Although I seem to be on the same side as you, just not as virulently:"Someone who does" what?And what's a "which-hunt?"[OK I'm Knit picking you. But maybe take a second or two to read your post before you submit? ;-) ]
I frankly *still* don't get why Apple's approach was found to be in violation in the first place. If anyone can point me to a clear and cogent interpretation of why Apple's original approach was a violation and Amazon's is OK, please post a link. Thanks.
Apple is pretty darn diverse. It's been part of the organizational DNA from way back.
Board members are not as influential at a company as most people think. They're selected mostly for their ability to wield external influence. This is why they tend to be similar to other bigwigs (but Apple has often had women on the board or in high positions.)
On the other hand, some of the comments here are shockingly out of touch. Also the tech world, in general, is dominantly...
Isn't it magical how in all but the most ineptly written sentences, the pretentious, redundant, business speak phrase, "going forward," can be removed—resulting in a far more direct and clear communication?I guess because eliminating it is so magical, nobody believes they can do it . . . going forward.
And BTW, buying back stock is in the interest of shareholders as increase the value of all remaining shares.
But it has to be part of an overall company strategy—as I'm sure it has been all along.
Such a buyback effects outstanding employee options, taxes liability, dividends, stock price, liquid funds, etc. etc.
Only in your crack fueled dreams!Much as I dislike Icahn, "taking the company private" isn't really possible for Apple (certainly not without a few hundred billion in outside money to pay off shareholders handsomely.)