Said "shareholder" has more $ then brains! Companies hire the best & brightest candidate for the job based on credentials, not by whatever skin tone is in vogue that day! Even here in the south where you mat "think" there would be racism of this sort it doesnt occur PERIOD! I suggest every shareholder vote this BS proposal down when they receive their proxy form.
This is nonsense but why do I get the feeling Apple will say that and then all of sudden there will be a person of color in the SVP ranks. I'm convinced the only reason they updated the executive page on Apple's website to include VPs reporting to Cook is so that page would look more diverse (he has two women of color reporting to him).
How does one one define diversity anyway? Eddy Cue is Cuban (his first name is Eduardo, middle name Horacio) and speaks fluent Spanish. Their chip guy who was recently promoted is from Israel. Jony Ive is British, Tim Cook is gay, Angela Ahrendts is female. Is diversity only defined by having a black person in the executive ranks?
Jony is 'English', we only say 'British' when a Scot, Irish or Welsh person is doing well or winning ... (I jest).
The solution is not simply to hire more minorities. The real problem is when no minorities are even considered for certain positions. If Apple is looking to hire an executive and the 50 candidates are all white, it's highly likely that their new hire will be white.
The solution is to include minorities in the candidate pool and hire the best available, giving everyone a fair shot. You should never hire purely based on race.
I'm an Apple shareholder with 1,934 shares. I also happen to be a white male who takes offense at the statement "a little bit too vanilla" . Hire someone on their ability, not their race. If I say something is "a little bit too chocolate", I'd be called racist, but this minor investor who is hispanic, gets to call the shots? I'm definitely voting againist this proposal.
This is nonsense but why do I get the feeling Apple will say that and then all of sudden there will be a person of color in the SVP ranks. I'm convinced the only reason they updated the executive page on Apple's website to include VPs reporting to Cook is so that page would look more diverse (he has two women of color reporting to him).
How does one one define diversity anyway? Eddy Cue is Cuban (his first name is Eduardo, middle name Horacio) and speaks fluent Spanish. Their chip guy who was recently promoted is from Israel. Jony Ive is British, Tim Cook is gay, Angela Ahrendts is female. Is diversity only defined by having a black person in the executive ranks?
Jony is 'English', we only say 'British' when a Scot, Irish or Welsh person is doing well or winning ... (I jest).
Jony is 'English', we only say 'British' when a Scot, Irish or Welsh person is doing well or winning ... (I jest).
Too close to reality to be a jest really.
I know, I was being defensive there as I was born 'English. It never fails that if someone loses or does badly they regain their Scottish or whatever heritage pretty fast though
(Edit: ...born 'English' of Viking, Scottish, Welsh and Irish forbears. lol)
The only reason the stock isn't at $150 is because of Wall Street manipulation and LIES.
I'm not going to ban myself because of Wall Street lies. They already stole money from me tanking the stock. Taking my ban is allow Wall Street liars to win. I'm not allowing that. If the stock was down for legit reasons (revenue shrinking, iPhone sales disappointing, ect) I would gladly take my ban. But the stock is down for illegitimate reasons, so I refuse to take my ban. This is like paying someone on a bet, when the other person cheated. Hell no.
I guess that it was inevitable that you would renege and squirm out of it somehow. No surprise here.
The only reason the stock isn't at $150 is because of Wall Street manipulation and LIES.
I'm not going to ban myself because of Wall Street lies. They already stole money from me tanking the stock. Taking my ban is allow Wall Street liars to win. I'm not allowing that. If the stock was down for legit reasons (revenue shrinking, iPhone sales disappointing, ect) I would gladly take my ban. But the stock is down for illegitimate reasons, so I refuse to take my ban. This is like paying someone on a bet, when the other person cheated. Hell no.
The only reason the stock isn't at $150 is because of Wall Street manipulation and LIES.
I'm not going to ban myself because of Wall Street lies. They already stole money from me tanking the stock. Taking my ban is allow Wall Street liars to win. I'm not allowing that. If the stock was down for legit reasons (revenue shrinking, iPhone sales disappointing, ect) I would gladly take my ban. But the stock is down for illegitimate reasons, so I refuse to take my ban. This is like paying someone on a bet, when the other person cheated. Hell no.
The bet was against us here. You lost and called it wrong. Admit it.
Wasting TIME and RESOURCES on silly diversity CRAP, instead of articulating the VISION of the company. This is an absolute FAILURE by Cook. Instead of voting for diversity I want to vote to FIRE COOK ONCE AND FOR ALL.
Guy is a waste of money. Paying him HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS and he has ZERO idea how to defend the stock price. FIRE HIS ASS IMMEDIATELY.
I agreed 100%!!! I am tired of Tim Cook spending so much time pandering to media and political views.
Tim Cook is not a good CEO. If he spent as much time to the details and vision of this company as he does to his personal politics (politics has no place while running this company) Apple would be a better place. Sick of this Tim Cook. He seems to care more about what people think then actually doing the work.
Wasting TIME and RESOURCES on silly diversity CRAP, instead of articulating the VISION of the company. This is an absolute FAILURE by Cook. Instead of voting for diversity I want to vote to FIRE COOK ONCE AND FOR ALL.
Guy is a waste of money. Paying him HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS and he has ZERO idea how to defend the stock price. FIRE HIS ASS IMMEDIATELY.
I agreed 100%!!! I am tired of Tim Cook spending so much time pandering to media and political views.
Tim Cook is not a good CEO. If he spent as much time to the details and vision of this company as he does to his personal politics (politics has no place while running this company) Apple would be a better place. Sick of this Tim Cook. He seems to care more about what people think then actually doing the work.
Whoops, better straighten this out. Sog thinks that Tim Cook doesn't care what people think.
Wasting TIME and RESOURCES on silly diversity CRAP, instead of articulating the VISION of the company. This is an absolute FAILURE by Cook. Instead of voting for diversity I want to vote to FIRE COOK ONCE AND FOR ALL.
Guy is a waste of money. Paying him HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS and he has ZERO idea how to defend the stock price. FIRE HIS ASS IMMEDIATELY.
Yeah, shareholder proposal, not Tim Cook's. Anybody who owns or controls the required amount of shares can propose absolutely anything; doesn't mean it would be approved.
By the way, nice sporadic use of the caps key. How do you decide what words should be capitalized? Do you re-read your post aloud several times, picking just the right amount of intonation or rage? Or do you just shoot from the lips?
The only reason the stock isn't at $150 is because of Wall Street manipulation and LIES.
I'm not going to ban myself because of Wall Street lies. They already stole money from me tanking the stock. Taking my ban is allow Wall Street liars to win. I'm not allowing that. If the stock was down for legit reasons (revenue shrinking, iPhone sales disappointing, ect) I would gladly take my ban. But the stock is down for illegitimate reasons, so I refuse to take my ban. This is like paying someone on a bet, when the other person cheated. Hell no.
Your projection is based on the fundamentals of the company. However, for the most part, the market trades based on the technicals. I personally would like to see the price of stocks based on the fundamentals, however, it became obvious to me years ago the market was not following fundamental analysis.
You can either swim with the currents, or continue to go against it. The roughly $4B traded each day on AAPL shapes the reality of the stock price action irregardless of what you, I or the fundamentals say. I don't know how many shares you have in AAPL, but I am most certain we are both "insignificant" when compared to the impact of the large institutions.
The market is what it is, and there are many reasons to believe AAPL will recover and do well - the stock is doing what it's been doing for the last 20 years with long term uptrend with periods of extended sideways consolidations - that is how traders trade AAPL.
Todays stock price is at support, and unless some new news comes in, I would expect it to head back and test the $109 resistance level once again.
This is nonsense but why do I get the feeling Apple will say that and then all of sudden there will be a person of color in the SVP ranks. I'm convinced the only reason they updated the executive page on Apple's website to include VPs reporting to Cook is so that page would look more diverse (he has two women of color reporting to him).
How does one one define diversity anyway? Eddy Cue is Cuban (his first name is Eduardo, middle name Horacio) and speaks fluent Spanish. Their chip guy who was recently promoted is from Israel. Jony Ive is British, Tim Cook is gay, Angela Ahrendts is female. Is diversity only defined by having a black person in the executive ranks?
Jony is 'English', we only say 'British' when a Scot, Irish or Welsh person is doing well or winning ... (I jest).
Oops...hey at least I didn't say he had a British accent. ;-)
Apple might be forced to add "people of color" to its senior ranks if an investor submitted resolution is voted through at an upcoming 2016 shareholders meeting, though the company contends the proposal constitutes micromanagement and is therefore invalid.
According to Bloomberg, investor Antonio Avian Maldonado II, a businessman who owns 645 Apple shares, was in September compelled to submit a proposal for an "accelerated recruitment policy" by his teenage son, who after browsing through pictures of the company's directors asked why most were white.
Apple's board is "a little bit too vanilla," Maldonado told Bloomberg. "I want to nudge them to move a little bit faster."
Apple told the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it is actively attempting to hire minorities, but in the end "has no power to ensure that its recruits will accept offers." The proposal is an attempt to micromanage Apple's recruiting efforts and should therefore not be put to shareholder vote, the company said.
In a letter dated Dec. 11, the SEC said it disagrees, but noted the choice to include Maldonado's proposal in the company's annual shareholders meeting is ultimately up to Apple. Excluding the submittal could result in regulatory action.
For its part, Apple is making an effort to create a more racially diverse workplace. According to the company's diversity report, the percentage of non-white employees has risen since 2014, with Asians and blacks seeing slight increases in representation.
The Bloomberg report incorrectly states Apple's website shows a decline in blacks and Hispanics in leadership roles. An interactive graph contains employment data current as of June, with gender, race and ethnicity distribution broken down by tech, non-tech, leadership, retail and retail leadership roles. That level of granularity is not provided for 2014, but can be gleaned from the provided 2014 EEO-1 report (PDF link), which reveals a positive one-percent change for Hispanics in top positions. There was no notable change, positive or negative, for other minorities in Apple's upper echelons.
Workplace diversity is a critical issue not only for Apple, but for the entire high tech industry. More recently, it was reported this week that Twitter hired away Apple's head of diversity, Jeffrey Siminoff. It is unclear who will fill the now vacant position.
Antonio II needs to tell Antonio III that forcing an executive team to be a specific racial mix is freaking stupid. I own more shares than this doofus and I want the best people for the job running Apple, regardless of skin colour.
The only reason the stock isn't at $150 is because of Wall Street manipulation and LIES.
I'm not going to ban myself because of Wall Street lies. They already stole money from me tanking the stock. Taking my ban is allow Wall Street liars to win. I'm not allowing that. If the stock was down for legit reasons (revenue shrinking, iPhone sales disappointing, ect) I would gladly take my ban. But the stock is down for illegitimate reasons, so I refuse to take my ban. This is like paying someone on a bet, when the other person cheated. Hell no.
I guess that it was inevitable that you would renege and squirm out of it somehow. No surprise here.
Yeah, shareholder proposal, not Tim Cook's. Anybody who owns or controls the required amount of shares can propose absolutely anything; doesn't mean it would be approved.
By the way, nice sporadic use of the caps key. How do you decide what words should be capitalized? Do you re-read your post aloud several times, picking just the right amount of intonation or rage? Or do you just shoot from the lips?
A REAL CEO would never allow such an assine proposal even to make it this far.
No way on earth this kind of crap would show up in Google, Amazon, or Tesla.
The Security and Exchange Commission’s Division of Corporation Finance disagreed with Apple’s assessment in a letter dated Dec. 11. But for now it’s up to Apple to decide to bring the proposal to a vote at its 2016 annual shareholder meeting, which has yet to be scheduled. Should it not make it into the voting materials, it is possible for the SEC to step in and take regulatory action.
If Apple remove the proposal from voting then they will be attacked by the media and possibly the SEC. I would say include it in the shareholders voting material and get it over with once and for all.
Comments
(Edit: ...born 'English' of Viking, Scottish, Welsh and Irish forbears. lol)
Tim Cook is not a good CEO. If he spent as much time to the details and vision of this company as he does to his personal politics (politics has no place while running this company) Apple would be a better place. Sick of this Tim Cook. He seems to care more about what people think then actually doing the work.
Maybe for you two just thinking is the problem.
By the way, nice sporadic use of the caps key. How do you decide what words should be capitalized? Do you re-read your post aloud several times, picking just the right amount of intonation or rage? Or do you just shoot from the lips?
Also, they have not officially hit 15 million Applewatches. That was another one of your ban barriers.
Ban yourself!
You can either swim with the currents, or continue to go against it. The roughly $4B traded each day on AAPL shapes the reality of the stock price action irregardless of what you, I or the fundamentals say. I don't know how many shares you have in AAPL, but I am most certain we are both "insignificant" when compared to the impact of the large institutions.
The market is what it is, and there are many reasons to believe AAPL will recover and do well - the stock is doing what it's been doing for the last 20 years with long term uptrend with periods of extended sideways consolidations - that is how traders trade AAPL.
Todays stock price is at support, and unless some new news comes in, I would expect it to head back and test the $109 resistance level once again.
If Apple remove the proposal from voting then they will be attacked by the media and possibly the SEC. I would say include it in the shareholders voting material and get it over with once and for all.