Apple directors must now win a majority vote before appointment to board

2»

Comments

  • dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 11,555member, moderator


    After all is said and done...



    The last month has been pretty good for AAPL shareholders!
  • wubbuswubbus Posts: 70member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by CGJ View Post


    Oh dear. I really, really hate it when shareholders think they should run the company. Apple has a strong BoD who know what is best for the company. I'm pretty sure Levinson, Cook and the rest of the board/executive understand the company better than ANY investor who wants control over Apple. Next they'll demand dividend, Cook needs to assert his authority. I'm all in for the Apple Board to threaten company shutdown if shareholders decide they are going to start defying them. Time to start using practical vetoes.



    I had to join this forum just to reply to this. Let's not forget that shareholders actually own the company. The net assets belong to those shareholders who bear the downside risk and the upside potential. Any board or management team that does not respect or reflect the interests of shareholders (and I'm not saying this applies to Apple) should be dismissed on the spot.
  • gtrgtr Posts: 3,179member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    The 'snigger' sort of threw me off. I'd share a REAL hatred if we had a bunch of "FIRST!"-ers here.



    Yes, I suppose a <snigger> is too synonymous with being evil these days.



    And not 'evil in a small way'. We're talking Google evil here.



    I'll be sure to use a lot more in the future.



    ...................................

    ...................................

    ...........................

    ..................................

    ...................................

    ............................

    ...........................

    ........................

    ..................................
  • gtrgtr Posts: 3,179member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wubbus View Post


    I had to join this forum just to reply to this. Let's not forget that shareholders actually own the company. The net assets belong to those shareholders who bear the downside risk and the upside potential. Any board or management team that does not respect or reflect the interests of shareholders (and I'm not saying this applies to Apple) should be dismissed on the spot.



    So you're saying the board should listen to the shareholders (the bankroll) before it's own customers or management experienced in creating said product or service?



    Dead wrong.
  • nemacxnemacx Posts: 18member
    double post
  • mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    The 'snigger' sort of threw me off. I'd share a REAL hatred if we had a bunch of "FIRST!"-ers here.



    Woo Hoo! #27
  • nemacxnemacx Posts: 18member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wubbus View Post


    I had to join this forum just to reply to this. Let's not forget that shareholders actually own the company. The net assets belong to those shareholders who bear the downside risk and the upside potential. Any board or management team that does not respect or reflect the interests of shareholders (and I'm not saying this applies to Apple) should be dismissed on the spot.



    Shareholders own shares that represent - at best - a tiny fraction of the percentage of ownership of a company. The shareholder NEVER owns a stock company, but a share of it, which entitles the shareholder to certain provisions inherent to the quality of the share(s). Assets belong to the company and are owned by it, alone. The shareholder may liquidate his ownership of shares at any time if not stated otherwise.



    E.g. you order a piece of furniture to be custom made to your conception and are asked to pay for it in advance. You are the rightful owner of the finished furniture or the voucher, NOT the work in progress nor the plying carpenter. You would respectfully ask the carpenter and impart your views, but you can not expect to make him do what you want him to do, because he is the professional and you are not. You bought the service/final product, not the carpenter nor his set of skills or materials and tools needed to deliver the service requested.



    You either own something or you don´t. Don´t be mistaken, you can not own something when you own only a part of it, that´s why it is called "share", i.e. part of something - not the whole thing. So you are either a shareholder or the owner. The owner on the contrary is the ONLY shareholder, as he holds ALL shares.



    Management working towards the best of the company, its sustained success and survival, always works towards general shareholders interest, being "interest".



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bdkennedy1 View Post


    And 1985 begins all over again.



    Traumatised? EMDR can help. Cook isn´t Sculley and Apple today isn´t the Apple of 1985 SJ "left".
  • cvaldes1831cvaldes1831 Posts: 1,832member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post


    Majority vote of who? Stockholders or other board members?



    Shareholders.



    The board members themselves usually have some shares of AAPL, but not in quantities that would affect the vote. The directors up for election are listed in the annual ballot. Most shareholders vote via proxy ballot instead of voting their shares at the actual shareholders' meeting.



    For a typical retail investor, this is merely a formality. The election is largely controlled by the major institutional firms, companies like Fidelity, Vanguard, BlackRock, State Street. Over 70% of the AAPL float is held by institutional investors.



    According to the proxy statement filed in January, there were only 28,500 shareholders of record as of late December 2011.
  • chris_cachris_ca Posts: 2,518member
    Quote:

    Members of Apple's board of directors who cannot obtain a majority vote will now be required to voluntarily resign from their positions



    And if they don?t mandatorily resign voluntarily?
  • godzillagodzilla Posts: 156member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh View Post


    Who cares about Iger.... Jung is the real lemon of the board.



    LOL.



    I always found her involvement peculiar. They're obviously doing lots of things right, maybe appointing her was some sort of genius as well?



    Personally, I'm very happy with the involvement of Iger. They're keeping it tight knit, and with those who worked closely and have a likeness to Steve. Good news.
Sign In or Register to comment.