Stockholders: How are you voting?
Just got my proxy this week.
Anybody out there writing any exceptions in the Directors' vote?
How about the proposals, any thoughts there?
#2
approve an ammendment to the ESP to increase common stock shares by 4,000,000 units
#3
roll the 97 plan into the 98 plan, a plan for ALL employees (anybody catch the part where Steven P. Jobs cancelled the 27.5 million options he had as CEO?)
#4
keep KPMG LLP as auditors
#5
consider the shareholder proposal to begin expensing the Company's stock options from here on out (Apple's squirming on this one)...still not sure how I feel about this one
#6
"to transact such other business as may properly come before the meeting and any postponement(s) or adjournment(s) thereof"
WHAT DOES #6 MEAN?
I've never seen this on any of my proxy statments before....weird.
Anybody out there writing any exceptions in the Directors' vote?
How about the proposals, any thoughts there?
#2
approve an ammendment to the ESP to increase common stock shares by 4,000,000 units
#3
roll the 97 plan into the 98 plan, a plan for ALL employees (anybody catch the part where Steven P. Jobs cancelled the 27.5 million options he had as CEO?)
#4
keep KPMG LLP as auditors
#5
consider the shareholder proposal to begin expensing the Company's stock options from here on out (Apple's squirming on this one)...still not sure how I feel about this one
#6
"to transact such other business as may properly come before the meeting and any postponement(s) or adjournment(s) thereof"
WHAT DOES #6 MEAN?
I've never seen this on any of my proxy statments before....weird.
Comments
I voted against Al Gore. Republicrats rub me the wrong way.
I voted for #5. It might be "bad" for the appearance of the balance sheet (not sure), but I'm more pissed off about this whole Steve & options thing.
I voted against #3, because what I think they're trying to do here is strengthen the executives' stock plan at the expense of the employee's. I don't remember the exact logic I used, as I did this a while ago and tossed the info, but there was something suspicious about having both of them come from the same "pool" of grantable options. I think everybody's for granting regular employees some options, but there's been weird executive option granting going on. If they both come from the same pool, then (1) executives could "steal" a lot of the employees' options, and (2) future increases in the amount of grantable options would be easier to pass, since "the employees deserve it" or somesuch.
KPMG, sure, whatever.
I don't remember #2, probably for if it involves employees, against if it was executives.
I think #6 is just regular bookkeeping stuff. I seem to recall seeing it all the time.
Originally posted by Alexander
I voted against Al Gore.
I also voted against Gore. He doesn't add anything to the board. I see his appointment as a political favor of some sort.
I will vote for Gore...I may vote against Drexler, as he helped drive The Gap into the ground.
I will vote for all items, including #5, the expensing of options (against the recommendation of the board). I wish I could use all my votes on that one item. It would be nice to apply some accountability to the way this board of directors handles options.
The item #6 is procedural. Some people vote against it to prevent any business from being transacted without sufficient advance notice. It comes up on a lot of proxy statements.