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

Well now that the Wall Street Journal is a tool for Murdoch's News Limited it's probably a bit of a gauge in negotiating, or asserting some corporate matter... for publishing trashy Murdoch content into our beautiful devices... complete with full page splash ads that we never wanted nor paid for...
:p
 
Only if they sell all their AAPL today.

If they expect continued returns, they should be very concerned about the governance of the company.

The post-Jobs era is coming. Sooner or (hopefully) later - but it's coming. Investors should be concerned about the long term issues.
I didn't say that I'm unconcerned. I just said that it's difficult to complain. Being concerned and voicing a complaint are two very very different things.

In any case, I voted my shares a month ago online. My opinion doesn't count for squat like the big boys at FMR, State Street, Vanguard, Janus, etc. Those are really the folks who will call the shots concerning board makeup. We all know that Steve Jobs isn't immortal.

Little ol' retail investors are even less influential with Apple since there are fewer of us (percentage wise) around.
 
How is this wrong? Has Steve Jobs done anything to make the company less profitable? I think it's great that they have a board of directors that are functional and work well together. Do you really want a dysfunctional board that are constantly fighting each other? This is simple fear mongering. They are trying to suggest a problem with the board that doesn't exist.

Anyone suggesting Apple is lost without Jobs is out of touch with reality. That may have been true in 1997, but today they have one of the most functional company cultures in the industry. Steve Jobs may have made things the way they are today, but now it is self perpetuating.
 
Split?

Apple Board of Directors Unite!

Whenever, I see something high profile like this, a few things come to mind.

1) The company is planning a stock split to sell shares wider in the stock market.

2) Major management change is in the works and this is prelude to give PR for the next CEO.

3) The corporate entity is going to spin off a company with some of said featured board members leaving to run the new company.

Gets me reading not just between but behind the lines of this article.
 
However, don't recall Apple making any huge strategic moves. Buy some big company... nope. Hire some major exec that wasn't already in flight ? Cancel or introduce product line ? Sure he took more personal responsibility for the accuracy of the SEC filings since perhaps Steve didn't sign off on those.

These "huge strategic moves" like "buying out a big company" is what kills companies. Apple has publicly stated that they don't believe in that philosophy. They want to do the best they can at a few things. They acquire small companies and don't hire so fast that they lose their ability to produce quality products. They seem to be doing pretty good following this philosophy.

Lets look at another industry as an example. What airline has never bought another major airline? Southwest. What airline is not barely staying afloat and isn't tacking extra fees on top of everything to try to scrape by? Southwest.

I'm not even going to get in to companies that follow your suggestions, because the current depression has brought many of them to light.

Our economy would be in a lot better shape if more companies were run like Apple.
 
"...to tell or not to tell the public about about my potential of dying"

Tech companies' advanced development and development cycles are multi-year projects.

We don't know how connected Jobs was during his illness, but we know that at the most Cook ran the company for 6 months or thereabouts.

Obviously, Tim's bonus shows that Jobs and the board were happy with his performance.

But nothing in this event proves that Apple will survive Jobs' departure without disruption. Jobs being on medical leave with email/conference connections is not "Jobs not present".

What it does show though, IMO, is that his decission to keep his personal life under wraps was a good decission for the company. Nothing really happened to stocks based on the "speculation" that went on before news was actually released. Imagine what would have happened had they released info while he was waiting on a liver. The stock would have tumbled... this is NOT a guess. Everyone here knows that would have been fact.
"Just in today... Steve Jobs is dying and will come very close to not finding a liver because the California system sucks... Hold on to your stocks...its gonna be a bumpy ride!!"
 
Whenever, I see something high profile like this, a few things come to mind.

1) The company is planning a stock split to sell shares wider in the stock market.

2) Major management change is in the works and this is prelude to give PR for the next CEO.

3) The corporate entity is going to spin off a company with some of said featured board members leaving to run the new company.

Gets me reading not just between but behind the lines of this article.

This is Apple. They get PR for free. I doubt any of the above are true.
 
The companies you are talking about were all gunning for short term money at best or fake money at worst.

You're grossly missing the point. Worldcom and Enron both went on incremental 'augment' the product/services coverage campaigns to grow bigger. The fundamental failing was that their accounting firms that were suppose to be independent were not independent and rubber stamped them cooking the books. If the accounting firms had done the job the independent advisors are suppose to do those companies might avoiding doing stupid things. Removing the checks and balances leads to bad outcomes. It may take a while, but they come more often than not in those situations.

Likewise Lehmann did a few foolish things to get themselves into a bad situation but again were down in the basement cooking the books towards the end. What is suppose to stop that ....... independent advisors (obviously since they fired the internal executive who complained that it was cooking the books. Internal folks trying to "check" the CEO or other 'C' leave executives fails a not to surprisingly amount of the time.). They squashed that and ran into the wall at 100 mph.


Independent directors ask CEO's hard questions. For example, if Lehmann's directors had ask Dick Fuld where is all this funny money coming from down in the mortgage trading business he would had to answer that question. Now he gets to skate on "Well I had no idea what those guys were really doing". It is amazing how many CEOs have no clue what so ever what is going on in their company when some employee is imploding the company.
Companies where the directors ask hard, perhaps unpleasant, questions typically avoid these bad outcomes. If the CEO has to face the reality earlier enough typically there is time to fix the problem. At the very least the CEO won't be able to use the "get out of jail free" card when the crap hits the fan later if they don't.



Apple has good sales. They are not making fake money.

Which is a much better, but not only , metric of a good company than the stock price. Stock price is a rather poor and lagging indicator.

I argree a high price tends to lead to complancent and lazy stockholders. That doesn't mean it is a good practice. There is a difference between good outcomes and good decisions.


Each product that Apple builds comes with a new set of skills that they need to build the next product. If more American companies worked like this, we would have no competition from overseas.

Since Apple doesn't do any manufacturing and solely hires offshore contractors. Apple is a principal contributor to shipping jobs overseas.
If all American companies followed Apple's model exactly the US economy would tank ( or tank faster than it already is ). Would not have competition because would be bankrupt.
 
2 things

1. Steve Jobs earns $1 per year at Apple. He takes a $1 a year salary. He gets options but those could expire worthless. So it's kind of hard to bitch about him when clearly the success of Apple = the continued legacy as the most brilliant innovator in all of tech.

2. Who else can turn an industry on it's nose with one product introduction? i-Pod (#1 selling music player), i-Tunes (#1 music store), i-Phone (#1 cellular phone), i-Pad (soon to be #1 tablet computer). Let's not forget that Apple stock is up over 1,000% over the last 10 years.

You would have to be an ******* on the purest sense of the word to suggest that Steve should have ANYBODY standing up to him. Also, we just came out of a huge recession and Apple is growing and stealing market share from it's competitors at an accelerating pace.
 
So Apple continues to be one of the most successful companies in America, posting record breaking quarters, and people think that Jobs should have less power? WTF is wrong theses Wall-Streeters? Apple would be nothing what it is today if it wasn't for that man in charge.
 
These "huge strategic moves" like "buying out a big company" is what kills companies. Apple has publicly stated that they don't believe in that philosophy. They want to do the best they can at a few things. They acquire small companies and don't hire so fast that they lose their ability to produce quality products. They seem to be doing pretty good following this philosophy.
Correct.

Apple's senior management team has repeatedly stated that they do not intend to mindlessly expand by acquiring some company. By mindless, that also includes buying a company solely for revenue (e.g., a telephone company like Verizon).

Apple's acquisitions have been infrequent and small. They run very lean on resources and their revenue-per-employee number is massive compared to their industry sector counterparts.
 
This is Apple. They get PR for free. I doubt any of the above are true.
Correct. Apple barely has to do anything to get PR.

Steve Jobs can reply to four e-mails with less characters than a Twitter post and get more news coverage than almost any PR campaign.
 
Steve Wozniak? No, Seymour Cray!

Cray did do some cool stuff. He built some very fast systems. He even had a fish named after him. I would like to think the Waz was more innovative. It would be an interesting question, "Did the super computer or the home computer have more of an impact?"
 
These "huge strategic moves" like "buying out a big company" is what kills companies.

Note first that this is a tangent. Apple didn't have to make large purchase while Cook was interim. It is just one of possible actions that are indicative of a strategic move. Second, I perhaps imprecisely specified big relative to Apple's already established objectives. No, I didn't think Cook should change strategy (like buy sizes). However, even in Apple's reduced framework relative to the size of their investment fund, of what is "big" , they did nothing.


Frankly, Apple has done "big" relative to most companies. There are very few VCs that would as single unit drop $100-200M on a single buy like Apple did with P.A. Semi. By the way the P.A. Semi move has yet to pay out ( if reporting is true that A4 isn't even buyout by-product. ). That further is indicative that the 6-8 months or so was window for either significant strategic moves or to have seen benefits from them.


[ As to what is "big" remember KPCB iFund total was $100M
http://www.kpcb.com/initiatives/ifund/

That was to fund several companies. Apple spent almost twice that on just a single one. Just for the talent and not the product. They nuked the product and have earned nothing since. That is a big investment unless you are desensitized to what is "big". ]


Likewise Apple blundered ( not on Cook's watch) and blew the Ad Mob deal. Again a several hundred million buy. That whole approach of "we are going to do acquisitions ad hoc and willy nilly" blew up in their face in that case.

As Apple grows bigger the buyouts they are doing are either going to grow more numerous or larger. Otherwise they aren't going to have impact on the company or the return on investment.


As for buying up companies doesn't work. Yeah tell that to A.P. Sloan ( built GM. ) or Chambers ( grew Cicso ) to dominate position or Berkshire Hathaway... yeah they are unsuccessful at buying companies. <cough>. It isn't the buying, it is buying for irrational reasons that is the problem (AOL -- TimeWarner going to create magical synergies ... you can't see it because it it is a new age dot com thing. blah blah blah. ) . Can buy something small and still be dumb. (because don't make money back).


Lets look at another industry as an example. What airline has never bought another major airline? Southwest. What airline is not barely staying afloat and isn't tacking extra fees on top of everything to try to scrape by? Southwest.

Southwest has done well because.
1. have a uniform, relatively young fleet.
2. played the fuel futures market well.

However, of course they have made major acquisitions in both futures and aircraft. Both of which very likely going in front of the board and getting approval due to sizes and/or strategy.

By the way Southwest has done substantive acquistions (relative to size and not out of the petty cash fund. )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_airline#Acquisitions




I'm not even going to get in to companies that follow your suggestions,

I made no suggestions. I cited illustrative examples of what would have been a strategic call by a CEO and in some case would have required board approval after presentation by a CEO.
 
Apple is down two directors and it does seem like time to hire one or two. But for the Wall Street Journal to suggest that Bill Campbell, Millard Drexler, Al Gore, Andrea Jung and Arthur Levinson are yes men for Jobs is disingenuous.
 
interesting...

interesting...

The death of Apple Inc. director Jerome York last week has left the company with fewer independent voices, putting it in conflict with its own board’s rules and renewing concerns about the board’s ability to oversee strong-willed Chairman and Chief Executive Steve Jobs.

Mr. York, a former finance chief for Chrysler Corp. and International Business Machines Corp., headed the Apple board’s audit committee for more than 12 years. He died from a brain aneurysm at the age of 71.

Apple’s time frame for finding a new board member, and even whether it will seek one, are unclear. Apple directors haven’t hired a search firm to recruit a new director, but the Cupertino, Calif., company typically prefers to tap its own network and conduct its own search, industry recruiters said. An Apple spokesman declined to comment.

At Apple, Mr. York was regarded as a relatively authoritative figure on audit and corporate governance matters but tended not to offer too many opinions, said people familiar with the board.

But he had strong feelings about the way Mr. Jobs handled disclosures about his leave of absence for health reasons in January 2009. In an interview with The Wall Street Journal last year, Mr. York said he almost resigned when told of the seriousness of Mr. Jobs’s illness. Mr. York felt Mr. Jobs should have publicly disclosed his health problem three weeks earlier in a news release that announced his decision not to appear at the Macworld trade conference.

Mr. York said the concealment “disgusted” him, adding that the only reason he didn’t quit at the time was because he wanted to avoid the uproar that would have occurred once he disclosed his reason. “Frankly, I wish I had resigned then,” he said.

Under Apple’s own rules, the audit committee is required to have at least three members, and at least one must have “past employment experience in finance or accounting, requisite professional certification in accounting or other comparable experience.” The audit committee currently consists of two directors, former Intuit Inc. CEO William Campbell and former Genentech Inc. CEO Arthur Levinson.

While Apple could tap Mr. Campbell or Mr. Levinson to lead the audit committee or turn to one of its three other independent directors—former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, Avon Products Inc. CEO Andrea Jung or J. Crew Group Inc. CEO Millard “Mickey” Drexler—to fill the audit-committee vacancy, such moves appear unlikely, corporate-board experts said.

Apple’s board, with just six members including Mr. Jobs, is already among the smallest at a Fortune 500 company, based on data from the research firm Corporate Library. As a result, its directors are likely to already be stretched thin, board experts said. Apple’s investor Web site shows that, except for Mr. Jobs, who isn’t on any board committees, directors have multiple responsibilities. And many of Apple’s current directors don’t have the strong financial expertise that’s preferred for the audit chair position, governance specialists said.

Investors have long urged Apple’s directors to be more independent of the company’s powerful CEO, even as Apple has continued posting strong financial results. An independent board represents the interests of shareholders and can challenge the CEO when necessary, said David Nadler, a corporate governance expert and senior partner at consultants Oliver Wyman Group.

Mr. York’s successor should be somebody “with sufficient stature and importance to take the CEO on,” said Roderick Hills, a former Securities and Exchange Commission chairman, who has led a dozen audit committees. He added that Apple’s next audit committee chairman should be ready to quit if things aren’t done right.

At Apple, Mr. Jobs has long called the shots in the boardroom, said people familiar with the matter. When Apple was struggling in 1997, Mr. Jobs, who had been ousted from the company years earlier, agreed to return only if most of the board resigned, said Edgar Woolard, a retired CEO of DuPont Co. and one of two Apple directors whom Mr. Jobs asked to stay on at the time. Mr. Woolard, who left the Apple board in 2000, said Mr. Jobs blamed the old board for letting “everything go to hell.”

Since then, Mr. Jobs has kept tight control and directors have rarely challenged him, said people familiar with the board. That was true last year when Mr. Jobs’s lack of disclosure about his health became an issue. After exhibiting severe weight loss, Mr. Jobs took a medical leave of absence for nearly six months in early January 2009 with little explanation. His hospital disclosed last June that he had undergone a liver transplant after The Wall Street Journal reported the news.

“As a shareholder, it would give me more confidence in the company if they had more outsiders,” said Ted Parrish, a portfolio manager at Henssler Equity Fund in Kennesaw, Ga., which owns Apple stock. He added that Mr. York’s death and the continuing uncertainty about Mr. Jobs’s health make it important to “have a deep bench.”

Apple’s board has taken one step toward independence. Early last year, it named Ms. Jung as its co-lead director alongside Mr. Levinson. Ms. Jung replaced Mr. Campbell, a longtime friend of Mr. Jobs and a former Apple executive. “Bill has no comment,” a Campbell assistant said.

But investors and governance experts said the company has a long way to go. Most of the current directors were handpicked by Mr. Jobs and are loyal to him, said people familiar with the situation. Mr. Drexler, a veteran retail executive, admires Mr. Jobs and considers him a genius, according to an individual familiar with Mr. Drexler’s thinking.

People familiar with the board said Mr. Levinson was also a big fan of Apple and its products even before he was invited onto the board in 2000. Mr. Gore, meanwhile, has little corporate experience. Ms. Jung splits her time between her duties at Avon and other corporate boards. One person familiar with the situation said she rarely says or does much as an independent director “because she’s very busy.” Ms. Jung is also a director of General Electric Co.

An Avon spokeswoman said Ms. Jung takes her responsibilities as an independent director at Apple and GE “very seriously and makes adequate time to be fully engaged in the activities of both boards.” Mr. Gore’s office declined to comment. Through a spokesman, Mr. Levinson declined comment.

Apple had an opportunity last fall to fill a board seat when director Eric Schmidt, Google Inc.’s CEO, resigned his Apple seat amid regulatory scrutiny of the two companies’ businesses. But a person close to the board has said the remaining members decided not to fill the position at the time because there were “plenty of directors to man [its] three committees.”
 
The CEO works for the company. The company is owned by the share holders. If the majority of the board thinks the CEO is off his game and causing problems for the owners they should fire him.

Correct, and the fact that they haven't fired Jobs indicates they agree with him and his vision. And if York had that big a problem, he SHOULD have resigned. The fact that he didn't indicates he generally agreed with how things were going. And judging by his obituary his opinion wasn't to be taken lightly.
 
Oh yeah, cos the last "strong and Independent" board did such a wonderful job and showed such great vision when they sacked steve jobs and ran the company into the toilet! Yeah, I'm sure steve is really keen on going down that route again... The company is strong and successful and has seen shares triple in price... If it ain't broke, don't try and fix it...
 
Don't get me wrong, I love most Apple products and think Steve Jobs is a genius -- if a bit quirky -- but Apple is very much a reflection of his vision, and I don't think a truly independent board is anywhere on his list of priorities. As long as the stock does well, no one's going to rock the boat.

I agree, and I would go a bit further, I'm not sure this will change as long as SJ is in charge and probably it's a good thing. Have a look a what happened in the early 90s... Apple did reinvent a lot of things, but Steve did reinvent Apple!
 
Don't get me wrong, I love most Apple products and think Steve Jobs is a genius -- if a bit quirky -- but Apple is very much a reflection of his vision, and I don't think a truly independent board is anywhere on his list of priorities. As long as the stock does well, no one's going to rock the boat.

Hallelujah. And there's the bottom line for a business: the money.

Jobs is one of the few great American CEOs who realizes you make money by providing great product and service. Computers are evolving and Apple leads that evolution so often. It leads because Jobs has a vision and isn't hampered by wishy-washy nay-sayers and confused or cautious bean counters worrying merely about a stock price.

Jobs created the home computing revolution and he saw where it could go. He still sees where it can go. Until others can see farther, let him rule.
 
Berkshire Hathaway stock price is many times higher and Warren Buffet isn't scared of a competent board. That's one reason why it is. (among others. )


You really don't understand how corporations are valued, do you? AAPL has a market cap roughly 1/3 higher that BRK. AAPL is worth more than BRK, not less.
 
Since Apple doesn't do any manufacturing and solely hires offshore contractors. Apple is a principal contributor to shipping jobs overseas.
If all American companies followed Apple's model exactly the US economy would tank ( or tank faster than it already is ). Would not have competition because would be bankrupt.


Again, you're demonstrating that you really don't know what you're talking about, or are content to make disingenuous arguments. Computers and other electronics have been manufactured overseas for a while now. That's the reality. That's not "shipping jobs overseas" since those electronics manufacturing jobs weren't really here, at the level anywhere near where they are today. But the growth of tech has resulted in a huge increase in jobs in the U.S. for all related services.
 
couple of things:

1) Boards are overrated these days. Most of the time, these Boards only serve to set pay, do auditing tasks, etc. Pretty tame and boring stuff. Boards do not set company agendas or tell CEOs where the business should go. Not these days.
2) 6 board members is pretty remarkable and very low and seems to be very Steve-like. Why have 9-10 members that could suffer groupthink?
3) Al Gore is on the board and I would argue that is pretty different than just any other "outsider".
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.