Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Adrian Perica Named Apple's VP of Corporate Development

MacRumors

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
67,483
37,748



Apple this afternoon updated its Apple Leadership page to add Adrian Perica, who has been named the company's vice president of Corporate Development.

In his role as VP of Corporate Development, Perica will be responsible for Apple's mergers, acquisitions, and strategic investing efforts.

appleadrianperica-800x334.jpg

Perica, who has been with Apple since 2009, will be reporting directly to Apple CEO Tim Cook. Prior to joining Apple, Perica worked at Goldman Sachs and Deloitte Consulting.

Prior to being named Apple's VP of Corporate Development, Perica was the head of mergers and acquisitions, responsible for the team that handles Apple's acquisitions.

Article Link: Adrian Perica Named Apple's VP of Corporate Development
 
Article Link
https://www.macrumors.com/2019/04/03/adrian-perica-apple-vp-corporate-development/
Apple does acquisitions and strategic investing. No mergers so far!

Perica will oversee the processes of acquisitions, but I assume that Tim Cook will make the decisions about which companies to acquire, since it's based on the company's overall strategy. That's not something a VP would do in isolation.
 
Doctor Q said:
Apple does acquisitions and strategic investing. No mergers so far!

Perica will oversee the processes of acquisitions, but I assume that Tim Cook will make the decisions about which companies to acquire, since it's based on the company's overall strategy. That's not something a VP would do in isolation.
Click to expand...
Absolutely... Perica doesn’t have go/no-go decision making authority. Cook would definitely have the yes/no decision, but Perica and his team would develop/analyze/evaluate the business case for any potential acquisitions or investments, in consultation with other top management. Outside assistance would also be sought in some or even many deals I would think. Bus dev would present to Cook and make their case on why they are recommending (or not) going ahead with a deal.

Cook would likely talk with his team to get their direct thoughts, as he’s known to be a collaborative decision maker. But the ultimate decision is his, though consent from the Board would presumably be required if the deal is bigger than Cook’s signoff authority (which is likely quite large :)).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DeepIn2U
I often wonder if they bought Macrumors.com - sounds plausible when you read all the various positive reviews about Apple gear on this site. And those so called "leaks"
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeepIn2U and FyerFyer
Doctor Q said:
Thanks. That's a helpful summary.

Wouldn't it be interesting to know what acquisitions they strongly considered and then rejected?
Click to expand...
Yes, though the article correctly states Perica is responsible for acquisition and strategic investment efforts, I don’t think the author was implying that it was a one-man show. There are plenty of others involved, not the least of whom, as you pointed out, is Mr. Cook himself :)

And yes it would definitely be interesting to hear which companies they ultimately passed on, and even more so, their reasoning. Netflix and Disney both had to have crossed their mind years ago, among many others I’m sure. Others, such as Tesla, I’m sure not.
 
Would be nice if Apple bothered having a Product Management department for a change. Only tech company I’ve seen that has sales and marketing people tell engineers what to work on. And it shows.
 
PickUrPoison said:
Absolutely... Perica doesn’t have go/no-go decision making authority. Cook would definitely have the yes/no decision,
Click to expand...

Actually, not to be a pain in the *** but that’s not entirely true.

Generally speaking the CEO reports to the board of directors. Any transaction that is of “material importance” to the company will almost always require prior consent from the board of directors. This would absolutely include mergers and acquisitions.

Keeping things streamlined in an organization is important. And while the CEO reports to and is directly managed by the Board of Directors the CEO is not the only one who may be managed in such a way. Due to basic business logistics the board is generally only organized to oversee large transactions, especially those involving equity transactions (shares and so on).

It’s entirely possible and quite likely that Mr. Perica would be managed by Tim Cook but also report directly to the Board of Directors on matters pertinent to such transactions that are of material importance to the corporation. i.e. mergers and acquisitions

Cook no doubt may offer counsel and his opinion should hold considerable weight. Similarly he can direct Adrian to focus on priorities of strategic importance (so long as those priorities do not conflict with prior direction set by the Board).

Blah blah blah... you’re a public company, the Board has very broad authority over your existence. If they don’t like the way things are run, they replace the CEO and so on.

Other officers of a company that may (and often do) report to the board are the CFO, the CIO/CTO and at times the COO.

Remember Tim Cook was COO (which is basically like a 2nd in command often taking on responsibilities of the CEO they either have no time, talent or interest in managing.) During Steve Jobs tenure at Apple and when his health was at it’s worst more and more day to day business was delegated to the COO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: needfx and Kaibelf
atomic.flip said:
Actually, not to be a pain in the *** but that’s not entirely true.

Generally speaking the CEO reports to the board of directors. Any transaction that is of “material importance” to the company will almost always require prior consent from the board of directors. This would absolutely include mergers and acquisitions.

Keeping things streamlined in an organization is important. And while the CEO reports to and is directly managed by the Board of Directors the CEO is not the only one who may be managed in such a way. Due to basic business logistics the board is generally only organized to oversee large transactions, especially those involving equity transactions (shares and so on).

It’s entirely possible and quite likely that Mr. Perica would be managed by Tim Cook but also report directly to the Board of Directors on matters pertinent to such transactions that are of material importance to the corporation. i.e. mergers and acquisitions

Cook no doubt may offer counsel and his opinion should hold considerable weight. Similarly he can direct Adrian to focus on priorities of strategic importance (so long as those priorities do not conflict with prior direction set by the Board).

Blah blah blah... you’re a public company, the Board has very broad authority over your existence. If they don’t like the way things are run, they replace the CEO and so on.

Other officers of a company that may (and often do) report to the board are the CFO, the CIO/CTO and at times the COO.

Remember Tim Cook was COO (which is basically like a 2nd in command often taking on responsibilities of the CEO they either have no time, talent or interest in managing.) During Steve Jobs tenure at Apple and when his health was at it’s worst more and more day to day business was delegated to the COO.
Click to expand...
Well ok but did you not read my full post? I mentioned the necessity of Board approvals for certain transactions.

However I would disagree on a couple points. Perica is very unlikely to report directly to the board. And though Board approval may well be required, in my experience the board will defer to the CEO (and top management) in most acquisition and strategic investment matters. (In Apple’s case merger can be safely ruled out I think!)

These matters are typically handled by a simple consent document. Realistically, board members would not be in a better position than top management to know whether any specific corporate development activity/opportunity would be the best tactic to successfully execute on strategic plans. Most of Apple’s deals are relatively small, and I could easily imagine board consent being basically a formality for anything under $25-50 million. Of course they will read the analysis and recommendation documents but I think it would be rare to have a board member disagree/override Cook and his team. (Apple does not have an activist board.)

Also, Cook and his senior management are responsible for strategic planning, the board would not be setting priorities in other directions. Of course the board can fire Cook if they are unhappy and decide a change is needed; after all they do have a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders.

But absent playing that card, the board will give Cook wide latitude in decision making including corporate development efforts, until and unless they have lost confidence in him. But Cook has been performing brilliantly, and shareholders would replace the board if the board even had so much as a fleeting thought of replacing Cook!
 
Last edited:
Good to see positive staff movement rather than a departure. I wonder if his prior connection to Goldman Sachs helped at all with getting Apple Card launched. There's probably no connection, really, but I wonder if he was able to pass along some insights to his new boss.

Oh and I can't resist...

44d7dc221ca565854547e62073d152df.jpg
 
69Mustang said:
"Prior to joining Apple in 2009, Perica served as a banker at Goldman Sachs for eight years and worked at Deloitte Consulting. He also served as an officer in the United States Army. He holds a physics degree from the United States Military Academy at West Point, as well as an MBA from MIT."

Obviously a slacker.
Click to expand...
Did you find that somewhere else? Or did they decide to edit that out of the article suddenly for some reason?
 
Doctor Q said:
Are rejected acquisition targets always under a permanent NDA?
Click to expand...
There is such a thing as a perpetual NDA but I think these are typically reserved for disclosures involving trade secrets. It’s usually in a separate agreement from an NDA in my experience. Most of the NDAs I’ve seen in Silicon Valley have an expiration, five years seems to be rather common (or if information subject to the agreement is published or becomes generally known from some other source).

Some jurisdictions take a dim view of overly-restrictive agreements of certain types (e.g. non-solicitation, non-disclosure and non-competes, in employment relationships especially) so that may have relevance.

Anyway that’s my (very limited) understanding but IANAL... maybe one will chime in :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back