Apple Shareholder Meeting: No Dividend or Stock Split, Majority Vote Requirement for Directors

Discussion in 'MacRumors.com News Discussion' started by MacRumors, Feb 23, 2012.

  1. macrumors bot

    MacRumors

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2001
    #1
    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]

    Apple's annual shareholder meeting has just concluded at its headquarters in Cupertino, California, with the company declining to make any major announcements related to its operations. One of the biggest questions on the stock side has been speculation about a dividend, buyback, or stock split, and while Apple has indicated that it is continually evaluating the best uses for its cash stockpile, the company has not decided to adopt any of those strategies so far.

    CNBC posted a live blog of the meeting, outlining the formal agenda, brief statements from Tim Cook, and a brief Q&A session with shareholders. One change the company did announce is its adoption of a measure that will require members of Apple's board of directors to obtain majority votes from shareholders in order to be elected. The company had previously operated under a plurality vote standard in which directors need to obtain only a majority of the votes cast, omitting those who failed to vote their shares. Under the new policy, directors who do not receive a majority of outstanding voting shares will voluntarily step down. All current directors were easily re-elected.

    Majority voting has increasingly become the standard among major companies, and major shareholders have been attempting to push Apple in that direction for several years. A non-binding proposal from shareholders on the topic was approved last year, but Apple declined to adopt it. The proposal was set to be revisited at this year's meeting, and while Apple opposed it in its proxy materials sent to shareholders, the company agreed to implement it even before today's vote results were released.

    Tim Cook faced several other questions from shareholders today, touching on topics such as Apple's commitment to education and the company's lack of interest in owning music labels or television studios. Other topics included Apple's advertising on controversial television shows, its relationship with Facebook (Cook called Facebook a "friend"), and the possibility of an Apple television set (no comment from Cook).

    Article Link: Apple Shareholder Meeting: No Dividend or Stock Split, Majority Vote Requirement for Directors
     
  2. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2007
    #2
    I guess that even if Apple could afford to buy (a controlling stake in) all the big music or film companies, it wouldn't be able to due to anti-monopoly laws. And if it owned just one music and one film company, negotiations to get content from the others into iTMS would get harder - so they are happier not owning any music or film company.
     
  3. Moderator

    840quadra

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2005
    Location:
    Land of 10,000 Lakes
    #3
    Great reply and I share the opinion on this subject. Companies have commented many times in the past few years, that Apple has too much control of the Music industry. If they did have their own label, they would be seen more as competition to other labels, as opposed to a potential outlet / sales partner.
     
  4. macrumors P6

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #4
    I knew there wouldn't be a stock split. Doing so would have been a bad move imho.
     
  5. macrumors 65816

    pjarvi

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2006
    Location:
    Round Lake, IL
    #5
    LOL at someone thinking Family Guy is a "controversial" TV show. Reminds me of my cousin's family in Pennsylvania thinking The Simpson's was evil trash when it's the most religious show on any major network during prime time. One of my friends is a huge lover of Family Guy and he started his own church!
     
  6. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    #6
    Cook: no dividends, we only have one hundred billion dollars.
     
  7. macrumors G5

    Consultant

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
    #7
    Q: Are you making kazillion dollars?
    A: Yes.
     
  8. macrumors 68040

    Bubba Satori

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    Location:
    B'ham
    #8
    One trillion is the new one hundred billion and you're
    not going to get there by tossing money around.

    "Hey, let's charge the cultists $1.29 for ringtones
    on music they already own and how about two
    new adaptors for the iPaid 3 to work properly?
    A couple of bucks for the slaves to make them
    and we'll put $50 Apple stickers on them. Magic. :apple:
     
  9. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2007
    #9
    I was going to ask what show was considered 'controversial' when I read the comment in the blurb. It's amazing how easily some people are offended.
     
  10. macrumors regular

    HiVolt

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2008
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    #10
    Yeah, so we'll just hoard another 100 billion and then think about it. kthx
     
  11. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2010
    #11
    To join you off topic for a moment. Simpsons and sometimes Family Guy make me laugh, but there is absolutely no way I would ever let my children watch them. Does that make them controversial?
     
  12. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2011
    #12
    How old are your children?
     
  13. macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2009
    #13
    Apple is trying to prevent themselves from a divide and conquer approach that Wall Street loves to do to a winner.
     
  14. macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2005
    #14
  15. macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2009
    #15
    Sad thing is I'm sure a product planning talk has happened like this already.
     
  16. macrumors 68040

    Gasu E.

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2004
    Location:
    Not far from Boston, MA.
    #16
    Stock splits have proven to be pointless exercises that do nothing but create profits for the financial companies handling the paperwork. Absolutely no impact on company valuation.
     
  17. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2011
    #17
    They are surely inching towards being broken up, so there isn't much else they could buy that wouldn't put them on the EU radar especially.
     
  18. macrumors 6502a

    hobo.hopkins

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2008
    #18
    Yeah it's too bad Apple has such a stranglehold on consumers that they no longer have a choice related to purchasing...

    Or they'll pay workers (of which there are thousands clamouring for an opportunity) to produce products, and price them so that people will choose to purchase them.

    On a note actually related to the issue, I'm glad that they aren't going after music labels. Doesn't seem to be worth the money it would cost. It would only add headache.
     
  19. macrumors 6502a

    3N16MA

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2009
    Location:
    Space
    #19
    Owning a movie/music studio would be pointless for Apple. They need the content those studios provide for their services and have no need to get into the content creation/ownership side of things and complicate the matter.
     
  20. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    #20
    Where does it say someone mentioning Family Guy? :confused:
    Or is it because of that episode where they go to the amish city and Meg hands the boy an iPhone or something like that?

    What controversial show is Apple advertising on?
    Only one I can think of, I guess, would be Dexter... I remember a scene from season 5 where they go in to a guy's office and he has like an iMac, an iPad and an iPhone laying on his desk lol.
     
  21. macrumors G4

    Small White Car

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Location:
    Washington DC
    #21
    No. Not for you, anyway. For TV 'Controversial' usually means someone wants them to be taken off tr air. That doesn't sound like you.



    I'm pretty sure they're talking about running ads during show breaks. Not product placement.
     
  22. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #22
    Owning a company that has WiMax or WiFi capability would be insane though. I try to imagine if the iMessage deal and call to call technology on Apple platform like Jobs wanted could happen. I would so rather give Apple my money for internet, wifi, cell services then AT$T, or Verizon et al...
     
  23. macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #23
    The second part of what you say is true, but the first part really isn't. Monopolies aren't illegal, so there's no laws against them as such. The antitrust laws protect competition. If Apple attempted to gain controlling interests in competitive companies, then these efforts would likely be thwarted by the FTC, just as the AT&T acquisition of T-Mobile was deep-sixed by the government for being anticompetitive.
     
  24. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2012
    #24
    Who isn't buying the stock because it's too expensive?

    and Who cares about who isn't buying the stock because we are.
     
  25. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2007
    #25
    Long time shareholder here, glad to hear the news although don't think anyone in the investment community would be suprised.

    Slow and simple occasional deep in the money calls & weekly bull put spreads, amazing gains :)
     

Share This Page