or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Investors › AAPL Investors › Apple directors must now win a majority vote before appointment to board
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

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

post #1 of 31
Thread Starter 
At its annual shareholders meeting on Thursday, Apple announced that it has adopted a measure approved by shareholders last year that requires a majority vote for new board members to be approved.

Shareholders initially voted for the non-binding proposal a year ago, but Apple chose not to adopt it. But the company announced on Thursday from its Cupertino, Calif., headquarters that the measure has now been approved, according to Reuters.

Members of Apple's board of directors who cannot obtain a majority vote will now be required to voluntarily resign from their positions. In addition to shareholders, Calpers, the largest U.S. pension fund, has also pushed for the measure.

The most recent changes to the Apple Board of Directors came last November, when Disney Chief Executive Bob Iger joined the board. In addition, Arthur D. Levinson, Ph.D., became the new chairman, replacing the late Steve Jobs.

The remaining members of Apple's board are CEO Tim Cook, William Campbell, Millard Drexler, Al gore, Andrea Jung and Ronald Sugar. All of them received more than 80 percent of the vote on Thursday, leaving their positions intact.

[ View article on AppleInsider ]
post #2 of 31
Apple doesn't need a chairman of the board and I'd prefer no one from Disney be anywhere near them.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #3 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Apple doesn't need a chairman of the board and I'd prefer no one from Disney be anywhere near them.

Why not, and why?
post #4 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Why not, and why?

They operated just fine for nearly fifteen years after Steve's return not having a chairman. I'm sure Steve just wanted the position to be able to say he had had it.

And no Disney because of their history of unscrupulous behavior. The lies they tell to keep up their wholesome image. Pixar should never have been sold to them.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #5 of 31
Majority vote of who? Stockholders or other board members?
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #6 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

They operated just fine for nearly fifteen years after Steve's return not having a chairman. I'm sure Steve just wanted the position to be able to say he had had it.

And no Disney because of their history of unscrupulous behavior. The lies they tell to keep up their wholesome image. Pixar should never have been sold to them.

Agree.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #7 of 31
And 1985 begins all over again.
post #8 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

They operated just fine for nearly fifteen years after Steve's return not having a chairman. I'm sure Steve just wanted the position to be able to say he had had it.

And no Disney because of their history of unscrupulous behavior. The lies they tell to keep up their wholesome image. Pixar should never have been sold to them.

Chairman is not a big deal one way or the other. Disney.. give me a break. Maybe you had a bad ride at Disneyland when you were young but their is nothing wrong with Disney. With over 80% approval to have a Disney guy on the board, I think your comments are just that ...."Yours".
post #9 of 31
All I care about is that the real drivers of Apple and its success within the company, like Jonathan Ive and Scott Forstall, don't have anyone to get in their way or compromise their vision. Apart from Cook, they're the 2 most important people in Apple right now and define the soul of the company. Ive= hardware, Forstall = software.
post #10 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by jumper View Post

Disney.. give me a break. Maybe you had a bad ride at Disneyland when you were young but their is nothing wrong with Disney. With over 80% approval to have a Disney guy on the board, I think your comments are just that ...."Yours".

Never been. Never going to be. The deaths, the injuries, the cover-ups, the fact that they have virtual sovereignty over their land and their courts if anyone tries to sue them, the fact that every time Mickey Mouse's copyright is about to expire it's Disney that pays off the government to extend the term of copyrights

Come on. "Mine" nothing. Copyright is virtually permanent thanks to Disney. We'll have less and less fall into the public domain until finally nothing will.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #11 of 31
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

They operated just fine for nearly fifteen years after Steve's return not having a chairman. I'm sure Steve just wanted the position to be able to say he had had it.

And no Disney because of their history of unscrupulous behavior. The lies they tell to keep up their wholesome image. Pixar should never have been sold to them.

Perhaps maybe because Steve Jobs acted as both Apple's Chairman AND CEO? Apple never needed a Chairman (although they did have two board co-leads) because Steve was in full control. Levinson will take some of the weight off of Cook, especially in terms of Board meetings and committees.

In terms of Disney, Steve put his trust in Bob Iger with Pixar. It worked. Bob and Steve shared a lot of things in common, like the idea of full integration (alas MS Disney Dream). Apple obviously want to keep their bond with Disney strong, which is the reason why they appointed Bob when Steve died.
post #12 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


The remaining members of Apple's board are CEO Tim Cook, William Campbell, Millard Drexler, Al gore, Andrea Jung and Ronald Sugar.

Did Bob Costas ghostwrite this article?
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #13 of 31
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Corporate structure at AAPL may be a bit unorthodox, but it has been successful to a degree that most would have considered unimaginable a few years ago. As a (minimal) stock holder, I find it concerning that an effort seems to be arising to "fix" problems at apple now that the "overbearing" founder is no longer around. As a company, Apple has performed like few (if any ) in history. Management, the board, and the stockholders should make sure a real problem has been identified before efforts are made to fix things.
post #14 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcr View Post

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Corporate structure at AAPL may be a bit unorthodox, but it has been successful to a degree that most would have considered unimaginable a few years ago. As a (minimal) stock holder, I find it concerning that an effort seems to be arising to "fix" problems at apple now that the "overbearing" founder is no longer around. As a company, Apple has performed like few (if any ) in history. Management, the board, and the stockholders should make sure a real problem has been identified before efforts are made to fix things.

Whatever happens now or in the future, one thing is cerain... People will always act in their interest first, no matter how it is disguised with either threats or flowery language.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #15 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Never been. Never going to be. The deaths, the injuries, the cover-ups, the fact that they have virtual sovereignty over their land and their courts if anyone tries to sue them, the fact that every time Mickey Mouse's copyright is about to expire it's Disney that pays off the government to extend the term of copyrights

Come on. "Mine" nothing. Copyright is virtually permanent thanks to Disney. We'll have less and less fall into the public domain until finally nothing will.

So, you are the OWS rep on here??

Corporations are all evil?? It is THEIR LAND, they should be able to do whatever they want with it it.. No one owns the courts?? That's just your spin because they rule in a way YOU don't agree with.. Disney should own the copyright Mickey Mouse, Walt invented him..

I have no problem with anyone on the board, except maybe Al Gore?? I know he did invent the internet, but what has he done lately??
Dr
Pepper
Crew
Reply
Dr
Pepper
Crew
Reply
post #16 of 31
Who cares about Iger.... Jung is the real lemon of the board.
post #17 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by LMGS View Post

It is THEIR LAND, they should be able to do whatever they want with it it.

Not if it's in violation of actual law or obstructionist to medical help or the proper judicial system.

Quote:
Disney should own the copyright Mickey Mouse, Walt invented him..

Sure, but should copyright be infinite? Should a company have the right to everything forever?

Should the thousands of books in the Gutenberg Project not be free now? What about old music?

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #18 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Apple doesn't need a chairman of the board and I'd prefer no one from Disney be anywhere near them.

It always amazes me how frequently this guy gets first post for a thread.

He must be checking these forums a hell of a lot in order to do that...

<snigger>

Is it true that the existing board members have placades labelled either 'Bozo' or 'Genius' depending on which way they want to vote?
post #19 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

It always amazes me how frequently this guy gets first post for a thread.

He must be checking these forums a hell of a lot in order to do that <snigger>

Your point being?

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #20 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Your point being?

That was a joke!

I mean, not surprising for a moderator.

Was that joke too subtle for this electronic medium?
post #21 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

That was a joke!

I mean, not surprising for a moderator.

Was that joke too subtle for this electronic medium?

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

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #22 of 31
After all is said and done...

The last month has been pretty good for AAPL shareholders!
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #23 of 31
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.
post #24 of 31
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.

...................................
...................................
...........................
..................................
...................................
............................
...........................
........................
..................................
post #25 of 31
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.
post #26 of 31
double post
post #27 of 31
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

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #28 of 31
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".
post #29 of 31
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.
post #30 of 31
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 dont mandatorily resign voluntarily?
post #31 of 31
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.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AAPL Investors
AppleInsider › Forums › Investors › AAPL Investors › Apple directors must now win a majority vote before appointment to board