So you are saying that there was evidence that ENRON was cooking the books and it still happened? Bottom line ENRON screwed allot of people and no-one was the wiser until it was too late. People were dumping money into ENRON because the cooked books looked great and the profit reports were fantastic. Investors are not going to let this happen again and have every right to do so. If Apple doesn't like it, they can buy up all their stocks and take the company private. Until then, anyone with a majority stake in the company has a say.
ENRON was a company that COULD cook the books. Apple really can't cook the books that much. Apple has a tangible output - Macs, iPods, iPhones, MacOS and othe Software, Retail Sales, iTune Sales, etc.
I really can't see the ENRON thing happening at Apple.
What I see a better chance of happening is that market and stock analysts artificially ballooning Apple's stock price due to overly optimistic projections.
apple's subtle reply to calpers should just be, "kiss my ass."
when calpers can manage half as well as apple then they should still be forced into the toilet as a quality operation. they screw their investors consistently without any guilt.
Yeah - that traditionally is what they do. They buy up huge amounts of stock in companies, elect directors who mismanage the cash and their investment becomes worthless.
Every time. You would think that they might learn eventually.
And since "they" own the company, that's their option. If shareholders own & control the company, then management and the BOD work for them. If the shareholders want to run the thing into the ground and sell off the pieces, so be it.
That model gets very frustrating when an entity (CalPERS) gets big enough to go around buying up controlling stakes in companies and dissolving them for short-term profits. But them's the rules of a public company. Don't like it? Go private.
- Jasen.
P.S. This happens with private companies with investors, too. I know instances where the investors have run the company into the ground - not paying suppliers until company can't buy supplies anymore - with not a care for the employees or the business' reputation and customers.
Actually, corporate governance is a sham in the U.S. So anything Calpers can do to give shareholders more rights is welcome, except unfortunately, they really won't have any significant effect.
and now there are folks with big egos that think they can do better?
You mean like the tech "experts" in this forum who constantly pontificate about what features and hardware Apple should be producing in order to survive?
Yeah, because AAPL stock performance has been SUCH a disaster to CALPERS.
But in general, more accountability of boards to stockholders tends to be a good thing, particularly since since board memberships tend to be a real racket.
I was trying to (but couldn't seem to) find the link to a great site that graphs out the insanely incestuous relationships between major boards of directors, and that 'good ole boys' network is truly staggering. Its a cozy little club.
CalPERS is not a majority stakeholder. They (logically) invested part of their fund because they thought it was a well run company that showed signs they were going to be successful in the future. They should divest themselves of their holdings if they now have concerns about that company.
You can bet your arse if they thought things were going bad, lose money, they would sell. That's not what this is about. It's just about how directors are put on the board. Geeesh
The headline is completely misleading as the article states that the California Public Employees' Retirement System is going after governance rules at 57 companies. The implication of the headline is that they're only going after Apple.
But insofar as Apple is concerned, you'd think they'd pick a better target. Show me one other U.S. public company that has performed as well as Apple in the last two years, during the worst recession since the depression. And the stock is now within a point or so of its all-time high. Considering that the Dow is still about 19% below its peak and the NASDAQ is at 52% of its all-time high, I'd say Apple is doing pretty well and therefore governed well, especially compared to other publicly traded tech companies. The last thing I'd like to see is executives of that retirement system serving on Apple's Board.
I have always felt that if one doesn't like a stock, get rid of it. I've never felt that minority shareholders should be able to tell a company how to run itself. Besides, one State pension fund, no matter how large, shouldn't be able to dictate corporate governance rules. That should be a national issue.
I'd like to know how well governed the California Public Employees' Retirement System is. I bet it's a mess.
I'm am certainly not anti-Union, but the pension deals signed with many unions, where employees can retire after 20 or 25 years at anywhere to 50 to 100% of salary (and frequently more than salary if they play the overtime game in their last years of working) was ludicrous...criminal, in my opinion. More than anything else, it's public employee pensions that are breaking government budgets across the country. I will be entitled to just one pension (since I didn't stay long enough at other companies I've worked for) and that pension's annual payout will be less than 10% of my last annual salary.
Yeah, because AAPL stock performance has been SUCH a disaster to CALPERS.
But in general, more accountability of boards to stockholders tends to be a good thing, particularly since since board memberships tend to be a real racket.
I was trying to (but couldn't seem to) find the link to a great site that graphs out the insanely incestuous relationships between major boards of directors, and that 'good ole boys' network is truly staggering. Its a cozy little club.
Very very true! All CalPers is trying to do is ensure better rules. Then wow, the idiot flood gates open, your a socialist etc etc... Wow.
The headline is completely misleading as the article states that the California Public Employees' Retirement System is going after governance rules at 57 companies. The implication of the headline is that they're only going after Apple.
But insofar as Apple is concerned, you'd think they'd pick a better target. Show me one other U.S. public company that has performed as well as Apple in the last two years, during the worst recession since the depression. And the stock is now within a point or so of its all-time high. Considering that the Dow is still about 19% below its peak and the NASDAQ is at 52% of its all-time high, I'd say Apple is doing pretty well and therefore governed well, especially compared to other publicly traded tech companies. The last thing I'd like to see is executives of that retirement system serving on Apple's Board.
I have always felt that if one doesn't like a stock, get rid of it. I've never felt that minority shareholders should be able to tell a company how to run itself. Besides, one State pension fund, no matter how large, shouldn't be able to dictate corporate governance rules. That should be a national issue.
I'd like to know how well governed the California Public Employees' Retirement System is. I bet it's a mess.
I'm am certainly not anti-Union, but the pension deals signed with many unions, where employees can retire after 20 or 25 years at anywhere to 50 to 100% of salary (and frequently more than salary if they play the overtime game in their last years of working) was ludicrous...criminal, in my opinion. More than anything else, it's public employee pensions that are breaking government budgets across the country. I will be entitled to just one pension (since I didn't stay long enough at other companies I've worked for) and that pension's annual payout will be less than 10% of my last annual salary.
I agree. If you don't like the board, sell your stock. Shareholders should vote with their money, not by trying to do the boards job.
I agree. If you don't like the board, sell your stock. Shareholders should vote with their money, not by trying to do the boards job.
Please remember, there are many other large institutions, like all the mutual funds etc, you dont think they speak up? Calpers just got the news headline thats all. They have a right to 'vote' not dictate about corperate goverance through resolutions, just like any shareholder. Most resolutions are shot down, but if they pass, that means many other large institutions and large voting block shareholders agree.
Ooooh... Apple posts a profit and here come the socialists to ensure social (in)justice. Every year, these pension commies and unions try to muscle their way into Apple. If they succeed, Apple will face the same future as GM and Chrysler... low profits stifling R&D which leads to crappy products and poor morale.
Unions, as collective entities, should be barred from investing in corporate stocks or, doing so, relinquish their right to vote in stockholder votes... it's an obvious conflict of interest.
you're completely delusional.
gm and chrysler went under because they have a crap product and didn't give a shit about quality. all they cared about was their profit. all their shareholders care(d) about was their check at the end of the month. this is why at&t doesn't build their infrastructure?my opinion. the height of capitalism, not socialism.
They see that huge pile of cash and they wants it, Precious. To hell with using it to place Apple strategically for the future, they want instant gratification now. In their minds it's really 'their' cash, not Apple's. .
I hate to bring reality into your little fantasy, but:
1) $51Billion is plenty of "future strategy" for Apple.
2) As shareholders, it *IS* their money. They are part owners of the company and therefore part owners of the profits. That's what being a shareholder is.
3) As part owners, they DO get to say how the company is run. There is nothing going on here that is illegal or even immoral. In fact, it could be argued that it's actually Apple who, by obfuscating the board-selection process and withholding profits from its co-owners (again the shareholders), is being immoral.
You're attributing all greed-motive in this affair to CalPERS and none to Apple, and that's completely disingenuous.
I have always felt that if one doesn't like a stock, get rid of it.
I've never felt that minority shareholders should be able to tell a company how to run itself. ... one State pension fund, no matter how large, shouldn't be able to dictate corporate governance rules. That should be a national issue.
Let's play word substitution:
Quote:
I've never felt that minorities should be able to tell a country how to run itself. ... one State, no matter how large, shouldn't be able to dictate laws. That should be a national issue.
By your dictum, minority voters should never have a say. The strong should always overpower the weak and repress their desires. Really? Might makes right? REALLY? Is that what you think this country is about?
Me, I always thought that everyone had a say. It was kind of the reason this country was founded; that each citizen (aka stockholder) would be allowed to speak and have a vote.
I hate to bring reality into your little fantasy, but:
1) $51Billion is plenty of "future strategy" for Apple.
I know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ktappe
2) As shareholders, it *IS* their money. They are part owners of the company and therefore part owners of the profits. That's what being a shareholder is.
I know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ktappe
3) As part owners, they DO get to say how the company is run.
I know. But who would you like to see running Apple? Pension-fund plants? Ballmer when he gets fired from Microsoft? I don't think so.
They own a huge chunk of Apple. They want to protect the business that they own. They calculate that this strategy will yield bigger returns than selling their interest.
If indeed you want to buy 2.2 million shares of Apple, so you can too be a major owner, then do it. Today. I guarantee you that 2.2 million shares will magically appear for sale in various lots if you put in a market order. Right now.
Then you will too have a say in how management runs the company you own.
If you actually look at the positions in Apple stock, you will see that you comment is in error:
According to Daily Finance, the top ten institutional shareholders are:
So by any measure CalPERS DO NOT hold a "huge chunk" of Apple, and don't even show up in the listings as such. You need to square the facts with what is known to speculate accurately. they have no effective leverage when it comes to it - looking at the ownership above, holding less than half of what Jobs himself holds and les than a third of the lowest mutual or institutional holders. This is just grandstanding and posturing by CalPERS. No experienced fund manager looking at Apple performance is going to recommend interfering in board process unless the company is either being mismanaged and losing money or has demonstrated malfeasance.
Ooooh... Apple posts a profit and here come the socialists to ensure social (in)justice. Every year, these pension commies and unions try to muscle their way into Apple. If they succeed, Apple will face the same future as GM and Chrysler... low profits stifling R&D which leads to crappy products and poor morale.
Unions, as collective entities, should be barred from investing in corporate stocks or, doing so, relinquish their right to vote in stockholder votes... it's an obvious conflict of interest.
Keep your capitalist political comments to yourself. Unions had nothing to do with GM failing it was management. Sports has it right, whenever the team (union workers/players) fails management gets the heave ho and new managers bought in that usually get better results with the same set of employees. GM was busy building HUMMERS while Toyota was making Pruis'. How is that error the fault of a union employee? But I do totally agree that these pension people leave Apple alone.
In Germany the Union president sits on the BOD and has a say on how the company is run. Its worked out quite well for both company and employees. BTW Apple's beloved ATT is the only wireless company with unionized employees.
I hate to bring reality into your little fantasy, but:
1) $51Billion is plenty of "future strategy" for Apple.
2) As shareholders, it *IS* their money. They are part owners of the company and therefore part owners of the profits. That's what being a shareholder is.
3) As part owners, they DO get to say how the company is run. There is nothing going on here that is illegal or even immoral. In fact, it could be argued that it's actually Apple who, by obfuscating the board-selection process and withholding profits from its co-owners (again the shareholders), is being immoral.
You're attributing all greed-motive in this affair to CalPERS and none to Apple, and that's completely disingenuous.
Just to put this in perspective:
CalPERS holds a whopping 1% of shares held by institutional holders. WOW! Yep they are entitled to a 1% part in the decision-making process for Apple shareholders. But oh wait. That was just institutional shareholders - how do they compare to 917.31 million shares held in total? Lesseee - that's 0.0023%. In which case I am perfectly comfortable as an Apple shareholder with Apple giving CalPERS exactly the control they merit based on their holdings.
And what do you base the charge of "obfusticating the board-selection process" exactly? As a publically held corporate entity the board selection process is a matter of public record and outlined in their corporate reporting. Nothin immoral (and I would wonder which set of moral standards you would even bring to bear on this issue). Your corp-dislike is palpable in your postings, and allows you to make statements that are patently untrue.
Your further commentary bears this out - you attribute thusly:
Quote:
By your dictum, minority voters should never have a say. The strong should always overpower the weak and repress their desires. Really? Might makes right? REALLY? Is that what you think this country is about?
Me, I always thought that everyone had a say. It was kind of the reason this country was founded; that each citizen (aka stockholder) would be allowed to speak and have a vote.
That was not what was stated by zoetmb:
Quote:
I've never felt that minority shareholders should be able to tell a company how to run itself.
The statement, I believe, refers to minorities exerting UNDUE influence - in other words influence beyond their means. In this case CalPERS wants changes that they by themselves, based on their holdings can't drive. The best they can hope for is to build a coalition of institutional or private holders to leverage enough shares to actually influence - highly unlikely since Apple is not by any indication being mismanaged.
Your remaining statements about "what this country is about" reflect a very poor understanding of the history of the US, and how representation works. In a pure democracy, all votes are equal and required to make policy, etc. The US is not a pure democracy - it is a democratic republic - with representational governance. That is why popular vote may show one candidate as winning, but the actual results are determined by the electoral college vote. Further the founding fathers assumed that those most qualified to vote would be landholders (ie business men) not the rank and file regardless of status. That came later.
Comments
So you are saying that there was evidence that ENRON was cooking the books and it still happened? Bottom line ENRON screwed allot of people and no-one was the wiser until it was too late. People were dumping money into ENRON because the cooked books looked great and the profit reports were fantastic. Investors are not going to let this happen again and have every right to do so. If Apple doesn't like it, they can buy up all their stocks and take the company private. Until then, anyone with a majority stake in the company has a say.
ENRON was a company that COULD cook the books. Apple really can't cook the books that much. Apple has a tangible output - Macs, iPods, iPhones, MacOS and othe Software, Retail Sales, iTune Sales, etc.
I really can't see the ENRON thing happening at Apple.
What I see a better chance of happening is that market and stock analysts artificially ballooning Apple's stock price due to overly optimistic projections.
Until then, anyone with a majority stake in the company has a say.
1. You don't need a majority stake to have a say in the US governance system.
2. CalPERS does NOT have a majority stake in any company. They cannot, by law, have one.
3. You should educate yourself a bit more before pontificating.
when calpers can manage half as well as apple then they should still be forced into the toilet as a quality operation. they screw their investors consistently without any guilt.
Yeah - that traditionally is what they do. They buy up huge amounts of stock in companies, elect directors who mismanage the cash and their investment becomes worthless.
Every time. You would think that they might learn eventually.
And since "they" own the company, that's their option. If shareholders own & control the company, then management and the BOD work for them. If the shareholders want to run the thing into the ground and sell off the pieces, so be it.
That model gets very frustrating when an entity (CalPERS) gets big enough to go around buying up controlling stakes in companies and dissolving them for short-term profits. But them's the rules of a public company. Don't like it? Go private.
- Jasen.
P.S. This happens with private companies with investors, too. I know instances where the investors have run the company into the ground - not paying suppliers until company can't buy supplies anymore - with not a care for the employees or the business' reputation and customers.
and now there are folks with big egos that think they can do better?
You mean like the tech "experts" in this forum who constantly pontificate about what features and hardware Apple should be producing in order to survive?
But in general, more accountability of boards to stockholders tends to be a good thing, particularly since since board memberships tend to be a real racket.
I was trying to (but couldn't seem to) find the link to a great site that graphs out the insanely incestuous relationships between major boards of directors, and that 'good ole boys' network is truly staggering. Its a cozy little club.
CalPERS is not a majority stakeholder. They (logically) invested part of their fund because they thought it was a well run company that showed signs they were going to be successful in the future. They should divest themselves of their holdings if they now have concerns about that company.
You can bet your arse if they thought things were going bad, lose money, they would sell. That's not what this is about. It's just about how directors are put on the board. Geeesh
But insofar as Apple is concerned, you'd think they'd pick a better target. Show me one other U.S. public company that has performed as well as Apple in the last two years, during the worst recession since the depression. And the stock is now within a point or so of its all-time high. Considering that the Dow is still about 19% below its peak and the NASDAQ is at 52% of its all-time high, I'd say Apple is doing pretty well and therefore governed well, especially compared to other publicly traded tech companies. The last thing I'd like to see is executives of that retirement system serving on Apple's Board.
I have always felt that if one doesn't like a stock, get rid of it. I've never felt that minority shareholders should be able to tell a company how to run itself. Besides, one State pension fund, no matter how large, shouldn't be able to dictate corporate governance rules. That should be a national issue.
I'd like to know how well governed the California Public Employees' Retirement System is. I bet it's a mess.
I'm am certainly not anti-Union, but the pension deals signed with many unions, where employees can retire after 20 or 25 years at anywhere to 50 to 100% of salary (and frequently more than salary if they play the overtime game in their last years of working) was ludicrous...criminal, in my opinion. More than anything else, it's public employee pensions that are breaking government budgets across the country. I will be entitled to just one pension (since I didn't stay long enough at other companies I've worked for) and that pension's annual payout will be less than 10% of my last annual salary.
Yeah, because AAPL stock performance has been SUCH a disaster to CALPERS.
But in general, more accountability of boards to stockholders tends to be a good thing, particularly since since board memberships tend to be a real racket.
I was trying to (but couldn't seem to) find the link to a great site that graphs out the insanely incestuous relationships between major boards of directors, and that 'good ole boys' network is truly staggering. Its a cozy little club.
Very very true! All CalPers is trying to do is ensure better rules. Then wow, the idiot flood gates open, your a socialist etc etc... Wow.
The headline is completely misleading as the article states that the California Public Employees' Retirement System is going after governance rules at 57 companies. The implication of the headline is that they're only going after Apple.
But insofar as Apple is concerned, you'd think they'd pick a better target. Show me one other U.S. public company that has performed as well as Apple in the last two years, during the worst recession since the depression. And the stock is now within a point or so of its all-time high. Considering that the Dow is still about 19% below its peak and the NASDAQ is at 52% of its all-time high, I'd say Apple is doing pretty well and therefore governed well, especially compared to other publicly traded tech companies. The last thing I'd like to see is executives of that retirement system serving on Apple's Board.
I have always felt that if one doesn't like a stock, get rid of it. I've never felt that minority shareholders should be able to tell a company how to run itself. Besides, one State pension fund, no matter how large, shouldn't be able to dictate corporate governance rules. That should be a national issue.
I'd like to know how well governed the California Public Employees' Retirement System is. I bet it's a mess.
I'm am certainly not anti-Union, but the pension deals signed with many unions, where employees can retire after 20 or 25 years at anywhere to 50 to 100% of salary (and frequently more than salary if they play the overtime game in their last years of working) was ludicrous...criminal, in my opinion. More than anything else, it's public employee pensions that are breaking government budgets across the country. I will be entitled to just one pension (since I didn't stay long enough at other companies I've worked for) and that pension's annual payout will be less than 10% of my last annual salary.
I agree. If you don't like the board, sell your stock. Shareholders should vote with their money, not by trying to do the boards job.
deleted
I agree. If you don't like the board, sell your stock. Shareholders should vote with their money, not by trying to do the boards job.
Please remember, there are many other large institutions, like all the mutual funds etc, you dont think they speak up? Calpers just got the news headline thats all. They have a right to 'vote' not dictate about corperate goverance through resolutions, just like any shareholder. Most resolutions are shot down, but if they pass, that means many other large institutions and large voting block shareholders agree.
Unions, as collective entities, should be barred from investing in corporate stocks or, doing so, relinquish their right to vote in stockholder votes... it's an obvious conflict of interest.
you're completely delusional.
gm and chrysler went under because they have a crap product and didn't give a shit about quality. all they cared about was their profit. all their shareholders care(d) about was their check at the end of the month. this is why at&t doesn't build their infrastructure?my opinion. the height of capitalism, not socialism.
...demand dividends...
They see that huge pile of cash and they wants it, Precious. To hell with using it to place Apple strategically for the future, they want instant gratification now. In their minds it's really 'their' cash, not Apple's. .
I hate to bring reality into your little fantasy, but:
1) $51Billion is plenty of "future strategy" for Apple.
2) As shareholders, it *IS* their money. They are part owners of the company and therefore part owners of the profits. That's what being a shareholder is.
3) As part owners, they DO get to say how the company is run. There is nothing going on here that is illegal or even immoral. In fact, it could be argued that it's actually Apple who, by obfuscating the board-selection process and withholding profits from its co-owners (again the shareholders), is being immoral.
You're attributing all greed-motive in this affair to CalPERS and none to Apple, and that's completely disingenuous.
I have always felt that if one doesn't like a stock, get rid of it.
I've never felt that minority shareholders should be able to tell a company how to run itself. ... one State pension fund, no matter how large, shouldn't be able to dictate corporate governance rules. That should be a national issue.
Let's play word substitution:
I've never felt that minorities should be able to tell a country how to run itself. ... one State, no matter how large, shouldn't be able to dictate laws. That should be a national issue.
By your dictum, minority voters should never have a say. The strong should always overpower the weak and repress their desires. Really? Might makes right? REALLY? Is that what you think this country is about?
Me, I always thought that everyone had a say. It was kind of the reason this country was founded; that each citizen (aka stockholder) would be allowed to speak and have a vote.
I hate to bring reality into your little fantasy, but:
1) $51Billion is plenty of "future strategy" for Apple.
I know.
2) As shareholders, it *IS* their money. They are part owners of the company and therefore part owners of the profits. That's what being a shareholder is.
I know.
3) As part owners, they DO get to say how the company is run.
I know. But who would you like to see running Apple? Pension-fund plants? Ballmer when he gets fired from Microsoft? I don't think so.
They own a huge chunk of Apple. They want to protect the business that they own. They calculate that this strategy will yield bigger returns than selling their interest.
If indeed you want to buy 2.2 million shares of Apple, so you can too be a major owner, then do it. Today. I guarantee you that 2.2 million shares will magically appear for sale in various lots if you put in a market order. Right now.
Then you will too have a say in how management runs the company you own.
If you actually look at the positions in Apple stock, you will see that you comment is in error:
According to Daily Finance, the top ten institutional shareholders are:
Fidelity Management & Research 53.07M
Vanguard Group, Inc. 33.86M
State Street Global Advisors (US) 31.54M
BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N.A. 30.28M
T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. 23.25M
Invesco PowerShares Capital Management LLC 16.09M
Janus Capital Management LLC 12.48M
Wellington Management Company, LLP 11.12M
AllianceBernstein L.P. 10.95M
Capital World Investors 10.57M
The top ten mutual fund shareholders are:
Fidelity Contrafund 16.44M
PowerShares QQQ Trust - Series 1 15.19M
Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund 9.57M
Vanguard 500 Index Fund 8.31M
American Funds Growth Fund of America 8.2M
Fidelity Growth Company Fund 6.33M
Vanguard Institutional Index Fund 6.53M
T. Rowe Price Growth Stock Fund 5.77M
SPDR S&P 500 ETF 6.61M
Statens Pensjonsfond Utland 6.48M
The top ten individual shareholders are:
Jobs (Steven P) 5.55M
Levinson (Arthur D) 225,015
Mansfield (Robert) 40,831
York (Jerome
Drexler (Millard S) 40,000
Cook (Timothy D) 13,659
Oppenheimer (Peter) 8,105
Forstall (Scott) 2,830
Gore (Albert A Jr) 1,000
Johnson (Ronald
So by any measure CalPERS DO NOT hold a "huge chunk" of Apple, and don't even show up in the listings as such. You need to square the facts with what is known to speculate accurately. they have no effective leverage when it comes to it - looking at the ownership above, holding less than half of what Jobs himself holds and les than a third of the lowest mutual or institutional holders. This is just grandstanding and posturing by CalPERS. No experienced fund manager looking at Apple performance is going to recommend interfering in board process unless the company is either being mismanaged and losing money or has demonstrated malfeasance.
Unions, as collective entities, should be barred from investing in corporate stocks or, doing so, relinquish their right to vote in stockholder votes... it's an obvious conflict of interest.
Keep your capitalist political comments to yourself. Unions had nothing to do with GM failing it was management. Sports has it right, whenever the team (union workers/players) fails management gets the heave ho and new managers bought in that usually get better results with the same set of employees. GM was busy building HUMMERS while Toyota was making Pruis'. How is that error the fault of a union employee? But I do totally agree that these pension people leave Apple alone.
In Germany the Union president sits on the BOD and has a say on how the company is run. Its worked out quite well for both company and employees. BTW Apple's beloved ATT is the only wireless company with unionized employees.
I hate to bring reality into your little fantasy, but:
1) $51Billion is plenty of "future strategy" for Apple.
2) As shareholders, it *IS* their money. They are part owners of the company and therefore part owners of the profits. That's what being a shareholder is.
3) As part owners, they DO get to say how the company is run. There is nothing going on here that is illegal or even immoral. In fact, it could be argued that it's actually Apple who, by obfuscating the board-selection process and withholding profits from its co-owners (again the shareholders), is being immoral.
You're attributing all greed-motive in this affair to CalPERS and none to Apple, and that's completely disingenuous.
Just to put this in perspective:
CalPERS holds a whopping 1% of shares held by institutional holders. WOW! Yep they are entitled to a 1% part in the decision-making process for Apple shareholders. But oh wait. That was just institutional shareholders - how do they compare to 917.31 million shares held in total? Lesseee - that's 0.0023%. In which case I am perfectly comfortable as an Apple shareholder with Apple giving CalPERS exactly the control they merit based on their holdings.
And what do you base the charge of "obfusticating the board-selection process" exactly? As a publically held corporate entity the board selection process is a matter of public record and outlined in their corporate reporting. Nothin immoral (and I would wonder which set of moral standards you would even bring to bear on this issue). Your corp-dislike is palpable in your postings, and allows you to make statements that are patently untrue.
Your further commentary bears this out - you attribute thusly:
By your dictum, minority voters should never have a say. The strong should always overpower the weak and repress their desires. Really? Might makes right? REALLY? Is that what you think this country is about?
Me, I always thought that everyone had a say. It was kind of the reason this country was founded; that each citizen (aka stockholder) would be allowed to speak and have a vote.
That was not what was stated by zoetmb:
I've never felt that minority shareholders should be able to tell a company how to run itself.
The statement, I believe, refers to minorities exerting UNDUE influence - in other words influence beyond their means. In this case CalPERS wants changes that they by themselves, based on their holdings can't drive. The best they can hope for is to build a coalition of institutional or private holders to leverage enough shares to actually influence - highly unlikely since Apple is not by any indication being mismanaged.
Your remaining statements about "what this country is about" reflect a very poor understanding of the history of the US, and how representation works. In a pure democracy, all votes are equal and required to make policy, etc. The US is not a pure democracy - it is a democratic republic - with representational governance. That is why popular vote may show one candidate as winning, but the actual results are determined by the electoral college vote. Further the founding fathers assumed that those most qualified to vote would be landholders (ie business men) not the rank and file regardless of status. That came later.