, many of the most talented CEOs would simply migrate to large private companies and we wouldn't have access to invest in and share in their success. I'm not so sure. It seems like a CEO could "get by" on 50x the median pay package. Since median pay at most medium to large companies is pretty close, this implies that at 50X, almost all CEOs get paid roughly the same amount. Does that make any sense? Founders don't count in this conversation. Some take $1 in compensation, yet nobody holds them up as paragons of fairness. That's why taking just 50X won't cause the gadflies to stop poking at executive compensation. High-powered people, and most CEOs are just that, don't only do it only for the money. And they don't really "care" that much about the money itself. BUT they *do* use money as their "scorecard", so that's never going to go away. Sure Tim might be one of the exceptions, but like I said, many CEOs would migrate to private companies. It may not happen overnight, but over a few decades, it surely would happen. It's just like how capital migrates to different forms depending on how "onerous" regulations become in certain forms of investments. It's the nature of the beast. By the way, I finally have some bull call spreads in my account. Earlier today, I quickly placed a trade, and it executed immediately. Of course, that means I bid too high, but those are the breaks. I kind of knew I was bidding high because I chose the midpoint of the combined bid-ask, usually I go a bit lower than midpoint, and wait for my price, but this time I was in a hurry I guess. I'll have to keep an eye on the short leg because it is already in the money. But there is still substantial time value in it that only a rank amateur would exercise it.
|
|
crispin
Member
KBJ for the win. AAPL long and strong since 2000
Posts: 325
|
Post by crispin on Feb 18, 2022 16:15:59 GMT -8
This would be ABSOLUTELY terrible for people like us who invest in publicly traded shares of companies. If something like this takes hold in the world, many of the most talented CEOs would simply migrate to large private companies and we wouldn't have access to invest in and share in their success. I'm not so sure. It seems like a CEO could "get by" on 50x the median pay package. Most CEOs aren't making it to Billionaire status on their employment alone. With all of the highest up, it's from starting the company, and having a huge percentage of the shares. Gates, Ellison, Bezos, Zuckerberg, Musk. It wasn't their compensation package that got them there. At some point it is all just play money. That's why the board choose to give Steve a jet. He didn't need more money, but a sizable personal jet, along with the related ongoing costs, could be a nice benefit that he could appreciate. If Tim really needs $20M a year to keep him happy instead of just 5, that's something for him and the board to discuss. I wouldn't want Apple to lose him over money, but I don't think they would. OTOH, if Tim wanted to change tech, more than just changing his individual pay package, I think now could be a good time to strike. I think it'd be brilliant if Tim did something like that. He's got a great opportunity to set an example for other CEOs. And I don't think Apple has anything to fear from unionizing efforts. A happier and more secure workforce is a huge benefit to the company. It's impossible to simply say all unions are good or all unions are bad, as with most things it's much more complicated, but with Tim at the helm I believe this would be a chance to do something great for the employees. As a former member of IATSE in NYC I can say it makes a huge difference when you feel you've got some representation and control.
|
|
mark
fire starter
Posts: 1,632
|
Post by mark on Feb 20, 2022 7:50:54 GMT -8
I'm not so sure. It seems like a CEO could "get by" on 50x the median pay package. Most CEOs aren't making it to Billionaire status on their employment alone. With all of the highest up, it's from starting the company, and having a huge percentage of the shares. Gates, Ellison, Bezos, Zuckerberg, Musk. It wasn't their compensation package that got them there. At some point it is all just play money. That's why the board choose to give Steve a jet. He didn't need more money, but a sizable personal jet, along with the related ongoing costs, could be a nice benefit that he could appreciate. If Tim really needs $20M a year to keep him happy instead of just 5, that's something for him and the board to discuss. I wouldn't want Apple to lose him over money, but I don't think they would. OTOH, if Tim wanted to change tech, more than just changing his individual pay package, I think now could be a good time to strike. I think it'd be brilliant if Tim did something like that. He's got a great opportunity to set an example for other CEOs. And I don't think Apple has anything to fear from unionizing efforts. A happier and more secure workforce is a huge benefit to the company. It's impossible to simply say all unions are good or all unions are bad, as with most things it's much more complicated, but with Tim at the helm I believe this would be a chance to do something great for the employees. As a former member of IATSE in NYC I can say it makes a huge difference when you feel you've got some representation and control. I think it wouldn't make one bit of difference to Tim Cook whether he did this or not. He's the kind of guy not particularly driven by money, and is likely to give it all away anyway. But I am pretty sure that it would be terrible for Apple. Let me explain - Let's say Tim Cook makes this bold move, and says "from now on, my salary will be limited to 100 times Apple employee median, let's say $7.5M/yr. And it takes effect starting in 2023. Two or three years go by, Tim turns 65, and then announces that he is retiring in a year. The company begins to search for his replacement. Meanwhile, over at Tesla, Elon Musk also announces his retirement in a year. So both companies are now looking for a new special CEO. Apple searches, and Tesla searches, but Apple clearly says, "the most you will ever earn here is $7.5M, maybe $8.5M by them". Suddenly a phenom of a CEO presents themself, and both companies would like to hire that person. Tesla is offering $10M base plus options plus bonus plus long-term incentive plus all sorts of goodies. Apple is offering a max of $8.5M all in. What happens at that point? Naturally, Apple wants that person badly, so the board has a meeting and decides to cancel the bylaw limiting CEO compensation. And then Apple gets LAMBASTED in the press and everywhere else for hypocrisy. They will say "you gave your CEO $200+M and only THEN dropped to $7.5M for the last 3 years or so, it was all a ploy for PR!" I say Apple should avoid all this nonsense as it can only end badly.
|
|
Dave
Member
"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." Yogi Berra
Posts: 4,335
|
Post by Dave on Feb 20, 2022 9:57:29 GMT -8
The Executive Pay Cap That BackfiredIf we are going to talk about what would be fair then maybe someone should suggest that if a company CEO refuses to take his/her salary should the employees also work for $0? How long would those employees continue to come to work? Crazy, right?
|
|
|
Post by Lstream on Feb 20, 2022 14:53:23 GMT -8
I think that if people don’t like how much the CEO is getting paid, then they can choose to sell their shares and have nothing to do with that company. Then it is none of their business. I am against any artificial rules on how much a CEO is worth. Especially from government. CEO compensation is the Board’s job. If shareholders have a beef, then they can pursue remedies related to Board composition.
And if you don’t like what you are paid as a retail worker, then do something about it, such as upgrading your skills and education. Don’t expect Apple to be some kind of martyr in redefining retail pay structures.
|
|
4aapl
Moderator
Posts: 3,867
|
Post by 4aapl on Feb 20, 2022 17:10:11 GMT -8
I think it'd be brilliant if Tim did something like that. He's got a great opportunity to set an example for other CEOs. And I don't think Apple has anything to fear from unionizing efforts. A happier and more secure workforce is a huge benefit to the company. It's impossible to simply say all unions are good or all unions are bad, as with most things it's much more complicated, but with Tim at the helm I believe this would be a chance to do something great for the employees. As a former member of IATSE in NYC I can say it makes a huge difference when you feel you've got some representation and control. I think it wouldn't make one bit of difference to Tim Cook whether he did this or not. He's the kind of guy not particularly driven by money, and is likely to give it all away anyway. But I am pretty sure that it would be terrible for Apple. Let me explain - Let's say Tim Cook makes this bold move, and says "from now on, my salary will be limited to 100 times Apple employee median, let's say $7.5M/yr. And it takes effect starting in 2023. Two or three years go by, Tim turns 65, and then announces that he is retiring in a year. The company begins to search for his replacement. Meanwhile, over at Tesla, Elon Musk also announces his retirement in a year. So both companies are now looking for a new special CEO. Apple searches, and Tesla searches, but Apple clearly says, "the most you will ever earn here is $7.5M, maybe $8.5M by them". Suddenly a phenom of a CEO presents themself, and both companies would like to hire that person. Tesla is offering $10M base plus options plus bonus plus long-term incentive plus all sorts of goodies. Apple is offering a max of $8.5M all in. What happens at that point? Naturally, Apple wants that person badly, so the board has a meeting and decides to cancel the bylaw limiting CEO compensation. And then Apple gets LAMBASTED in the press and everywhere else for hypocrisy. They will say "you gave your CEO $200+M and only THEN dropped to $7.5M for the last 3 years or so, it was all a ploy for PR!" I say Apple should avoid all this nonsense as it can only end badly. I see your worry. The way I presented it, this was an opt-in by Tim, just like the giving pledge, and not something set by Apple or followed by Apple. Instead of Tim just being a martyr by taking less pay, if he felt this was something to push in the US, this would be a way for it to get traction, encouraging other CEOs to follow the same mindset. (But maybe the best low-impact way is to just talk with some of their media sources, and remind them that the big stock grant is vested over a long period.) To me this would be a lot better than something pushed from government via taxes. The option often mentioned is "tax the heck out of people making more than x, just because!", which goes a lot wider than CEO pay vs the median employee. The more specific way to do it would be to tax the company directly that is paying their CEO that much more, but that would be more specific than some would like. That wouldn't be a first, with the AMT tax being started due to something like 121 high earning families paying 0 fed taxes (in 1969?). Someone felt they had to go after that, just as others feel they need to go after CEO pay. Maybe it's better to beat them to the punch, instead of ending up with something like the AMT. But there is always something to rile up the masses. Take housing prices, and often blaming them on people moving there. SFGate has an article on this, claiming Spokane prices have gone up 60% in 2 years, though Google searches make it look more like 30-35%. All while US prices in general have gone up 25%. Of course that's not evenly distributed everywhere, but is it really good to get people mad at each other by stretching the figures and not reminding people that prices are up everywhere? And it looks like Spokane's prices are within spitting distance of the median US price. But let's not let facts get in the way of a good controversy. Where have we seen that sort of thing before?
|
|