You are technically correct of course. But in practice shareholders are given a slate of board candidates that the current board recommends voting for, most people don't have the time and energy to do much more than vote for what the board recommends and it seems it would take a huge effort to install alternate board members.
A couple of things:
(1) That's kind of the point of equity ownership of companies (which one isn't otherwise involved with). We give our money to others because - for one or more of a wide range of possible reasons - we believe they will make better use of it than we would. So, to a great degree, we own stock in companies because we trust those running them to do well. Part of the point is that we don't have to do the work of making decisions regarding how best to use the resources the corporation owns. (There are lots of other reasons, but I'm not going to get lost in them now.)
If we no longer have trust in those running a given company which we own part of, often we just sell our ownership stake. In most cases, our own interests are better served by that course than by trying to change what they are doing (or whom they are). Those who still have trust in them can continue to own the company, and they'll be rewarded or punished for their well-placed or misplaced trust.
That's a big part of why boards typically don't get voted out. In a sense, we vote on whether we believe in them and the job they're doing by buying or selling shares.
(2) However, if enough shareholders have strong enough reasons to continue to own a company even though they don't believe the current board members are right for the job, those shareholders can vote those board members out (or change the rules of the corporation).
Additionally, often large blocks of corporations are owned by entities which pool capital and use it to invest in equities. The people who contribute to those pools of capital are, to a great extent, trusting the people who run those entities to manage that capital and make good decisions with regard to the equity investments they make. Those entities control larger blocks of ownership interest in various corporations and thus sometimes wield, on behalf of the people who contribute to those pools of capital, more control over what those corporations do.
At any rate, it is ultimately shareholders that have control over what corporations do. They can, if they choose, exercise that control.
[doublepost=1514658304][/doublepost]
Isn't it amazing how the most naive capitalist and communist beliefs are the same ? ...
What that I said there was naive?
Unless you have a major share of any company, any intern at any investment bank has more sway than you do .
Sure, that can be the case. Did I suggest otherwise?
If someone only owns one 1-millionth of a company, they don't by themselves have much control over what that company does. That is as it should be. There's a reason I included the parenthetical - collectively - in my comments. I shouldn't need to include that, it should be obvious from such comments what they mean. But I included it in case someone might otherwise think (or try to pretend) that I meant something other than what I was saying. Collectively, the shareholders have ultimate control over what happens. They can, if it is their collective will, vote for changes in corporate rules or vote out directors.
As I indicated, Apple's directors enjoy overwhelming support from shareholders - not just from individual shareholders here or there that don't represent much ownership of the company and who don't individually have much say in what happens with the company, but from shareholders as a whole.
Most people understand that if they only own one 1-millionth of something, they don't by themselves - in most contexts - get to decide what happens with that something. They are part of a group of people who collectively get to decide. If someone buys one 1-millionth of something thinking they should get to control what happens with that something, that (likely) represents great unreasonableness on their part.
