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.
2) The $51 billion belongs to Apple, not to people buying Apple stock. When you buy stock, all you get is stock.
3) People owning stock in a company get no say what so ever in how the company is run unless they have voting stock.
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:
That was not what was stated by zoetmb:
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.
best, clearest and most truthful post of the day sir!!
With Apple now being the 3rd largest company in the world, and the 2nd largest in the US, it'll be difficult for Ms. Simpson to demonstrate this alleged risk. Especially since Apple's turnaround began by dissolving the old board of directors.
To be fair, that reasoning makes "risk" only demonstrable after the fact. To go a little vulgar, it's like saying that condoms aren't necessary for anyone who hasn't yet caught a STD.
As a happy Apple shareholder and someone pretty impressed with management the past decade or so, my inclination is to say "if this were a good idea, Jobs et al would be supporting it." However, it's not really fair to dismiss CalPERS' concerns just because lightning hasn't struck yet.
I doubt you even know what a socialist means. By the way, how do you enjoy the publicly funded roads, your likely public education, and the publicly subsidized Universities?
You like one of those people who like to defeat arguments by attaching labels to the people making them. Another form of McCarthyism. The reality is some of the better parts of government are socialist in nature and some of the finer things in our society are only enjoyed because of public tax dollars.
Moreover, the pension fund owns 2 Millions shares of Apple. If it wants to raise an issue for a vote, that is essentially how democracy works. Perhaps you have problem with that as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacinTek
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.
The largest public pension in the U.S. is aggressively going after Apple with an advisory shareholder resolution that aims to change the company's board election policies.
The California Public Employees' Retirement System is seeking to change the policies of Apple and 57 other large companies that make up a portion of its nearly $200 billion U.S. portfolio. By lobbying for new rules requiring a majority vote for directors, CalPERS is hoping to bring about higher board member accountability to shareholders.
News of CalPERS' push for corporate governance reform was first reported in March by BusinessWeek. After Apple resisted CalPERS' initial request, the pension fund submitted an advisory shareholder resolution, The Wall Street Journal reports.
"There is systemic risk when directors are not accountable," Anne Simpson, CalPERS' head of corporate governance, told the Journal in an interview Tuesday. Apple's current policy allows its directors to keep their seats with just a single vote in uncontested elections.
As of March 2010, CalPERS owned 2.2 million shares of Apple stock. By comparison, Apple CEO and co-founder Steve Jobs owns an estimated 5 million shares.
Apple is the first company that CalPERS has targeted with a shareholder resolution in its push for changes in corporate governance. The resolution will come up for a vote at the Cupertino, Calif., company's annual meeting in February.
CalPERS has a history of using its clout as the nation's largest pension fund to lobby for corporate reform. In 2004, CalPERS' president of the board was removed from his position in response to criticism that he was participating in corporate governance activism. Also in 2004, CalPERS warned Apple that it would vote no on all three of its shareholder measures.
According to the report, 20 of the 58 companies lobbied have agreed to CalPERS' proposal.
Apple's reticence may also stem from the fact that California law forces directors to step down if a majority-vote policy is in place and they fail to win a majority. In other states, the rules aren't typically binding, with boards reserving the right to ignore losing directors' offers to resign, the report noted.
Hopefully, as common sense would dictate, all pension funds will rally behind CalPERS to force accountability from the Apple Board of directors.
If I understand well, at present, the directors are voted in office as a slate, meaning that there is no individual vote for each director, but directors are elected as a group labeled "Steve Jobs for President of the Board and his team of directors".
Also implied by the article, reflecting current practice, there is no opposition, no opposing slate of candidates and no formal vote to elect the Apple Board of directors in spite of the fact that Apple is now the second largest American company for its stock market value.
If I am right, directors will have to be elected individually and retire if they don't gain a majority vote from shareholders.
For the life of me, I can't understand why Apple is not governed according to the laws of California.
Hopefully, as common sense would dictate, all pension funds will rally behind CalPERS to force accountability from the Apple Board of directors.
***
For the life of me, I can't understand why Apple is not governed according to the laws of California.
As a shareholder, I believe that the Apple board is plenty accountable ... they're accountable for making me rich, and insofar as they influence the company's activities, they're doing a fine job for me.
Apple is incorporated in the state of California, so it is governed by the California Corporations Code. What do you fail to understand about the state corporation law, or Apple's compliance?
Comments
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.
2) The $51 billion belongs to Apple, not to people buying Apple stock. When you buy stock, all you get is stock.
3) People owning stock in a company get no say what so ever in how the company is run unless they have voting stock.
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:
That was not what was stated by zoetmb:
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.
best, clearest and most truthful post of the day sir!!
With Apple now being the 3rd largest company in the world, and the 2nd largest in the US, it'll be difficult for Ms. Simpson to demonstrate this alleged risk. Especially since Apple's turnaround began by dissolving the old board of directors.
To be fair, that reasoning makes "risk" only demonstrable after the fact. To go a little vulgar, it's like saying that condoms aren't necessary for anyone who hasn't yet caught a STD.
As a happy Apple shareholder and someone pretty impressed with management the past decade or so, my inclination is to say "if this were a good idea, Jobs et al would be supporting it." However, it's not really fair to dismiss CalPERS' concerns just because lightning hasn't struck yet.
Agree. If they don't like the way Apple is run, just sell their Apple stocks, I will buy.
Or they could buy up all available Apple stocks.
You like one of those people who like to defeat arguments by attaching labels to the people making them. Another form of McCarthyism. The reality is some of the better parts of government are socialist in nature and some of the finer things in our society are only enjoyed because of public tax dollars.
Moreover, the pension fund owns 2 Millions shares of Apple. If it wants to raise an issue for a vote, that is essentially how democracy works. Perhaps you have problem with that as well.
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.
The largest public pension in the U.S. is aggressively going after Apple with an advisory shareholder resolution that aims to change the company's board election policies.
The California Public Employees' Retirement System is seeking to change the policies of Apple and 57 other large companies that make up a portion of its nearly $200 billion U.S. portfolio. By lobbying for new rules requiring a majority vote for directors, CalPERS is hoping to bring about higher board member accountability to shareholders.
News of CalPERS' push for corporate governance reform was first reported in March by BusinessWeek. After Apple resisted CalPERS' initial request, the pension fund submitted an advisory shareholder resolution, The Wall Street Journal reports.
"There is systemic risk when directors are not accountable," Anne Simpson, CalPERS' head of corporate governance, told the Journal in an interview Tuesday. Apple's current policy allows its directors to keep their seats with just a single vote in uncontested elections.
As of March 2010, CalPERS owned 2.2 million shares of Apple stock. By comparison, Apple CEO and co-founder Steve Jobs owns an estimated 5 million shares.
Apple is the first company that CalPERS has targeted with a shareholder resolution in its push for changes in corporate governance. The resolution will come up for a vote at the Cupertino, Calif., company's annual meeting in February.
CalPERS has a history of using its clout as the nation's largest pension fund to lobby for corporate reform. In 2004, CalPERS' president of the board was removed from his position in response to criticism that he was participating in corporate governance activism. Also in 2004, CalPERS warned Apple that it would vote no on all three of its shareholder measures.
According to the report, 20 of the 58 companies lobbied have agreed to CalPERS' proposal.
Apple's reticence may also stem from the fact that California law forces directors to step down if a majority-vote policy is in place and they fail to win a majority. In other states, the rules aren't typically binding, with boards reserving the right to ignore losing directors' offers to resign, the report noted.
Hopefully, as common sense would dictate, all pension funds will rally behind CalPERS to force accountability from the Apple Board of directors.
If I understand well, at present, the directors are voted in office as a slate, meaning that there is no individual vote for each director, but directors are elected as a group labeled "Steve Jobs for President of the Board and his team of directors".
Also implied by the article, reflecting current practice, there is no opposition, no opposing slate of candidates and no formal vote to elect the Apple Board of directors in spite of the fact that Apple is now the second largest American company for its stock market value.
If I am right, directors will have to be elected individually and retire if they don't gain a majority vote from shareholders.
For the life of me, I can't understand why Apple is not governed according to the laws of California.
Hopefully, as common sense would dictate, all pension funds will rally behind CalPERS to force accountability from the Apple Board of directors.
***
For the life of me, I can't understand why Apple is not governed according to the laws of California.
As a shareholder, I believe that the Apple board is plenty accountable ... they're accountable for making me rich, and insofar as they influence the company's activities, they're doing a fine job for me.
Apple is incorporated in the state of California, so it is governed by the California Corporations Code. What do you fail to understand about the state corporation law, or Apple's compliance?