A lot of pundits, analysts and observers have weighed in on the future of Apple without Steve Jobs. There is no question that Apple without Steve Jobs will be different than Apple WITH Steve Jobs. The question remains, will Apple fail without him?
I think a couple of observations are in order here. Steve Jobs has talked about and demonstrated his interest in building Apple's successful continuance as a priority. He has probably one of the strongest and most talented executive teams running the day-to-day operations of any large corporation. And he has successfully kept the organization from building up too much managerial overhead - something that is plaguing Microsoft rather badly at the moment. Several members of that team are on record as mentioning the coherence of the vision that Jobs has given his team in order to maintain it's approach to personal technology products. It would be foolish to think that Apple doesn't have a number of products pipelined for release for the next half-decade or more based on on-going research and development at One Infinite Loop. Only a continued and myopic fascination with the current products prevents understanding this. Steve Jobs is interested in not just besting his competitors, but in ensuring that Apple will continue to do so as his legacy.
All that being said, there are a limited number of real visionaries who can be tapped. And it is difficult to have more than one visionary running things in any company. So the search for Jobs replacement, when it occurs, is IMHO going to be among existing or as yet undiscovered talents, not within the existing executive team. Unless some asinine activist shareholder diva steps in to bollox up the works that is...
I will vote my shares for this proposal. I think Apple's defense is silly, a very weak excuse for creating as many impediments to understanding the inner workings of the company as possible. It is not the case that Apple will need to disclose the names successors in the plan -- they can be far more general than that. Some also apparently believe it's unusual for companies to have disclosed succession plans. It is not. What's unusual is Apple's handling of this issue, which is why they are facing shareholder proposals like this.
And I will vote my shares against the proposal. Apple's penchant for playing their cards extremely close to their vest has paid off in spades. And if you really DO own shares in Apple, "Doctor", then why on earth would you think mucking with their extremely successful modus operandi will somehow make them a better company?
You know, Steve Jobs taking his little sabbatical has certainly gotten a lot of knickers in a twist. And yet for all of that, the stock price is almost back to its all-time high. Not exactly a run on the bank!
And if you want to know my opinion, then anyone with spare investment capital who doesn't take advantage of the present extremely cheap price for Apple is going to be kicking themselves in their posteriors before the year's out. And I might also add that even if Steve Jobs announced tomorrow he was retiring, that would still be the case.
Apple's momentum has reached a critical mass. If you think you've seen Apple grow up to now, then prepare to be astounded. You ain't seen nothin' yet!
I too will vote against this as I believe that Apple does have a comprehensive succession plan. Unfortunately, with over 70% of the stock held by institutional investors, how we vote will have no impact - they will decide the issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LewysBlackmore
All that being said, there are a limited number of real visionaries who can be tapped. And it is difficult to have more than one visionary running things in any company. So the search for Jobs replacement, when it occurs, is IMHO going to be among existing or as yet undiscovered talents, not within the existing executive team. Unless some asinine activist shareholder diva steps in to bollox up the works that is...
I feel very strongly that Tim Cook will become CEO. The bigger question to me is who gets slotted at COO.
As far as the vision thing goes, I don't want to take anything away from Jobs but his "vision" has been in most cases the collective vision of the many product managers, engineers and designers who truly make these things happen. If anything, what Jobs brings to Apple is a unanimity of purpose.
I wonder what their other share holdings are... It'd look mighty suspicious if they had large holdings in apples competitors.
They are supposedly representing pension holders but I think that is just a smokescreen. Also, why depending on stocks (which can be volatile and risky) for your pension pots? Just save more I would say or live by your means. If the reason they invest in Apple in the first place because what the company has achieved then stick with it - they knew it would be profitable -- do the homework. If I have APPL stocks, which I don't, I don't care what is the CEO succession plan - given the way the company has handle all things in the last 10+ years, I am pretty sure it is solid pre and post-SJ .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
I will vote my shares for this proposal. I think Apple's defense is silly, a very weak excuse for creating as many impediments to understanding the inner workings of the company as possible. [...] why they are facing shareholder proposals like this.
Calm down.. Why do you need to know everything? This is BUSINESS. Secrecy equal competitiveness otherwise why innovate? It is not like they have torture chamber somewhere or doing something sinister to humanity. I could understand if you want to ask who is succeeding Ballmer at Microsoft with all bad news of late but Apple? Secrets is second nature to them and everybody knows it. Get a grip.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LewysBlackmore
...at what point do shareholders get to make decisions for the executive team running the company? How do you balance shareholder "need to know" with executive need to protect critical strategic information in order to stay competitive?
Agree with your concern there. In my view, shareholders just give the money and monitor their investments. As long as it is in good shape, let them be or move along. This is not Lehman Brothers or Ponzy scheme.
...at what point do shareholders get to make decisions for the executive team running the company? How do you balance shareholder "need to know" with executive need to protect critical strategic information in order to stay competitive?
Apple has disclosed that there is a succession plan in place, what more do shareholders need to know? While it is not unusual to publish a succession plan for a company, it is also a discretionary decision by the BOD to publish that and the level of detail published. Apple is not a co-operative company - they are a publicly held company with an active and informed BOD, producing revenue and stock performance well above the market trends.
What if Apple bowed to self-interested shareholder demands and the result tanked the stock and devalued Apple - who would be to blame? Certainly not the shareholders, the BOD would be on the line for such a decision and it's impact. No one would think to hold the shareholders accountable for such a decision, ill-advised though it may be, no matter how strident the demands to do it. But then maybe the interests of the shareholders in question was not to maintain the stock performance but to deliberately tank the stock and leverage that to purchase more shares. No one has a higher vested interest in the well-being and performance of the company than the BOD and the executive team, regardless of how many shares a pension fund holds. Shareholders have conflicting and sometimes competing interests where the company is concerned - and those interests are in no way consistently in the interests of the company and usually only in the best interest of the shareholders making the demands.
DISCLAIMER: I hold shares in Apple, Inc.
The shareholders own the company. I'm always surprised when I have to explain that.
Having a succession plan and making this known is a normal, responsible thing for a company to do. It's one normal, responsible thing Apple's board has refused to do. It's not a good thing just because they are doing it. Boards have a vested interest in keeping things secret. Bizarre scenarios are not relevant.
And I will vote my shares against the proposal. Apple's penchant for playing their cards extremely close to their vest has paid off in spades. And if you really DO own shares in Apple, "Doctor", then why on earth would you think mucking with their extremely successful modus operandi will somehow make them a better company?
You know, Steve Jobs taking his little sabbatical has certainly gotten a lot of knickers in a twist. And yet for all of that, the stock price is almost back to its all-time high. Not exactly a run on the bank!
And if you want to know my opinion, then anyone with spare investment capital who doesn't take advantage of the present extremely cheap price for Apple is going to be kicking themselves in their posteriors before the year's out. And I might also add that even if Steve Jobs announced tomorrow he was retiring, that would still be the case.
Apple's momentum has reached a critical mass. If you think you've seen Apple grow up to now, then prepare to be astounded. You ain't seen nothin' yet!
Suit yourself. I don't think keeping this a secret has one, even tiny thing to do with Apple's success, which it seems to me, has to do with making great products, not trying to snow their stockholders.
Apple management has consistently made great decisions - so I say we should let them make these decisions regarding revealing management succession planning too.
Hopefully, they won't have to implement a succession plan for a very long time!
I will vote my shares for this proposal. I think Apple's defense is silly, a very weak excuse for creating as many impediments to understanding the inner workings of the company as possible. It is not the case that Apple will need to disclose the names successors in the plan -- they can be far more general than that. Some also apparently believe it's unusual for companies to have disclosed succession plans. It is not. What's unusual is Apple's handling of this issue, which is why they are facing shareholder proposals like this.
Having been a large share holder since Steve came back I couldn't disagree more. I trust whatever Steve put in place hopefully until his return soon or not.
Now I think about it I have rarely agreed with anything you say so I guess my comment isn't a surprise.
I will vote my shares for this proposal. I think Apple's defense is silly, a very weak excuse for creating as many impediments to understanding the inner workings of the company as possible. It is not the case that Apple will need to disclose the names successors in the plan -- they can be far more general than that. Some also apparently believe it's unusual for companies to have disclosed succession plans. It is not. What's unusual is Apple's handling of this issue, which is why they are facing shareholder proposals like this.
If they do not disclose the names, what is it that you want them to disclose?
The shareholders own the company. I'm always surprised when I have to explain that.
Having a succession plan and making this known is a normal, responsible thing for a company to do. It's one normal, responsible thing Apple's board has refused to do. It's not a good thing just because they are doing it. Boards have a vested interest in keeping things secret. Bizarre scenarios are not relevant.
Shareholders own INTEREST in the company, in such percentages as are represented by the numbers of shares held. At any point Apple can do a buy-back of those shares and reduce the interest held. They do NOT "own' the company in any sense of that term. To make the statement that shareholders "own" the company would seem to indicate a fundamental misunderstanding about the role of shareholding in the operations of a publicly held company.
The BOD is responsible to but not required to "obey" the wishes of the shareholders. Likewise, the shareholders, if the BOD refuses to speak to collective concerns in an acceptable manner, the shareholders can vote to unseat members of the board or refuse to re-elect them.
The BOD owes duty to the corporation and not its individual shareholders. most often the distinction is not important, since what is good for the corporation is usually good for the shareholders. Ensuring equitable return to shareholders is also in best interests of the corporation. However there may be points where corporate and shareholders interests part. For example common shareholders may have interest in realizing short-term investment gains on their investment, which the directors may conclude is not in the long-term best interests of the corporation. Even further, majority or class shareholders interests may conflict with the interests of the corporation. A controlling shareholder can demand the corporation to take an action that may be in its interest, but not necessarily in the best interests of the corporation. Pursuing the right choice is critical in that case.
Except for designated fundamental transactions, shareholders normally do not participate directly in corporate decision-making and while, the BOD wants to know the views of the shareholders, they are not required to ask for or even comply with the wishes of shareholders. This has been upheld in a number of significant court cases.
My example was not out of the realm of possibility and has occurred in the past with other companies. so to dismiss it out of hand would be unwise.
Having been a large share holder since Steve came back I couldn't disagree more. I trust whatever Steve put in place hopefully until his return soon or not.
Now I think about it I have rarely agreed with anything you say so I guess my comment isn't a surprise.
I've been a large shareholder since 1997. I obviously like a lot of what's been accomplished since then, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with everything the board does. Apple's record on shareholder relations has been pretty shabby on a whole. That's a blemish that they don't need. It's a choice. A poor choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney
If they do not disclose the names, what is it that you want them to disclose?
The plan and how it would be implemented. This is another area where the board doesn't have to provide details, just some of the generalities. This has been discussed at length in other threads.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LewysBlackmore
Shareholders own INTEREST in the company, in such percentages as are represented by the numbers of shares held. At any point Apple can do a buy-back of those shares and reduce the interest held. They do NOT "own' the company in any sense of that term. To make the statement that shareholders "own" the company would seem to indicate a fundamental misunderstanding about the role of shareholding in the operations of a publicly held company.
The BOD is responsible to but not required to "obey" the wishes of the shareholders. Likewise, the shareholders, if the BOD refuses to speak to collective concerns in an acceptable manner, the shareholders can vote to unseat members of the board or refuse to re-elect them.
The BOD owes duty to the corporation and not its individual shareholders. most often the distinction is not important, since what is good for the corporation is usually good for the shareholders. Ensuring equitable return to shareholders is also in best interests of the corporation. However there may be points where corporate and shareholders interests part. For example common shareholders may have interest in realizing short-term investment gains on their investment, which the directors may conclude is not in the long-term best interests of the corporation. Even further, majority or class shareholders interests may conflict with the interests of the corporation. A controlling shareholder can demand the corporation to take an action that may be in its interest, but not necessarily in the best interests of the corporation. Pursuing the right choice is critical in that case.
Except for designated fundamental transactions, shareholders normally do not participate directly in corporate decision-making and while, the BOD wants to know the views of the shareholders, they are not required to ask for or even comply with the wishes of shareholders. This has been upheld in a number of significant court cases.
My example was not out of the realm of possibility and has occurred in the past with other companies. so to dismiss it out of hand would be unwise.
Not really. The board is elected by the shareholders and therefore is directly responsible to the shareholders. If the shareholders are dissatisfied with the performance of the board, the board can be thrown out. Things can be changed. It's happened before. What you are really relating is the fact that the board and upper management itself typically controls a substantial number of the voting shares, which allows them to normally ignore the shareholders, unless they are facing some sort of organized shareholder revolt. So the shareholders interests by definition never "conflict" with the interests of the corporation, but they may certainly conflict with the interests of the board. A very different matter, and not to be confused. So what you are seeing here is a large shareholder exercising their voting rights in an effort to change a board policy which is not in the shareholder's interests.
So what I'm saying is, don't do the adoration thing. Just because the board is doing something, doesn't mean it's right for anyone but them.
The shareholders own the company. I'm always surprised when I have to explain that.
Having a succession plan and making this known is a normal, responsible thing for a company to do. It's one normal, responsible thing Apple's board has refused to do. It's not a good thing just because they are doing it. Boards have a vested interest in keeping things secret. Bizarre scenarios are not relevant.
Are you more concerned that they do or don't have a succession plan - or that you're not in on what it is?
Want to get more involved in an advisory role at Apple?
Has Microsoft published their succession plan, because it is just a matter of time until Steve Balmer gets canned. And have any Wall St investment firms published a plan, because it's just a matter of time until one of them ends up in prison.
Obviously they have a plan in place, but please, Steve Jobs is still the CEO; give the man some respect. Respect his privacy.
If one of the pensioners asked for a succession plan for the pension fund, they'd laugh at him, and tell him to go back in his trailer.
Has Microsoft published their succession plan, because it is just a matter of time until Steve Balmer gets canned. And have any Wall St investment firms published a plan, because it's just a matter of time until one of them ends up in prison.
Obviously they have a plan in place, but please, Steve Jobs is still the CEO; give the man some respect. Respect his privacy.
If one of the pensioners asked for a succession plan for the pension fund, they'd laugh at him, and tell him to go back in his trailer.
Microsoft had a published succession plan BEFORE Bill Gates stepped out of the CEO spot. Lots of other companies do also. This has absolutely nothing to do with Steve's privacy.
The plan and how it would be implemented. This is another area where the board doesn't have to provide details, just some of the generalities. This has been discussed at length in other threads.
Suppose the plan was for the Board of Directors to use its judgement as to if or when a new CEO was needed, and, when they decided, to conduct an executive search for candidates inside and outside of Apple, Inc., according to the Human Resources guidelines already in place and their discretionary criteria for qualifications?
Comments
I think a couple of observations are in order here. Steve Jobs has talked about and demonstrated his interest in building Apple's successful continuance as a priority. He has probably one of the strongest and most talented executive teams running the day-to-day operations of any large corporation. And he has successfully kept the organization from building up too much managerial overhead - something that is plaguing Microsoft rather badly at the moment. Several members of that team are on record as mentioning the coherence of the vision that Jobs has given his team in order to maintain it's approach to personal technology products. It would be foolish to think that Apple doesn't have a number of products pipelined for release for the next half-decade or more based on on-going research and development at One Infinite Loop. Only a continued and myopic fascination with the current products prevents understanding this. Steve Jobs is interested in not just besting his competitors, but in ensuring that Apple will continue to do so as his legacy.
All that being said, there are a limited number of real visionaries who can be tapped. And it is difficult to have more than one visionary running things in any company. So the search for Jobs replacement, when it occurs, is IMHO going to be among existing or as yet undiscovered talents, not within the existing executive team. Unless some asinine activist shareholder diva steps in to bollox up the works that is...
I will vote my shares for this proposal. I think Apple's defense is silly, a very weak excuse for creating as many impediments to understanding the inner workings of the company as possible. It is not the case that Apple will need to disclose the names successors in the plan -- they can be far more general than that. Some also apparently believe it's unusual for companies to have disclosed succession plans. It is not. What's unusual is Apple's handling of this issue, which is why they are facing shareholder proposals like this.
And I will vote my shares against the proposal. Apple's penchant for playing their cards extremely close to their vest has paid off in spades. And if you really DO own shares in Apple, "Doctor", then why on earth would you think mucking with their extremely successful modus operandi will somehow make them a better company?
You know, Steve Jobs taking his little sabbatical has certainly gotten a lot of knickers in a twist. And yet for all of that, the stock price is almost back to its all-time high. Not exactly a run on the bank!
And if you want to know my opinion, then anyone with spare investment capital who doesn't take advantage of the present extremely cheap price for Apple is going to be kicking themselves in their posteriors before the year's out. And I might also add that even if Steve Jobs announced tomorrow he was retiring, that would still be the case.
Apple's momentum has reached a critical mass. If you think you've seen Apple grow up to now, then prepare to be astounded. You ain't seen nothin' yet!
As an AAPL owner, I really wish Apple would tell these guys to sell their stake and buzz off.
Would you appreciate Apple telling YOU to sell your stake and buzz off?
Or would you appreciate a large shareholder taking the same advice and flooding the market with their stake?
Apple is a smart company... including how it handles investor relationships.
All that being said, there are a limited number of real visionaries who can be tapped. And it is difficult to have more than one visionary running things in any company. So the search for Jobs replacement, when it occurs, is IMHO going to be among existing or as yet undiscovered talents, not within the existing executive team. Unless some asinine activist shareholder diva steps in to bollox up the works that is...
I feel very strongly that Tim Cook will become CEO. The bigger question to me is who gets slotted at COO.
As far as the vision thing goes, I don't want to take anything away from Jobs but his "vision" has been in most cases the collective vision of the many product managers, engineers and designers who truly make these things happen. If anything, what Jobs brings to Apple is a unanimity of purpose.
I wonder what their other share holdings are... It'd look mighty suspicious if they had large holdings in apples competitors.
They are supposedly representing pension holders but I think that is just a smokescreen. Also, why depending on stocks (which can be volatile and risky) for your pension pots? Just save more I would say or live by your means. If the reason they invest in Apple in the first place because what the company has achieved then stick with it - they knew it would be profitable -- do the homework. If I have APPL stocks, which I don't, I don't care what is the CEO succession plan - given the way the company has handle all things in the last 10+ years, I am pretty sure it is solid pre and post-SJ .
I will vote my shares for this proposal. I think Apple's defense is silly, a very weak excuse for creating as many impediments to understanding the inner workings of the company as possible. [...] why they are facing shareholder proposals like this.
Calm down.. Why do you need to know everything? This is BUSINESS. Secrecy equal competitiveness otherwise why innovate? It is not like they have torture chamber somewhere or doing something sinister to humanity. I could understand if you want to ask who is succeeding Ballmer at Microsoft with all bad news of late but Apple? Secrets is second nature to them and everybody knows it. Get a grip.
...at what point do shareholders get to make decisions for the executive team running the company? How do you balance shareholder "need to know" with executive need to protect critical strategic information in order to stay competitive?
Agree with your concern there. In my view, shareholders just give the money and monitor their investments. As long as it is in good shape, let them be or move along. This is not Lehman Brothers or Ponzy scheme.
...at what point do shareholders get to make decisions for the executive team running the company? How do you balance shareholder "need to know" with executive need to protect critical strategic information in order to stay competitive?
Apple has disclosed that there is a succession plan in place, what more do shareholders need to know? While it is not unusual to publish a succession plan for a company, it is also a discretionary decision by the BOD to publish that and the level of detail published. Apple is not a co-operative company - they are a publicly held company with an active and informed BOD, producing revenue and stock performance well above the market trends.
What if Apple bowed to self-interested shareholder demands and the result tanked the stock and devalued Apple - who would be to blame? Certainly not the shareholders, the BOD would be on the line for such a decision and it's impact. No one would think to hold the shareholders accountable for such a decision, ill-advised though it may be, no matter how strident the demands to do it. But then maybe the interests of the shareholders in question was not to maintain the stock performance but to deliberately tank the stock and leverage that to purchase more shares. No one has a higher vested interest in the well-being and performance of the company than the BOD and the executive team, regardless of how many shares a pension fund holds. Shareholders have conflicting and sometimes competing interests where the company is concerned - and those interests are in no way consistently in the interests of the company and usually only in the best interest of the shareholders making the demands.
DISCLAIMER: I hold shares in Apple, Inc.
The shareholders own the company. I'm always surprised when I have to explain that.
Having a succession plan and making this known is a normal, responsible thing for a company to do. It's one normal, responsible thing Apple's board has refused to do. It's not a good thing just because they are doing it. Boards have a vested interest in keeping things secret. Bizarre scenarios are not relevant.
And I will vote my shares against the proposal. Apple's penchant for playing their cards extremely close to their vest has paid off in spades. And if you really DO own shares in Apple, "Doctor", then why on earth would you think mucking with their extremely successful modus operandi will somehow make them a better company?
You know, Steve Jobs taking his little sabbatical has certainly gotten a lot of knickers in a twist. And yet for all of that, the stock price is almost back to its all-time high. Not exactly a run on the bank!
And if you want to know my opinion, then anyone with spare investment capital who doesn't take advantage of the present extremely cheap price for Apple is going to be kicking themselves in their posteriors before the year's out. And I might also add that even if Steve Jobs announced tomorrow he was retiring, that would still be the case.
Apple's momentum has reached a critical mass. If you think you've seen Apple grow up to now, then prepare to be astounded. You ain't seen nothin' yet!
Suit yourself. I don't think keeping this a secret has one, even tiny thing to do with Apple's success, which it seems to me, has to do with making great products, not trying to snow their stockholders.
I am voting with the Board (by proxy).
Apple management has consistently made great decisions - so I say we should let them make these decisions regarding revealing management succession planning too.
Hopefully, they won't have to implement a succession plan for a very long time!
100% agree.
I will vote my shares for this proposal. I think Apple's defense is silly, a very weak excuse for creating as many impediments to understanding the inner workings of the company as possible. It is not the case that Apple will need to disclose the names successors in the plan -- they can be far more general than that. Some also apparently believe it's unusual for companies to have disclosed succession plans. It is not. What's unusual is Apple's handling of this issue, which is why they are facing shareholder proposals like this.
Having been a large share holder since Steve came back I couldn't disagree more. I trust whatever Steve put in place hopefully until his return soon or not.
Now I think about it I have rarely agreed with anything you say so I guess my comment isn't a surprise.
I will vote my shares for this proposal. I think Apple's defense is silly, a very weak excuse for creating as many impediments to understanding the inner workings of the company as possible. It is not the case that Apple will need to disclose the names successors in the plan -- they can be far more general than that. Some also apparently believe it's unusual for companies to have disclosed succession plans. It is not. What's unusual is Apple's handling of this issue, which is why they are facing shareholder proposals like this.
If they do not disclose the names, what is it that you want them to disclose?
The shareholders own the company. I'm always surprised when I have to explain that.
Having a succession plan and making this known is a normal, responsible thing for a company to do. It's one normal, responsible thing Apple's board has refused to do. It's not a good thing just because they are doing it. Boards have a vested interest in keeping things secret. Bizarre scenarios are not relevant.
Shareholders own INTEREST in the company, in such percentages as are represented by the numbers of shares held. At any point Apple can do a buy-back of those shares and reduce the interest held. They do NOT "own' the company in any sense of that term. To make the statement that shareholders "own" the company would seem to indicate a fundamental misunderstanding about the role of shareholding in the operations of a publicly held company.
The BOD is responsible to but not required to "obey" the wishes of the shareholders. Likewise, the shareholders, if the BOD refuses to speak to collective concerns in an acceptable manner, the shareholders can vote to unseat members of the board or refuse to re-elect them.
The BOD owes duty to the corporation and not its individual shareholders. most often the distinction is not important, since what is good for the corporation is usually good for the shareholders. Ensuring equitable return to shareholders is also in best interests of the corporation. However there may be points where corporate and shareholders interests part. For example common shareholders may have interest in realizing short-term investment gains on their investment, which the directors may conclude is not in the long-term best interests of the corporation. Even further, majority or class shareholders interests may conflict with the interests of the corporation. A controlling shareholder can demand the corporation to take an action that may be in its interest, but not necessarily in the best interests of the corporation. Pursuing the right choice is critical in that case.
Except for designated fundamental transactions, shareholders normally do not participate directly in corporate decision-making and while, the BOD wants to know the views of the shareholders, they are not required to ask for or even comply with the wishes of shareholders. This has been upheld in a number of significant court cases.
My example was not out of the realm of possibility and has occurred in the past with other companies. so to dismiss it out of hand would be unwise.
As an APPL investor.
Perhaps you should pay more attention to your statements...
AAPL
Having been a large share holder since Steve came back I couldn't disagree more. I trust whatever Steve put in place hopefully until his return soon or not.
Now I think about it I have rarely agreed with anything you say so I guess my comment isn't a surprise.
I've been a large shareholder since 1997. I obviously like a lot of what's been accomplished since then, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with everything the board does. Apple's record on shareholder relations has been pretty shabby on a whole. That's a blemish that they don't need. It's a choice. A poor choice.
If they do not disclose the names, what is it that you want them to disclose?
The plan and how it would be implemented. This is another area where the board doesn't have to provide details, just some of the generalities. This has been discussed at length in other threads.
Shareholders own INTEREST in the company, in such percentages as are represented by the numbers of shares held. At any point Apple can do a buy-back of those shares and reduce the interest held. They do NOT "own' the company in any sense of that term. To make the statement that shareholders "own" the company would seem to indicate a fundamental misunderstanding about the role of shareholding in the operations of a publicly held company.
The BOD is responsible to but not required to "obey" the wishes of the shareholders. Likewise, the shareholders, if the BOD refuses to speak to collective concerns in an acceptable manner, the shareholders can vote to unseat members of the board or refuse to re-elect them.
The BOD owes duty to the corporation and not its individual shareholders. most often the distinction is not important, since what is good for the corporation is usually good for the shareholders. Ensuring equitable return to shareholders is also in best interests of the corporation. However there may be points where corporate and shareholders interests part. For example common shareholders may have interest in realizing short-term investment gains on their investment, which the directors may conclude is not in the long-term best interests of the corporation. Even further, majority or class shareholders interests may conflict with the interests of the corporation. A controlling shareholder can demand the corporation to take an action that may be in its interest, but not necessarily in the best interests of the corporation. Pursuing the right choice is critical in that case.
Except for designated fundamental transactions, shareholders normally do not participate directly in corporate decision-making and while, the BOD wants to know the views of the shareholders, they are not required to ask for or even comply with the wishes of shareholders. This has been upheld in a number of significant court cases.
My example was not out of the realm of possibility and has occurred in the past with other companies. so to dismiss it out of hand would be unwise.
Not really. The board is elected by the shareholders and therefore is directly responsible to the shareholders. If the shareholders are dissatisfied with the performance of the board, the board can be thrown out. Things can be changed. It's happened before. What you are really relating is the fact that the board and upper management itself typically controls a substantial number of the voting shares, which allows them to normally ignore the shareholders, unless they are facing some sort of organized shareholder revolt. So the shareholders interests by definition never "conflict" with the interests of the corporation, but they may certainly conflict with the interests of the board. A very different matter, and not to be confused. So what you are seeing here is a large shareholder exercising their voting rights in an effort to change a board policy which is not in the shareholder's interests.
So what I'm saying is, don't do the adoration thing. Just because the board is doing something, doesn't mean it's right for anyone but them.
The shareholders own the company. I'm always surprised when I have to explain that.
Having a succession plan and making this known is a normal, responsible thing for a company to do. It's one normal, responsible thing Apple's board has refused to do. It's not a good thing just because they are doing it. Boards have a vested interest in keeping things secret. Bizarre scenarios are not relevant.
Are you more concerned that they do or don't have a succession plan - or that you're not in on what it is?
Want to get more involved in an advisory role at Apple?
Nominate yourself for a seat on the board.
Are you more concerned that they do or don't have a succession plan - or that you're not in on what it is?
Want to get more involved in an advisory role at Apple?
Nominate yourself for a seat on the board.
Try reading this instead of posting worthless baloney.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/5839dc72-2...#axzz1CwsnFKvd
Obviously they have a plan in place, but please, Steve Jobs is still the CEO; give the man some respect. Respect his privacy.
If one of the pensioners asked for a succession plan for the pension fund, they'd laugh at him, and tell him to go back in his trailer.
Has Microsoft published their succession plan, because it is just a matter of time until Steve Balmer gets canned. And have any Wall St investment firms published a plan, because it's just a matter of time until one of them ends up in prison.
Obviously they have a plan in place, but please, Steve Jobs is still the CEO; give the man some respect. Respect his privacy.
If one of the pensioners asked for a succession plan for the pension fund, they'd laugh at him, and tell him to go back in his trailer.
Microsoft had a published succession plan BEFORE Bill Gates stepped out of the CEO spot. Lots of other companies do also. This has absolutely nothing to do with Steve's privacy.
if you're not one, maybe you should talk to a psychiatrist to find out what's motivating your penchant for transparency.
The plan and how it would be implemented. This is another area where the board doesn't have to provide details, just some of the generalities. This has been discussed at length in other threads.
Suppose the plan was for the Board of Directors to use its judgement as to if or when a new CEO was needed, and, when they decided, to conduct an executive search for candidates inside and outside of Apple, Inc., according to the Human Resources guidelines already in place and their discretionary criteria for qualifications?
Would that be satisfactory?