ISS is in no position to tell Apple what to do. Apart from the fact that they have their own governance issues (especially conflict-of-interest issues) to deal with, I dont see a succession plan on their website (www.issgovernance.com).
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?
Probably not, based on what I hear other companies do routinely to explain their succession planning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
ISS is in no position to tell Apple what to do. Apart from the fact that they have their own governance issues (especially conflict-of-interest issues) to deal with, I dont see a succession plan on their website.
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.
Why doesn't this surprise me. I am voting my shares with the board on this. No good can come from a public succession plan,
You could start by reading and responding to the article I linked from the Financial Times. Go ahead, give it a try -- nobody else has.
OK, I read the article, and it is apparent to me that it was paraphrased by AI in their article.
The only thing I see in the FT article that is not referenced in the AI article, is that some people want the Apple board to disclose Steve Jobs' medical condition. I still don't believe this is necessary, as it is the responsibility of the board to exercise their judgement as to the question of the CEO's fitness, not a bunch of armchair quarterbacks. The FT article mentions that some other companies have made further disclosures after similar shareholder proposals, but it doesn't say what the disclosures were. So really, I still don't know what you are on about, but I also don't care any more.
Just for future reference, if you want to understand why people didn't read your link, observe the fact that you did not give any idea of what was in the link, and the rest of your post had a very peevish tone which might have put off some people.
Since when does a labor union (or their pension fund entity) know a friggin' thing about good business practices, or what it takes to efficiently manage anything?
Maybe they need to invest in Microsoft - it's pretty stable....
I've read quite a few of his many posts on this and frankly he seems more vague than apple.
It seems a general "more" or "not what they're doing now". I also would like an example of what he would like.
You can look this stuff up as easily as I can. A great deal of information about what's normally in succession plans can be easily found. Since Apple has provided no information, anything is more. If you look back, you will see that my so-called "vague" responses are in reply to those who are spreading the red herring argument that names are being demanded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Realistic
Why doesn't this surprise me. I am voting my shares with the board on this. No good can come from a public succession plan,
Do you care to back up that argument, or just state an assertion without any support?
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
I wasn't talking about stockholders, so I have no idea what point you are trying to make (in relation to my post).
Then I guess I have no idea what point you were trying to make.
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney
OK, I read the article, and it is apparent to me that it was paraphrased by AI in their article.
The only thing I see in the FT article that is not referenced in the AI article, is that some people want the Apple board to disclose Steve Jobs' medical condition. I still don't believe this is necessary, as it is the responsibility of the board to exercise their judgement as to the question of the CEO's fitness, not a bunch of armchair quarterbacks. The FT article mentions that some other companies have made further disclosures after similar shareholder proposals, but it doesn't say what the disclosures were. So really, I still don't know what you are on about, but I also don't care any more.
Just for future reference, if you want to understand why people didn't read your link, observe the fact that you did not give any idea of what was in the link, and the rest of your post had a very peevish tone which might have put off some people.
No, there's more about what is actually being requested, which contradicts Apple's official position to a large extent, and also the misinformation being spread here. The only reason the medical situation is referenced is that it points out the much greater level of uncertainty surrounding Apple's leadership than at most companies. It also named some of the other companies which were far more responsive to the request than Apple (which would not take much, since Apple has been completely unresponsive).
If I worried about peevish tones, I wouldn't respond to very much of anything on these boards.
It also named some of the other companies which were far more responsive to the request than Apple (which would not take much, since Apple has been completely unresponsive).
And are these other companies also far more successful than Apple? They must be, if you want Apple to emulate them. Names, please, of these phenomenally successful companies?
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.
If it has nothing to do with their success ..... then you shouldn't mind Apple keeping its plans secret from you or me ..... and all of their competitors.
Imagine if a plan was broadcast and some employees found out they were not going to be the next "great leader". How many "noses would be out of joint" and how many otherwise very competent employees would be "ripe for the picking."
Unlike you, I'll be voting against the proposal because I am under no illusion that I have to be privy to all of Apple decisions before I can make an intelligent decision on whether to buy more, or sell off my shares.
...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.
Great post ... lots of well reasoned and logical thoughts. Thanks.
In the event the Board determines the need to appoint a new CEO, the Board has identified the following candidates for consideration: redacted redacted redacted. Proprietary company information has been redacted to protect the interests of shareholders.
Nuff said.
For un-redacted content, recommend check Wikileaks.
I checked the document in Wiki Leaks and found that the candidates do no include Bill Gates, Steve Balmer or Eric Schmidt.
Makes more sense for companies that do not have any good executives to promote from within. Apple has dozens of executives that are more then qualified to be CEO. This sounds more like an attempt to stir controversy or just a firm that just doesn't have a clue about Apple. Not to mention that it will almost certainly be Tim Cook, so this is all just ridiculous.
Wow. How old is the average member of this forum? Last time SJ left Apple things did not go well. If I owned shares in Apple (which I should have done 22 years ago when I bought my first Mac) I would be EXTREMELY interested in how they think they can survive his departure. Last time, if anything, there was even more confidence that SJ did not = Apple and that it would go on without him. It did not.
Comments
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?
Probably not, based on what I hear other companies do routinely to explain their succession planning.
ISS is in no position to tell Apple what to do. Apart from the fact that they have their own governance issues (especially conflict-of-interest issues) to deal with, I dont see a succession plan on their website.
No, they don't, the stockholders do.
it ain't gonna happen and all your lame posting is just taking up space.
if you're not one, maybe you should talk to a psychiatrist to find out what's motivating your penchant for transparency.
Very impressive logic.
Probably not, based on what I hear other companies do routinely to explain their succession planning.
I wish you would provide a reference or just give a brief summary of what you are talking about,
because I am not getting it from your posts so far.
I wish you would provide a reference or just give a brief summary of what you are talking about,
because I am not getting it from your posts so far.
You could start by reading and responding to the article I linked from the Financial Times. Go ahead, give it a try -- nobody else has.
I wish you would provide a reference or just give a brief summary of what you are talking about,
because I am not getting it from your posts so far.
I've read quite a few of his many posts on this and frankly he seems more vague than apple.
It seems a general "more" or "not what they're doing now". I also would like an example of what he would like.
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.
Why doesn't this surprise me. I am voting my shares with the board on this. No good can come from a public succession plan,
No, they don't, the stockholders do.
I wasn't talking about stockholders, so I have no idea what point you are trying to make (in relation to my post).
You could start by reading and responding to the article I linked from the Financial Times. Go ahead, give it a try -- nobody else has.
OK, I read the article, and it is apparent to me that it was paraphrased by AI in their article.
The only thing I see in the FT article that is not referenced in the AI article, is that some people want the Apple board to disclose Steve Jobs' medical condition. I still don't believe this is necessary, as it is the responsibility of the board to exercise their judgement as to the question of the CEO's fitness, not a bunch of armchair quarterbacks. The FT article mentions that some other companies have made further disclosures after similar shareholder proposals, but it doesn't say what the disclosures were. So really, I still don't know what you are on about, but I also don't care any more.
Just for future reference, if you want to understand why people didn't read your link, observe the fact that you did not give any idea of what was in the link, and the rest of your post had a very peevish tone which might have put off some people.
If only a few hundred shares was enough to make a difference.
Maybe they need to invest in Microsoft - it's pretty stable....
I've read quite a few of his many posts on this and frankly he seems more vague than apple.
It seems a general "more" or "not what they're doing now". I also would like an example of what he would like.
You can look this stuff up as easily as I can. A great deal of information about what's normally in succession plans can be easily found. Since Apple has provided no information, anything is more. If you look back, you will see that my so-called "vague" responses are in reply to those who are spreading the red herring argument that names are being demanded.
Why doesn't this surprise me. I am voting my shares with the board on this. No good can come from a public succession plan,
Do you care to back up that argument, or just state an assertion without any support?
I wasn't talking about stockholders, so I have no idea what point you are trying to make (in relation to my post).
Then I guess I have no idea what point you were trying to make.
OK, I read the article, and it is apparent to me that it was paraphrased by AI in their article.
The only thing I see in the FT article that is not referenced in the AI article, is that some people want the Apple board to disclose Steve Jobs' medical condition. I still don't believe this is necessary, as it is the responsibility of the board to exercise their judgement as to the question of the CEO's fitness, not a bunch of armchair quarterbacks. The FT article mentions that some other companies have made further disclosures after similar shareholder proposals, but it doesn't say what the disclosures were. So really, I still don't know what you are on about, but I also don't care any more.
Just for future reference, if you want to understand why people didn't read your link, observe the fact that you did not give any idea of what was in the link, and the rest of your post had a very peevish tone which might have put off some people.
No, there's more about what is actually being requested, which contradicts Apple's official position to a large extent, and also the misinformation being spread here. The only reason the medical situation is referenced is that it points out the much greater level of uncertainty surrounding Apple's leadership than at most companies. It also named some of the other companies which were far more responsive to the request than Apple (which would not take much, since Apple has been completely unresponsive).
If I worried about peevish tones, I wouldn't respond to very much of anything on these boards.
It also named some of the other companies which were far more responsive to the request than Apple (which would not take much, since Apple has been completely unresponsive).
And are these other companies also far more successful than Apple? They must be, if you want Apple to emulate them. Names, please, of these phenomenally successful companies?
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.
If it has nothing to do with their success ..... then you shouldn't mind Apple keeping its plans secret from you or me ..... and all of their competitors.
Imagine if a plan was broadcast and some employees found out they were not going to be the next "great leader". How many "noses would be out of joint" and how many otherwise very competent employees would be "ripe for the picking."
Unlike you, I'll be voting against the proposal because I am under no illusion that I have to be privy to all of Apple decisions before I can make an intelligent decision on whether to buy more, or sell off my shares.
Please, don't be insane.
Brilliant!
...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.
Great post ... lots of well reasoned and logical thoughts. Thanks.
Nuff said.
For un-redacted content, recommend check Wikileaks.
I checked the document in Wiki Leaks and found that the candidates do no include Bill Gates, Steve Balmer or Eric Schmidt.
I haven't heard any compelling arguments anyway.