Apple 2013 Shareholder's Meeting: Directors Reelected, Company Working on 'New Categories'

[MacRumors]

Apple's annual shareholder's meeting took place at the company's Cupertino campus this morning. The meeting is held to allow shareholders to address corporate officers and to handle certain corporate business like reelecting the board of directors and voting on certain proposals.

According to CNBC's Jon Fortt, preliminary results show all directors reelected, Apple's accounting firm was approved, a non-binding advisory vote on executive compensation passed, a proposal to require executives to hold 33% of their stock awards until retirement was defeated, as was a proposal to create a Human Rights board committee. The full text of the proposals are available in Apple's proxy statement. Tim Cook received 99.1% investor approval.

The run up to this year's meeting was more contentious than most. A judge blocked the vote on one of Apple's proposed changes following a lawsuit by a major Apple shareholder. He ruled that three separate proposals had been bundled together, when they should be voted on individually.

During the Q&A portion, Apple CEO Tim Cook said he knows shareholders are "disappointed" by its share price, and that focus should be on the long term, with revenue and profits following. Additionally, Cook said that Apple is working on "new categories" but wouldn't comment on anything specifically.

Cook confirmed that the plans for Apple's new "spaceship" campus are slightly delayed, with a move-in date around 2016, as was previously reported. He reiterated that Apple is "seriously considering" the issue of returning more cash to shareholders.

Last year's meeting did not result in any significant changes for the company. Apple's stock price jumped yesterday on a rumor that Apple would announce a stock split today, but that did not come to fruition.

Article Link: Apple 2013 Shareholder's Meeting: Directors Reelected, Company Working on 'New Categories'

[ECUpirate44]

I'll believe the "new categories" claim when I see blurry pics from China.

[iMikeT]

A defeat of a "Human Rights" committee? What's that say about the way shareholder's view of rights of the people?

[needfx]

where can I get the podcast of the meeting?

[NutsNGum]

Originally Posted by iMikeT

A defeat of a "Human Rights" committee? What's that say about the way shareholder's view of rights of the people?

That's really for the country in which the workers are employed's job. Apple aren't the UN.

The most they can really do is put a bit of pressure on Foxconn.

[the8thark]

Originally Posted by NutsNGum

That's really for the country in which the workers are employed's job. Apple aren't the UN.

The most they can really do is put a bit of pressure on Foxconn.

Well with stuff like Bradley Manning spending 1000 days in jail without trial for doing right and respecting his nation, and most of the US public turning a blind eye to it, I can totally see why a motion for a human rights committee was defeated.

[ri0ku]

The watch won't be called iWatch. I think maybe iBand. You heard it here first!.

[JohnnyComeLatly]

Originally Posted by the8thark

Well with stuff like Bradley Manning spending 1000 days in jail without trial for doing right and respecting his nation, and most of the US public turning a blind eye to it, I can totally see why a motion for a human rights committee was defeated.

Just out of curiosity, since you're condemning the actions of a few million partial-owners (stock holders), did you read the investor's notification of the vote? If so, share some of the key tenants in the provision that was voted for and how current management oversight does or does not already do these functions. Use case examples where current management structure fell short and how this committee might not fall into the same scenarios of inaction or inability.

Take your time because you should never be in a rush to do the right thing the first time.

[Rogifan]

Originally Posted by iMikeT

A defeat of a "Human Rights" committee? What's that say about the way shareholder's view of rights of the people?

Why does a company a a human rights committee? What's the point of it? Should we ask every other company that manufacturers products in Asia to implement a human rights committee at their company?

[chakdey]

This shareholder meeting did not tell us anything new. It was like a repeat of the "Goldman Sachs Technology and Internet Conference".

[jsadwith]

Originally Posted by chakdey

This shareholder meeting did not tell us anything new. It was like a repeat of the "Goldman Sachs Technology and Internet Conference".

That's because it was a shareholder meeting, not a product release.

[iMikeT]

Originally Posted by Rogifan

Why does a company a a human rights committee? What's the point of it? Should we ask every other company that manufacturers products in Asia to implement a human rights committee at their company?

Not having a committee would contradict the so-called "self-regulation" that free marketeers always espouse.

There's nothing but inconsistency here. There are those that call for less government intervention when it comes to regulation and that corporations can regulate themselves. But when a corporate entity does try to regulate itself, it gets defeated by its shareholders.

Talk about having your cake and eating it too.



*Full disclosure, I am currently holding a long position in AAPL.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally Posted by iMikeT

Talk about having your cake and eating it too.

I think the expression you might be reaching for is "let them eat cake."

[samcraig]

Originally Posted by Peace

Don't think Cook said Apple was adding new product categories for the good of civilization.

Never said anything about "for the good" just stated that watches and TVs aren't new categories

Originally Posted by Rogifan

Neither are glasses or aluminum laptops with hi res displays. Or cheap phones and tablets.

Never said any of those were new categories either.

[Rogifan]

Originally Posted by iMikeT

Not having a committee would contradict the so-called "self-regulation" that free marketeers always espouse.

There's nothing but inconsistency here. There are those that call for less government intervention when it comes to regulation and that corporations can regulate themselves. But when a corporate entity does try to regulate itself, it gets defeated by its shareholders.

Talk about having your cake and eating it too.



*Full disclosure, I am currently holding a long position in AAPL.

Not sure what you mean. Apple was against this proposal.

[Chupa Chupa]

Originally Posted by iMikeT

Not having a committee would contradict the so-called "self-regulation" that free marketeers always espouse.

There's nothing but inconsistency here. There are those that call for less government intervention when it comes to regulation and that corporations can regulate themselves. But when a corporate entity does try to regulate itself, it gets defeated by its shareholders.

.

A company doesn't need a committee to police itself. Doing so just shackles itself. The shareholders recognize they shouldnt micro-manage management. That is all. Management can set up a task force if it wants-- Tim Cook has said he wants to do better in that regard.

Ultimately it's up to a people's gov't to ensure human rights in that country are upheld.

[KALLT]

Originally Posted by Rogifan

Why does a company a a human rights committee? What's the point of it?

In case you have not noticed, Apple is not exactly virtuous when it comes to working conditions in the factories of its Asian suppliers, especially when considering that customers are paying good money for Apple products that goes directly into the company's vault, rather than spending a part on the improvement of labour standards and to polish the public image. The recent outcries and Apple's responses indicate that the customers grow weary of the company's policy and that a shift is unavoidable, particularly when you look at Apple's competitors. While it is not clear to me what this human-rights committee would have done, it does have a symbolic meaning now that it has been voted down.

Simply shoving the responsibility of working conditions to foreign governments does not work. There are many factors at play to keep the working conditions as they are, including economic incentives for those countries to keep the big companies there, strong pressure from abroad and even bribes to hamper with any legislative reform. Companies like Apple are at a unique position in that they can often dictate the terms of employment in those countries and improve the overall conditions. While I do not want to argue that the US Government should force companies to maintain certain human-rights standards everywhere, there is a strong desirability that companies should take their responsibility.

[Rogifan]

Originally Posted by KALLT

In case you have not noticed, Apple is not exactly virtuous when it comes to working conditions in the factories of its Asian suppliers, especially when considering that customers are paying good money for Apple products that goes directly into the company's vault, rather than spending a part on the improvement of labour standards and to polish the public image. The recent outcries and Apple's responses indicate that the customers grow weary of the company's policy and that a shift is unavoidable, particularly when you look at Apple's competitors. While it is not clear to me what this human-rights committee would have done, it does have a symbolic meaning now that it has been voted down.

Simply shoving the responsibility of working conditions to foreign governments does not work. There are many factors at play to keep the working conditions as they are, including economic incentives for those countries to keep the big companies there, strong pressure from abroad and even bribes to hamper with any legislative reform. Companies like Apple are at a unique position in that they can often dictate the terms of employment in those countries and improve the overall conditions. While I do not want to argue that the US Government should force companies to maintain certain human-rights standards everywhere, there is a strong desirability that companies should take their responsibility.

Sorry I don't think Apple needs a human rights committee to do what they're doing on the contractor/supplier front. A meaningless gesture that most likely wouldn't get them good PR anyway. Actions are more important than setting up some silly committee.

[mccldwll]

Originally Posted by KALLT

In case you have not noticed, Apple is not exactly virtuous when it comes to working conditions in the factories of its Asian suppliers, especially when considering that customers are paying good money for Apple products that goes directly into the company's vault, rather than spending a part on the improvement of labour standards and to polish the public image. The recent outcries and Apple's responses indicate that the customers grow weary of the company's policy and that a shift is unavoidable, particularly when you look at Apple's competitors. While it is not clear to me what this human-rights committee would have done, it does have a symbolic meaning now that it has been voted down.

Simply shoving the responsibility of working conditions to foreign governments does not work. There are many factors at play to keep the working conditions as they are, including economic incentives for those countries to keep the big companies there, strong pressure from abroad and even bribes to hamper with any legislative reform. Companies like Apple are at a unique position in that they can often dictate the terms of employment in those countries and improve the overall conditions. While I do not want to argue that the US Government should force companies to maintain certain human-rights standards everywhere, there is a strong desirability that companies should take their responsibility.

"Apple’s board recommends that shareholders vote against a proposal from Mr. John Harrington, a beneficial owner of at least $2,000 in market value of the company’s common stock, to establish a separate Board Committee on Human Rights.

Such a committee would, according to the proposal, “review the implications of company policies, above and beyond matters of legal compliance, for the human rights of individuals in the US and worldwide, including assessing the impacts of company operations and supply chains on resources and public welfare in host communities”.

In recent years, Apple has indeed become embroiled in public controversies regarding the human rights implications of its products and supply chains, including but not limited to controversies related to Foxconn, a supplier of many key items for Apple with facilities located in China and elsewhere.

Apple argues that a separate committee isn’t needed at present, however:

The Company is committed to the highest standards of social responsibility and human rights wherever we do business.

The Board is aware of no other company doing as much to safeguard and empower workers as the Company does today.
The Company’s dedicated Supplier Responsibility team continually audits the Company’s suppliers for compliance with the Company’s industry-leading Supplier Code of Conduct. The Supplier Code of Conduct is based on widely recognized international human rights principles as defined by the United Nations and the International Labor Organization.

…

The Company’s auditing program has expanded in breadth and depth over the past several years. In January 2012, the Company became the first electronics company to be granted membership in the Fair Labor Association (the “ FLA ”), a leading non-profit organization dedicated to protecting the rights of workers. In February 2012, at the Company’s request, the FLA began a series of independent inspections of the Company’s final assembly suppliers and has published the results on its website for complete transparency.

…

The Board does not believe that establishing a committee is an effective way for the Company’s practices and goals to continually evolve and improve in response to changing conditions. Instead, such an additional and redundant committee would distract the Board from its other responsibilities to the Company and its shareholders, while adding little value to the Company’s existing commitment to human rights and social responsibility."

[Apple Corps]

Originally Posted by iMikeT

A defeat of a "Human Rights" committee? What's that say about the way shareholder's view of rights of the people?

It simply says that shareholders are wanting Apple to intensely focus on customers / markets / innovation / execution to yield far better shareholder value. There are plenty of laws and organizations elsewhere to address "human rights" in numerous venues.

[iMikeT]

Originally Posted by Apple Corps

It simply says that shareholders are wanting Apple to intensely focus on customers / markets / innovation / execution to yield far better shareholder value. There are plenty of laws and organizations elsewhere to address "human rights" in numerous venues.

Read my follow up posts in this thread regarding this issue.

[JHankwitz]

Originally Posted by iMikeT

A defeat of a "Human Rights" committee? What's that say about the way shareholder's view of rights of the people?

It says nothing because human rights has nothing to do with forming a committee. It doesn't take a committee to make human rights decisions.

As a shareholder, I voted against corporate bloat. Look what it's done to our government operations. We don't need to have our investments run like the government is run.

[tdream]

Originally Posted by iMikeT

A defeat of a "Human Rights" committee? What's that say about the way shareholder's view of rights of the people?

Shareholders aren't people, they're single celled amoebas that require profit for sustainance.

----------

Originally Posted by NutsNGum

That's really for the country in which the workers are employed's job. Apple aren't the UN.

The most they can really do is put a bit of pressure on Foxconn.

Thats true, they are much more powerful.

[Krazy Bill]

Originally Posted by iMikeT

A defeat of a "Human Rights" committee? What's that say about the way shareholder's view of rights of the people?

It says, "Dear Apple: Stay out of politics, world affairs and quit taking sides in issues that have nothing to do with the business at hand. Just make us money."

[lk400]

Originally Posted by iMikeT

A defeat of a "Human Rights" committee? What's that say about the way shareholder's view of rights of the people?

What cash money return can I get from these so called "people"?