Investor advisory firm calls for Apple to disclose CEO succession plan - Page 3

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

Let's try some relevant question instead. Are these other companies led by CEOs who are widely considered to be inseparable from the company's success, and who have also been on medical leave three times? Have these companies exposed themselves to competitive threats by disclosing something about their succession planning to shareholders?

Anyway, more debunking, posted in full for the click-disabled....

Originally Posted by tetzel1517

By the way, here's the actual resolution - it doesn't ask for specific names. What's the problem with this?

RESOLVED: That the shareholders of Apple, Inc. [sic] (“Company”) hereby request that the Board of Directors initiate the appropriate process to amend the Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines (“Guidelines”) to adopt and disclose a written and detailed succession planning policy, including the following specific features:

• The Board of Directors will review the plan annually;
• The Board will develop criteria for the CEO position which will reflect the Company’s business strategy and will use a formal assessment process to evaluate candidates;
• The Board will identify and develop internal candidates;
• The Board will begin non-emergency CEO succession planning at least 3 years before an expected transition and will maintain an emergency succession plan that is reviewed annually;
• The Board will annually produce a report on its succession plan to shareholders.

Originally Posted by tetzel1517

The pension fund owns Apple stock, which has shown to be pretty volatile when news comes out concerning the health of Steve Jobs. They probably think a succession plan would stabilize things and protect their investment.

Originally Posted by tetzel1517

By the way, here's the actual resolution - it doesn't ask for specific names. What's the problem with this?

RESOLVED: That the shareholders of Apple, Inc. [sic] (Company) hereby request that the Board of Directors initiate the appropriate process to amend the Companys Corporate Governance Guidelines (Guidelines) to adopt and disclose a written and detailed succession planning policy, including the following specific features:

• The Board of Directors will review the plan annually;
• The Board will develop criteria for the CEO position which will reflect the Companys business strategy and will use a formal assessment process to evaluate candidates;
• The Board will identify and develop internal candidates;
• The Board will begin non-emergency CEO succession planning at least 3 years before an expected transition and will maintain an emergency succession plan that is reviewed annually;
• The Board will annually produce a report on its succession plan to shareholders.

Originally Posted by Sacto Joe

... And how is "The Board will annually produce a report on its succession plan to shareholders" NOT demanding the names and qualifications of those "candidates"? ...

Originally Posted by tetzel1517

Has anyone actually READ the shareholder proposal? It doesn't require Apple to name any names - merely to tell people what their plan would be for finding one among internal candidates. What's the problem with that? Tons of companies do that.

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

Exactly. It's a perfectly reasonable request, not radical, not weird, not unusual, not destructive -- but we wouldn't want to confuse any of this debate with facts.

... adopt and disclose a written and detailed succession planning policy, including the following specific features ... will develop criteria ... which will reflect the Companys business strategy and will use a formal assessment process to evaluate candidates ... identify and develop internal candidates ... annually produce a report

Originally Posted by anonymouse

Except, if it's interpreted in the tongue-in-cheek manner that I did in my previous post it's meaningless.

If it's interpreted along the lines of,



it's basically saying, "we expect you to tell us annually your business strategy and what potential CEO candidates you are considering and why," which is naming names and is totally stupid. If you don't interpret it that way, then, again, it's essentially meaningless.

But, there you go again, saying you support this but not saying exactly what you think it would mean in terms of what exactly Apple would be reporting. So, do you even know what it is you are so wholeheartedly supporting? Do you even know what you think you are supporting?

Originally Posted by tetzel1517

Many other companies disclose CEO succession plans - Verizon, HP, Comcast, Whole Foods... I could go on. NONE OF THEM are required to name specific candidates. If you read the text of the resolution, you can see if provides the company a ton of wiggle room, but also forces enough action that the company will be prepared in some way if there's a planned or emergency departure by the CEO. It's just making the company tell its shareholders, "Be cool, we got this" (and back up that assertion) the next time there's a scare.

All this talk about nefarious forces trying to "undermine" Apple reeks of paranoia.

Originally Posted by anonymouse

Who said anything about nefarious forces, besides you, that is? I'm pretty sure the people behind this are well intentioned idiots. In the end, though, does it matter? It's a stupid idea that's either meaningless or dangerous, as even you admit.

If anyone really believes that the board doesn't "got this", they should be moving to replace the board. I mean, seriously, who believes the board is that stupid? This is about people with an inflated sense of self-importance thinking they are entitled to detailed information on the "inner workings" of Apple.

Originally Posted by tetzel1517

The proposal isn't asking for names.

Originally Posted by tetzel1517

... The proposal isn't asking for names. It's not asking for disclosures on Jobs' health. It just demands reasonable evidence that the company is prepared in the event Jobs steps down or is unable to continue his duties. Plenty of other companies do this. Hell, plenty of other companies have agreed to disclose this information, even without a shareholder vote. I don't see how it can hurt Apple. I do see how it can provide reassurance and confidence to investors. What's the downside?

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

Exactly. It's a perfectly reasonable request, not radical, not weird, not unusual, not destructive -- but we wouldn't want to confuse any of this debate with facts.

Originally Posted by Sacto Joe

... BTW, do you own any appreciable (say 100+) shares of Apple? I do. If you don't, then kindly b--- out of this conversation.

Originally Posted by Sacto Joe

Still waiting for an answer to my question....

Originally Posted by tetzel1517

Several in this thread have raised the idea that this is actually part of some effort to deliberately undermine Apple. Perhaps they didn't use the word "nefarious" but that wasn't my point - I did put "undermine" in quote marks because that word was actually used upthread.

The proposal isn't asking for names. It's not asking for disclosures on Jobs' health. It just demands reasonable evidence that the company is prepared in the event Jobs steps down or is unable to continue his duties. Plenty of other companies do this. Hell, plenty of other companies have agreed to disclose this information, even without a shareholder vote. I don't see how it can hurt Apple. I do see how it can provide reassurance and confidence to investors. What's the downside?

Originally Posted by anonymouse

See my post above. There are two ways to interpret this proposal: one meaningless, the other (which does require naming names, otherwise, we're back to meaningless) stupid. If it's stupid, then it's stupid. If it's meaningless, why waste the boards time with such nonsense.

Originally Posted by Sacto Joe

How many people have to say that they don't agree that it's not asking for names before you admit that it's arguable at best whether or not it is? And beyond that, what about the other portions where they clearly stick their oar in and demand the Board do things their way?

Originally Posted by Sacto Joe

Still waiting for an answer to my question....

Originally Posted by anonymouse

Apparently, he isn't answering questions. No doubt because once he commits himself, it'll take anyone about 2 seconds to tear his reasoning to shreds, although, he'll never admit they did.

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

Your question was not relevant to the issue. I said that ages ago.

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

As you can see, statements of logic and facts are not welcomed here. Implicit -- no, actually explicit in some cases -- is the argument that Apple is exceptional, and consequently exempted from standards of good corporate governance. So by this means, you can instantly cancel out the fact that other public companies do what is being requested of Apple, as a normal matter of course. The counterargument can't be backed up by anything but feelings, so that's what we get. And accusations, too.

Apple has a lot of strengths, but corporate governance has never been one of them. That's why they were caught up in a SEC investigation over the backdating of option grants. That's why they were criticized as having too many interlocking board members. But if you mention any of this, the entire exceptional and infallibility argument is what you'll get in response. That, and pretty much nothing else you can actually discuss rationally. You hear about how Apple is perfect, how they just couldn't possibly do anything better, and how you should just shut up about how they could.

Sigh.

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

As you can see, statements of logic and facts are not welcomed here. Implicit -- no, actually explicit in some cases -- is the argument that Apple is exceptional, and consequently exempted from standards of good corporate governance. So by this means, you can instantly cancel out the fact that other public companies do what is being requested of Apple, as a normal matter of course. The counterargument can't be backed up by anything but feelings, so that's what we get. And accusations, too.

Apple has a lot of strengths, but corporate governance has never been one of them. That's why they were caught up in a SEC investigation over the backdating of option grants. That's why they were criticized as having too many interlocking board members. But if you mention any of this, the entire exceptional and infallibility argument is what you'll get in response. That, and pretty much nothing else you can actually discuss rationally. You hear about how Apple is perfect, how they just couldn't possibly do anything better, and how you should just shut up about how they could.

Sigh.

Originally Posted by Sacto Joe

Actually, this comes a lot closer to a real response to my contention than anything else you've said. Wish you'd said it to me.

I'll try to simplify: I am of the opinion that Steve Jobs is still controlling things at Apple on the level of issues like these, and doing so with an iron fist. And as I said in a separate post on this thread, not only do I think he's completely engaged in this issue, but I think it's of utmost importance to him.

Therefore, I think it's best to let him handle it.

In a nutshell.

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

Actually, I said it once before, so this was a repetition of the earlier point, with expansion. Your argument that it's All About Steve is stronger in supporting my point than anything I've said so far. In fact it encapsulates the fears many have about Apple's leadership, that's it's far too centered on one person, a person who's been very ill, and who may or may not be replaceable. This makes the case powerfully FOR a more transparent succession policy, not against it. That is, unless the board believes that the image of Apple's future dangling from a thin thread is good for stockholders. Tell me, should Apple really be All About Steve?

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

... Your argument that it's All About Steve is stronger in supporting my point than anything I've said so far. ... This makes the case powerfully FOR a more transparent succession policy, not against it. ...

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

Actually, I said it once before, so this was a repetition of the earlier point, with expansion. Your argument that it's All About Steve is stronger in supporting my point than anything I've said so far. In fact it encapsulates the fears many have about Apple's leadership, that's it's far too centered on one person, a person who's been very ill, and who may or may not be replaceable. This makes the case powerfully FOR a more transparent succession policy, not against it. That is, unless the board believes that the image of Apple's future dangling from a thin thread is good for stockholders. Tell me, should Apple really be All About Steve?

Originally Posted by Doctor David

It's difficult to believe anyone imagines apples future dangles from a thin thread.

Originally Posted by Sacto Joe

Let's pretend that Steve Jobs has been, and remains, King of Apple. But it's a weird sort of monarchy, because the throne cannot pass to the Prince, there being none. Instead, when the King's reign ends (hopefully by stepping down from the throne and not by his passing), it probably won't even continue to be a monarchy. But the King, being both wise and beneficent, indeed passionately interested in the continued welfare of the kingdom after he leaves, is STILL KING. And for his own reasons, he has not chosen to reveal the details of how he plans to protect the kingdom in the event of his permanent absence.

Because the reality is, WE DON'T KNOW how long Steve Jobs will be around nearly as well as he does. His present leave of absence could be nothing more than a recharging of his batteries. That's the way it worked out last year, you may recall.

And frankly, there's a competitive advantage to Apple for this information to remain secret, especially if he is indeed simply recharging.

I don't know how long you've followed Apple, or in how much detail, but I've followed them for more than a quarter of a century. My wife even worked for them in the not too distant past, in a supervisory capacity. And all that experience convinces me of three things: First, that Steve Jobs knows what he's doing, second, that he cares deeply about Apple's future, and third, that Apple is far more than the reflection of one man. If it were not, it never would have survived his first absence.

I'm content, therefore, to leave this issue of "what happens After Steve" in the hands of Steve and the Apple Board. This time, we need to let Steve Jobs play his hand out.

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

A slight overstatement perhaps, but only slight.

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

The flaw in your argument is that Steve is not King, he's an employee of a public corporation.

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

I don't agree. The problem is, regardless of how competent the next CEO is, it won't be Steve Jobs. The person may be smarter, more of a presence on stage, have a better understanding of technology, etc. but when Jobs is gone, he is gone and the worst thing Apple could do is to try and replace the person.

I've seen it happen in sports. A veteran coach leaves... and the next guy fails. It happens because the fans are trying to compare people, styles, etc. and not the position. It's also a wonderful time for a power grab from the 2nd tier individuals

Originally Posted by anonymouse

I have to say, although I don't know him, from what I've seen publicly and read about SJ, I think the size of his ego is greatly exaggerated.

Originally Posted by tetzel1517

By the way, here's the actual resolution - it doesn't ask for specific names. What's the problem with this?

RESOLVED: That the shareholders of Apple, Inc. [sic] (Company) hereby request that the Board of Directors initiate the appropriate process to amend the Companys Corporate Governance Guidelines (Guidelines) to adopt and disclose a written and detailed succession planning policy, including the following specific features:

• The Board of Directors will review the plan annually;
• The Board will develop criteria for the CEO position which will reflect the Companys business strategy and will use a formal assessment process to evaluate candidates;
• The Board will identify and develop internal candidates;
• The Board will begin non-emergency CEO succession planning at least 3 years before an expected transition and will maintain an emergency succession plan that is reviewed annually;
• The Board will annually produce a report on its succession plan to shareholders.

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

Apple has a lot of strengths, but corporate governance has never been one of them. That's why they were caught up in a SEC investigation over the backdating of option grants. That's why they were criticized as having too many interlocking board members. But if you mention any of this, the entire exceptional and infallibility argument is what you'll get in response. That, and pretty much nothing else you can actually discuss rationally. You hear about how Apple is perfect, how they just couldn't possibly do anything better, and how you should just shut up about how they could.

Originally Posted by Doctor David

No, it's hyperbole at best. Apple couldn't be in a better position for the future in comparison to just about any tech company out there.

Originally Posted by Sacto Joe

It was a metaphor. Look, I have nothing against "suggestions" for improvements. But these actions are much stronger than mere suggestions.

Frankly, Steve may be frail, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with his mind. And I am convinced that he cares deeply about Apple's future. Therefore, as CEO, he will continue to recieve my wholehearted support, including (and maybe especially!) when it comes to the question of when and how to step down or protect against the worst case scenario. My argument against this sort of stockholder uprising is that it's misplaced, it's assuming the worst.

Steve Jobs has been, and continues to be, a gift to those of us who have tied a substantial part of our livelyhood to Apple. I for one intend to appreciate that gift and welcome its continuation, hopefully for some time to come.

Originally Posted by penchanted

It's true that Apple (like a number of other companies) had to deal with these issues - and they have been dealt with. However, these examples only argue for a more independent BOD and confer little value on a published succession plan.

Originally Posted by penchanted

This whole Steve Jobs == Apple thing is tiresome. He is the public face of Apple but why so many people think everything Apple does come fully-formed from the mind of Steve Jobs is beyond me. Yes, he is a very active and involved presence in Apple's products but the real "magic" happens in the hands of the engineers and product managers.

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

You make a very good point. The current Apple board was hand-selected by Steve for their loyalty to Steve. But since we don't have an independent board, perhaps it becomes more incumbent on the stockholders to make their concerns heard.

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

Tiresome perhaps, but created by whom? I don't think we can honestly admire Steve the showman and Steve the big idea man, without acknowledging that this has become a huge part of the company's image, and that it has been very deliberately cultivated by Apple and Steve. If Apple seriously wants to unwind Apple and Steve, to prepare itself for the post-Steve era, then it's something that has to be done with some care, over time by Apple and Steve. At the moment, I have questions about either their will or their intentions. I don't know which it is. But it hardly matters, and when they resist ALL efforts, no matter how small, to show that they understand the problem, then that makes me wonder whether they do in fact understand the problem.

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

... These discussions come to nothing because the counterargument is always some variation on how Apple is different and exceptional, that they've defied gravity and always will if only we all believe hard enough. I guess I was born without the faith gene. Or maybe it's because I've seen Apple fail before, due in no small part to bad management practices forged in arrogance. Maybe I don't want to see them go down that path again, and maybe some act-cleanup would help them avoid that fate. Apple's a big company now. Time to grow up.

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

You make a very good point. The current Apple board was hand-selected by Steve for their loyalty to Steve. ...