Steve Jobs has lost $1 billion since Macworld

Owning 5.4 million shares of Apple stock is a mixed blessing. On the one hand, you have a huge fortune. On the other, you can lose $214 million in a week. This is just one of the reasons I have chosen not to own 5.4 million shares of Apple stock.

"Poor" Steve Jobs

Apple's stock has been riding high for nearly a year heading into Macword, and had briefly peaked around $200 a share. On Macworld Eve (January 14th) the stock had a listed price of $178.78, making Steve Jobs' 5.4 million shares of Apple stock worth $965,412,000.

Today, just a week later, the stock is worth $139.07, dropping him down to a modest $750,978,000. This means Steve's net worth is now more or less identical to yours and mine. Factor in Steve's $1 a year salary, and things are looking pretty grim for the Jobs household. A number of factors contributed to the decline, including a somewhat over-inflated stock price to begin with, lackluster product announcements at Macworld, disappointing 2nd quarter sales projections (despite record 1st quarter earnings), and an overall looming recession. Unfortunately, these 4 factors combined to form a profit eating monster J.J. Abrams couldn't have imagined, and it gobbled up $214 million of Job's portfolio. Faithful Macenstein reader and stock wizard extraordinaire dersky estimates it will take Apple 3 years to get back to the $200 mark, although he says he won't be selling his Apple stock any time soon. Apple is and always has been a long-term investment filled with wild highs and lows.

In the meantime, Steve's got a family, and kids gotta eat. Maybe it's time Steve got a raise from that borderline indentured servitude $1 salary Apple grudgingly bestows upon him each year.

[UPDATE: Looks like we may have to pass around the collection plate... Steve may be even more destitute than we initially thought. Faithful Macenstein reader Shackelford points out Jobs owns 5,546,451 shares of Apple, so he really lost about $220 million.]

[UPDATE 2: Fortune is reporting that if you throw in Disney's recent loses, Steve is down a cool $1 billion since Christmas. ]

News source: Macenstein

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

China to lead world technology

Next Story

Microsoft releases Windows Vista SP1 RC Refresh 2

36 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

I think it was the RIAA that would get him for that. I'm sure in some twisted way if Jobs lost money the RIAA would somehow blame him for their losses as well.

Remember that as a CEO, he couldn't have sold them even if he wanted to without reporting his transactions to the FCC. Selling massive amounts of stock based on information that the public doesn't have is insider trading. Period.

So when you work for the company you have stock in, all investments are long term, not short term. There is no gaming the system for short term profits for yourself. Imagine if CEOs were trying to make money just for themselves instead of OTHER shareholders. Do you know how much trouble Jobs would be in (making money while all the other investors lost it?).

(dagamer34 said @ #20)
Remember that as a CEO, he couldn't have sold them even if he wanted to without reporting his transactions to the FCC. Selling massive amounts of stock based on information that the public doesn't have is insider trading. Period.

So when you work for the company you have stock in, all investments are long term, not short term. There is no gaming the system for short term profits for yourself. Imagine if CEOs were trying to make money just for themselves instead of OTHER shareholders. Do you know how much trouble Jobs would be in (making money while all the other investors lost it?).

I don't think the Federal Communications Commission would care about Job's selling his stock... I think you mean the SEC... Securities and exchange comission

(neufuse said @ #20.1)

I don't think the Federal Communications Commission would care about Job's selling his stock... I think you mean the SEC... Securities and exchange comission

Maybe he ment the FAA.

I am surprised by the lack of BASIC arithmetics here...5 546 451 shares x 178.78=991,594,509.78. This was his "wealth" in the beginning. After the share price drop he still had 5 546 451 shares, but now we should multiply by their new price - 139.07 and that equals = 771,344,940.57. In other words his "loss" is 991,594,509.78 - 771,344,940.57=220,249,569.21. But when i say loss, this is not a cash-out from his pocket. the guys' net worth only from Apple is still the second amount = 771,344,940.57.


Oh good greif... do we need to post this nonsense? Can't people see the fact the ENTIRE STOCK MARKET has dropped SIGNIFICANTLY! since then?

About the whole "even if shares drop to 1$" thing, if the shares drop to 1$ to get that money Jobs has to sell the shares doesn't he? Who the hell is gonna buy up the shares for 1$ a piece because if they ever get that low it means Apple tanked and no one would be willing to invest.

Spenser has a point: If the guy owns over 5 million shares then Apple could nearly die out (Go to $1 per share) and he'd still be filthy rich.

No one is going to have a cry for Steve's teeny tiny little loss except for Stevie himself.

And did everyone forget, Steve is also one of the largest Disney shareholders? He could always cash out of that, buy some Hawaiian islands (Sorry, I mean iSland) , and live comfortably.

Now, let him get back to his "thinnovation".

I bought a thousand AAPL shares at 76/share. Suffice it to say, I was far more pleased three weeks ago than I am now.
I'm hoping for a speedy rebound....

What recession?


Stock markets take a small dive and recovers, there still are no indicators that we are in recession and most of the fears of going into one are as usual overblown, especially since it's an Election year and Politicians LOVE to blow stuff out of proportion

stunt performer, I think this is a complete load of BS to get people to invest in him, like with his $1 stunt. If he only made $1 a year, he would die from starvation but no he has a bloody huge mansion and manages to survive fine

I have absolutely no clue about economy, but apparently if your stocks go down, it can mean that you invested A LOT of money, or that they diluted it a little more., but it can be worth the same thing.
Anyway, economy is not my passion and I couldn't care less about this stuff.

Dollars dont have gold behind them anyway, do they? Or so I understand. He probably knows this :P

His losses are prolly not too big of a deal to him. Still, 1 Billion Dollars sounds a LOT.

Which is exactly the point I made in the "$1 salary" FPN item. :)

I think that all executives should feast or famine based on their company's stock performace!

Are you kidding? He's still got $751M worth of stock. Even if his stock dropped to $1, he's still be able to have more money than a lot of people will see in their lifetime.

Your idea is good, but it fails when the guy owns 5 million shares of his own stock.

-Spenser

Who peed in your Cheerios this morning?

Compare the "only stock as salary" CEO compensation method to the more traditional "huge salary plus stock and stock purchase options".

I know which one makes more sense. The one that ties a CEOs value directly to the stock performance, instead of allowing them to double-dip the money.

(markjensen said @ #3)
Which is exactly the point I made in the "$1 salary" FPN item. :)

I think that all executives should feast or famine based on their company's stock performace!

you would be right, if (notice the if) jobs didn't make his money using stock options (which has nothing to do with the stock value and is just a cheap way to avoid taxes)

XerXis, surely you know what a "stock option" is. And, as an option to buy at the past price, it is worthless if the stock goes down, and is only valuable if the stock goes up.

So, you see, it does have 'something' to do with the stock value, after all.

(markjensen said @ #3.2)
Who peed in your Cheerios this morning?

Compare the "only stock as salary" CEO compensation method to the more traditional "huge salary plus stock and stock purchase options".

I know which one makes more sense. The one that ties a CEOs value directly to the stock performance, instead of allowing them to double-dip the money.

Same guy that peed in yours.

I wasn't trying to sound like an ass, I was just stating what I thought about it and you pretty much ignored all of it. I'm just saying that when the CEO owns so much stock that his company's stock value could be nearing rock bottom and he'd still be a multi-millionaire, your plan stops making much sense.

You also have to keep in mind that Jobs is compensated in quite a few other ways for not having a salary besides getting his own stock.

-Spenser

(stifler6478 said @ #3.5)
I wasn't trying to sound like an ass
You did, without trying. I was quite surprised at the acerbic tone of your post.

This subject doesn't bother me, so I don't get wound up or upset about it. I guess because I don't buy Apple stock or computers (did have an old G3 400MHz donated to my kid from a neighbor, though).

And I ignored the rest of your post? Oh yeah. He's wealthy. Hardly a surprise for someone who was instrumental in creating Apple (along with Woz) from a garage to what it is today. Same reason that Gates has earned his wealth, no? I don't begrudge either of them their monies.

(markjensen said @ #3.6)
[Same reason that Gates has earned his wealth, no? I don't begrudge either of them their monies.

Speaking of Billy-Boy, he has lost over $2.5 Billion in the last month. That's like $10 to you or me.

(stifler6478 said @ #3.1)
Are you kidding? He's still got $751M worth of stock. Even if his stock dropped to $1, he's still be able to have more money than a lot of people will see in their lifetime.

Your idea is good, but it fails when the guy owns 5 million shares of his own stock.

-Spenser

No it doesn't. Your logic is stupid.

"Well hey Bob Smith, CEO of Dildo Co. already is a billionaire! What does it matter if he is paid $1 a year salary, he's rich anyway."

What does pre-existing wealth have to do with a persons salary?

[bear
said,#2]So did everyone else in the market. Whats the point of this story? You sound like a fanboy.

So did everyone else that had shares. It wouldn't be a big deal if it wasn't for the fact hat Jobs takes $1 a year for his salary, meaning that his worth is a direct representation of how Apple is performing.

Simple. Elegant. LOL :-)

Good luck with that one Steve, at the start of a recession.. Apple is going to be hit hard with thir psudo-luxury products. Quite why they launched, of all things, the Mac Book Air now, is beyond me.

(I guess, though, that it's relatively cheap to make, and a test-bed for trackpad/LED/'eco friendly' stuff more than a model to triumph initself, but that's another story!)