It actually IS the Board's role to approve investment decisions / strategies. The Finance committee of the board overviews the CFO / Treasury investment strategy. Been there / done that.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
BlackRock's Susan Wagner Joins Apple's Board of Directors, Replacing Bill Campbell
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It actually IS the Board's role to approve investment decisions / strategies. The Finance committee of the board overviews the CFO / Treasury investment strategy. Been there / done that.
Oh please! Shareholders in this country can't even have a binding vote on executive compensation. Do you ever tire of sniffing the upper 1%'s rear end? Stop thinking you're one of them or will ever be. You're not. You won't be. As long as we have tax policies that allow the wealthiest to pay a lower tax rate than your typical hourly or salaried individual then we've got a problem. Mitt Romney, who makes his money from his money, shouldn't pay more or less in taxes than Joe Sixpack the construction worker. Period. End of discussion. Income is income. Why should Mitt pay a smaller percentage of his income in taxes than a construction worker when he has 1,000 times the wealth? You can't because it goes against the one thing you fools on the right can't argue against (without decimating our schools ... which to your credit you're trying to do) basic mathematics.
Is it me or has Apple been hiring women a lot lately in executive positions?
Wonder if Tim likes eye candy in the office
I really hope that MR re-activates the down-vote button. No doubt these posts were made in the spirit of banter, but when woman are confronted with this kind of puerile commentary day in, day out, it begins to wear them down. At that point it ceases being clever or humorous.
False argument. Totally comparing apples to oranges.
Income from wages, salary is income from wages, salary and capital gains from investment is capital gains from investment.. And, in fact, their is a cap gain surcharge on wealthier individuals. The two are not interchangeable as your argument suggests.
Let's be clear here: The 1% (and even, 2,3,4,5%ers) do have higher income AND cap gain tax rates than the 50, 60, 70%ers. So you are categorically wrong when you say 1%ers pay lower rates.
Capital gains IS different because one is taking their own money, which was previously taxed when they first received it, and putting it at risk to grow their profits, but also the economy. It's not just Wall Street where cap gains is relevant, it's real estate, growing a small business into a medium sized one, maybe to a larger one, increasing employment along the way. If it turns out to be a bad investment, their hard earned, previously taxed, money is gone. No iPad, no gold plated toilet, no diamond brooch, to show for it. Just a ledger sheet with a "(insert number)" or best case a goose egg.
OTOH when one has a job, paid a salary or wage (income), their money is not at risk as they always get paid, unless they are totally incompetent & get fired. But the person receiving that income has never paid tax on it before receiving it. -- it's new money for them. See the difference? One is taking money, already taxed, and investing, not consuming. The other is getting money earned in exchange for labor or goods produced and never been taxed by the recipient.
Take away the incentive to invest with lower tax rates and why would anyone put their money at risk. It just happens the wealthier people have more to put at risk, but % of net worth to 99%ers is probably the same.
So please, do not equate income with cap gains tax. They are different, with separate policy functions.
Begins to wear them down? Welcome to the real world. Men face these things too, and there are legitimate questions.
It's a concerning decision. Surely, companies exist to making money, but someone with her background is only to make money at all cost. Hopefully Apple won't compromise their products to make a few more cents which won't be good for either the customers nor Apple in the long run.
You gotta love these total non sequitur arguments. While we're at it, what did you have for breakfast, how's the weather where you are, and when did you stop beating your wife?
----------
Yes, of course. What I was saying is the board doesn't actually make these decisions. They aren't brining Wagner onto the board to be the CFO.
It's long since time for Bill Campbell to be shown the door. His company's Mac products are an embarrassment, and have been for many, many years.
Apple has a lot of cash and it appears an M&A boom is coming. Apple usually buys small, targeted companies for a technology or expertise. But with this addition to the board maybe they are contemplating something BIG. Not likely, but not out of the realm of possibility, either.
Very well put there.
There are two flavors of reduced tax.
1 is long-term capital gains. If it takes you 5 years to design and sell a widget, taxing the widget as if all profit came from 1 year of work would be wrong.
2 is qualified dividend income (not from REITs or interest). This is money a company has already been taxed on so taxing it all is a compromise to the "no double-taxation" rule. Thus reduced taxation.
Taking Family Apple and Family Orange, equal income, equal basic spending, $10k left over for discretionary purposes:
Family Apple sacrifices immediate gratification and invests it in a fund paying 6%.
Family Orange jumps at immediate gratification and spends it all + extra in credit card debt totaling $200/month.
This repeats for 5 years.
5 years later Family Apple has $20k of discretionary income/year
and Family Orange has $10k of discretionary income/year but $10k/year in minimum credit card payments.
Family Orange got to go on cool vacations and get all the cool gadgets that came out including 16K 5D televisions while Family Apple stuck with their 480i CRT TV.
Family Orange complains that they are broke and Family Apple should pay more in taxes.
Family Apple got rich by sacrificing immediate gratification. Family Orange is poor by succumbing to immediate gratification.
My parents immigrated to the US dirt poor. They had no chance of being in the 1%. They got cheated by many people economically. Yet they saved, they sacrificed, and they enabled their children to live middle class lives. Some of the 99% are disabled and need help, yes, but 90% of the 99% would have more money if they had more fiscal discipline.
Back to the original post, BLK is a very successful company with very intelligent people and Susan Wagner looks to be a good fit for Apple. She can help Apple put its money toward accretive purposes, i.e. something more than just dividends and stock buybacks such as what Icahn wants so badly.
Hot? By what standards? You been drinking lately? I'd even argue smart...but whatever. It's all WHO you know.
As for her value to the company.... She was brought on to slob shareholder dick and that's all. Only shareholders matter these days. Employees and customers are expendable.
I doubt the board is that involved in product decisions. She'll probably be advising Apple on M&A and what to do with the huge pile of cash they have overseas. I think the Beats acquisition and IBM partnership signals signals more M&A to come for Apple.
Who said men didn't? Your prejudices are showing.
Surely it is better for everybody to remove considerations of personal appearance evaluations of executives. Instead, it would be better to focus on something - like, I dunno - 'performance'.
Perhaps there are, but the comments to which I referred (1) were not questions and (2) did not raise legitimate questions.
Sigh. Perhaps a legitimate concern about the loyalties of the person in question reduced to a silly sexual metaphor.
So basically she is prefered over a male that might be more capable of the job, but just because Apple needs to meet his woman quote she gets the job.