or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Investors › AAPL Investors › Greenlight Capital drops lawsuit against Apple over $137B cash reserves
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Greenlight Capital drops lawsuit against Apple over $137B cash reserves - Page 2

post #41 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

The board does not "provide the managementguidance". Nor do shareholders.

You are confusing the chain of accountability with chain of leadership. Leadership stops at the CEO. Accountability goes up through the board and back to shareholders. What you call "guidance" (determining what the company will do with its resources) is a function of leadership. Leadership is a job skill required by management, and the top manager is CEO. Leadership ends there. The board's job to is make the CEO accountable for providing effective leadership. Leadership is not the board's job, because the board delegates that responsibility to the senior management.

While the board oversees corporate governance, that is the very framework of rules and policies that govern both the board members and senior management. For example, stating who is accountable to whom is described in the governance guides. Apple's governance rules (which are typical for US corporations) gives the CEO (and not the board) authority to (1) lead and (2) speak for the company. Governance recognizes no higher authority with respect to leadership of the corporation.

As for whether the board members "represent the views of the shareholders" is something that is entirely up to the shareholders, since that may or may not factor in when they vote on reelecting board members. However, the views of the board members and the views of the shareholders are irrelevant because Apple's governance policy give Tim Cook the final authority to speak for Apple. Further, it does not require Tim Cook to heed the personal views of any board member or shareholder; he merely has the autonomy to choose to do that.

That's all true. However, there are a couple of things you left out:

The board can influence the CEO's leadership in at least two ways:
a. The board can approve resolutions that require specific actions.
b. The board can, of course, hire and fire CEOs. So if the CEO is not acting upon the Board's guidance, they can fire him.

In practice, a CEO who ignores the Board's direction doesn't last long.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #42 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

In practice, a CEO who ignores the Board's direction doesn't last long.

 

LOL. You mean Steve Jobs' hand-picked board of directors?

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #43 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv View Post

 

Well, you certainly have a perfect right to your opinion, but just to contribute yet another 2c:

 

1. Einhorn's suite was on the subject of "bundling" a bunch of proposals together -- I agree with him that this was unreasonable.

 

2. As for his timing, my belief is that his sturm und drang brought the whole issue of what apple was doing with its cash into the limelight, and this actually helped the stock price in the short term -- people believed that Apple would do SOMETHING (if not prefs, then increased dividend, buyback, or even a more detailed explanation of what they were doing sitting on this pile of money). Instead, Apple (in the form of Tim) said some platitudes and did nothing, which really underscores how much it cares about its shareholders. Without one of the parenthesized things, notice that Apple's P/E being low means nothing, since the profits will, apparently, never be distributed to shareholders.

1) Yes. A small technicality he won and ok fair enough. I don't believe it was Apples intent for one minute.

2) Yes again - he certainly drew attention to the pile of cash to the limelight.

There are still ethics in business - although I fully appreciate that there are no ethics in options or the wider market in general.

He could have done this after the meeting and would have been seen in a totally different light.

However he didn't - and for that I bag him completely.

The board was reelected by the shareholders. That ought to tell you something.


Edited by RobM - 3/2/13 at 9:36pm
post #44 of 50

Look I don't agree with the way all elections turn out.

I do accept and agree with philosophy behind an election.

They reflect the opinion of the majority.

 

The board was reelected - Tim ain't going no where.

Stop the fud and get over it.

Buy some some shares and vote next GM.

post #45 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv View Post

And another point, once we are on the subject of stock price: Go to Yahoo! finance, and look up "Insider transactions" for Apple. You will see some interesting things:

1. An insanely large stock grant to Al Gore: 












Jan 14, 2013 GORE ALBERT JR
Director
59,000 Direct Option Exercise at $7.48 per share.


(do the math: $7.48 a share is basically free, and the market value of the stock is $25MM. If you tell me that Al has provided $25MM worth of leadership to Apple, I have some nice swamp land I have at a good price).

And 2. The management dumping huge amount of stock at $550 or so. Much of it shows up as automatic sales, but this is well-known to be silly. An automatic sale can always be stopped if the owner is so inclined. In case you don't believe me, look at the previous year (which is included on the Yahoo! Finance page) you will see that the amounts are much smaller, and clearly in line with what people would need to buy houses in Palo Alto and such. (one of the dumpers is Scott Forstall, long before he himself was dumped).

Now tell me whether this indicates that the management has full faith in Apple's fortunes, and therefore, do you have as much faith in the management as you did before you saw this.

You need to check your facts.

Automatic sales can not be stopped other than under very extreme circumstances. =
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #46 of 50

I do apologise - I must have developed an Internet stutter ;-)

I know you are a shareholder, I meant to say, Buy some more shares ..

 

Yea - fud may have been a bit harsh. But you rag on about Tim and Apples lack of concern for shareholders more than necessary, imnsho.

What's changed since Steve was running the company ?

The share price went up and now there's huge pile of cash and growing for Apple to use as it sees fit.

The board has made noise about doing things with it and returning some to investors - give them chance to make sense of it all and make prudent decisions.

 

I know about 2/3 corporate ownership, I know. Majority rules, shrug

 

Voting ? Details are explained in this doc. 

http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/AAPL/2339926367x0x626674/95ab899e-7084-4e7c-9650-d608ef900059/Apple_2013_Proxy_Statement_01.07.13.pdf

Register and you shall receive.

I wrote in and did it the formal way years ago.

I just found this however, it may be easier I'm not sure.

http://investor.apple.com/faq.cfm?FaqSetID=5

cheers


Edited by RobM - 3/3/13 at 5:43pm
post #47 of 50

"Could he be any lamer ?"

lol

Yea - he could be like Squirter !

 

I dunno - to me he comes across as very sincere, very capable. A little "grey" in a bean counterish way perhaps but enthusiastic for Apples prospects. I don't think there's any need for replacement at all. Heck, he hasn't been in the job very long and has got huge shoes to fill.

I think he's done very well.

 

I can't think of anybody who has his indepth knowledge and experience of Apple who could replace him anyway. Definitely don't want anybody outside of Apple to come in, IMO.

post #48 of 50

Fair enough. Im doing exactly the same.

Keep your powder dry is my motto !


Edited by RobM - 3/3/13 at 10:41pm
post #49 of 50

Quote:

Originally Posted by igriv View Post

 

Well, you certainly have a perfect right to your opinion, but just to contribute yet another 2c:

 

1. Einhorn's suite was on the subject of "bundling" a bunch of proposals together -- I agree with him that this was unreasonable.

 

2. As for his timing, my belief is that his sturm und drang brought the whole issue of what apple was doing with its cash into the limelight, and this actually helped the stock price in the short term -- people believed that Apple would do SOMETHING (if not prefs, then increased dividend, buyback, or even a more detailed explanation of what they were doing sitting on this pile of money). Instead, Apple (in the form of Tim) said some platitudes and did nothing, which really underscores how much it cares about its shareholders. Without one of the parenthesized things, notice that Apple's P/E being low means nothing, since the profits will, apparently, never be distributed to shareholders.

 

I have a much simpler theory as to why the case was dropped.  The meeting is over.  Einhorn did not want Prop 2 to pass, he latched on to the "Bundling" issue (Which may or may not be valid).  Since it was not considered at the meeting and can not be brought up again until the next shareholder's meeting why pay the lawyers when you already got your way.

post #50 of 50

I wonder, what is the percentage of Apple shares in the hands of Apple itself? And is there anybody with more than 20% in his sole hands?


Edited by Yazolight - 3/4/13 at 7:32pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AAPL Investors
AppleInsider › Forums › Investors › AAPL Investors › Greenlight Capital drops lawsuit against Apple over $137B cash reserves