Apple Updates Corporate Bylaws on Diversity Following Criticism Over Lack of Female Leaders

[ctyrider]

You have your head so far in the sand there is no hope. AAPL is DOWN $162 from 16 months ago. Down another $3.89 today ( Dow is up again today ). Apple, per MR article struggling with various components for the rumored iWatch. The iTV / Apple TV is rumored to be back burnered so they can focus on wearables. Not enough resources or vision or negotiating clout to do both? New processors, higher ppi screens and other embellishments on the existing product line are not working for the stock.

Look, you're entitled to your opinions, but your incessant whining about APPL performance is off topic, and probably of little interest to majority of this forum participants. Most of us are here to discuss Apple rumors, products and technologies. You're unhappy about Apple stock - go to annual Apple Shareholders meeting and complain there. This is MacRumors, not Apple Investors Club.

 

[Apple Corps]

Look, you're entitled to your opinions, but your incessant whining about APPL performance is off topic, and probably of little interest to majority of this forum participants. Most of us are here to discuss Apple rumors, products and technologies. You're unhappy about Apple stock - go to annual Apple Shareholders meeting and complain there. This is MacRumors, not Apple Investors Club.

It is obviously of interest to you - otherwise why are you wasting your time reading & responding.

 

[MyMac1976]

It is obviously of interest to you - otherwise why are you wasting your time reading & responding.

Because you're spamming

 

[BaldiMac]

You have your head so far in the sand there is no hope.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

AAPL is DOWN $162 from 16 months ago. Down another $3.89 today ( Dow is up again today ).

I am completely aware of that. But I am also aware it is up 40% from 8 months ago and up 50% from 29 months ago.

Apple, per MR article struggling with various components for the rumored iWatch. The iTV / Apple TV is rumored to be back burnered so they can focus on wearables. Not enough resources or vision or negotiating clout to do both?

Rumors and FUD.

New processors, higher ppi screens and other embellishments on the existing product line are not working for the stock.

And yet they are working for sales.

Not even the China Mobile contract propelled stock price much.

Unless the market anticipated the China Mobile contract leading to a portion of the 40% increase over the last 8 months. Buy on rumor, sell on news.

 

[Apple Corps]

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem



I am completely aware of that. But I am also aware it is up 40% from 8 months ago and up 50% from 29 months ago.



Rumors and FUD.



And yet they are working for sales.



Unless the market anticipated the China Mobile contract leading to a portion of the 40% increase over the last 8 months. Buy on rumor, sell on news.

A 40% increase - look at the 16 month performance - still down $160 or so and trading at poor multiples. That comment is not cherry picking short term fluctuations in stock price. Your comment that it is working for sales is correct - and it will also work for operating profit - all good news.

However, it has not been working for the stock price over the past 16 months. What prompted my posts in this thread is Tim's specificity on Project Red, the underserved, and "equality" - how many laws do we need on the books on that topic? Get the best person for the job, don't discriminate, don't do token hiring, move on. When queried about returning value to shareholders, he provides vague, superficial fluff responses along the lines of we are working on it - duh. That topic is a major responsibility of any CEO of a publicly traded company.

I am a long tern investor in AAPL - have significant holdings with a cost basis in the double digits - so I have done very well. From a long term investor perspective, I do see a morphing of the investment model towards the MS profile - large cash generation but poor capital appreciation. Tim's attention on some of these hotly debated public issues while remaining vague and under engaged on the stock is not good. I suspect we will see great earnings later this month and hopefully some more meaningful engagement on the shareholder issue.

 

[MyMac1976]

The change is share holder driven

"According to the report, the shareholders met with Apple representatives several times over the past few months to address the company's lack of female executives. The shareholders intended to bring the issue to a vote at Apple's shareholder meeting on February 28, but backed off once Apple agreed to address the issue through new language in the company's corporate charter"

Mr Cook needs to tell share holders to take a long walk off a short pier.

 

[BaldiMac]

A 40% increase - look at the 16 month performance - still down $160 or so

What in the world?! How many times do you need to say the same thing! I am completely aware that Apple is down significantly from their all time high. However, that is not the only metric an investor considers when looking at a company. Why is that hard to understand?

and trading at poor multiples.

Yep. For which I provided a rational explanation that you probably agree with in principle, but ignored.

That comment is not cherry picking short term fluctuations in stock price.

Nope it is cherry picking one trend among many. And your repeated comments that the stock is down on an individual day is cherry picking short term fluctuations in stock price.

When queried about returning value to shareholders, he provides vague, superficial fluff responses along the lines of we are working on it - duh. That topic is a major responsibility of any CEO of a publicly traded company.

Do we really need pretend that the specific measures that Apple has implemented to return value to shareholders don't exist?

I am a long tern investor in AAPL - have significant holdings with a cost basis in the double digits - so I have done very well.

I don't care, no matter how many times you make this claim. Claiming you are Apple's largest shareholder doesn't change the fact that your arguments are completely myopic.

(I would love to know what you mean by "a cost basis in the double digits". By the actual definition, that means you invested less than $100.)

 

[kingtj]

True, but not really the point either?

I think you're absolutely right that many companies fail to make products that sell successfully in other countries because they don't bother to learn the other cultures first.

If you're in the business of marketing products or services abroad, then yes - part of your business model should include hiring people from those destinations who speak the language and have the background knowledge necessary.

That's not what any of these "diversity" laws address, though. They don't factor in the type of business a given company does, or the specific ethnic groups that give them the most benefit in unique situations .....

I have certainly provided genuine business value because I have been travelling. A company like apple sells to all sorts of different groups so having a diverse board will help target such markets.

Plenty of companies have got this wrong. E.g. Selling cars in India without electric back windows even though there people have drivers.

 

[Apple Corps]

What in the world?! How many times do you need to say the same thing! I am completely aware that Apple is down significantly from their all time high. However, that is not the only metric an investor considers when looking at a company. Why is that hard to understand?



Yep. For which I provided a rational explanation that you probably agree with in principle, but ignored.



Nope it is cherry picking one trend among many. And your repeated comments that the stock is down on an individual day is cherry picking short term fluctuations in stock price.



Do we really need pretend that the specific measures that Apple has implemented to return value to shareholders don't exist?



I don't care, no matter how many times you make this claim. Claiming you are Apple's largest shareholder doesn't change the fact that your arguments are completely myopic.

(I would love to know what you mean by "a cost basis in the double digits". By the actual definition, that means you invested less than $100.)

Please show where I ever said I was Apple's biggest shareholder.

A number of my shares were procured at under $100 per share - and that is why I have done so well. However, that performance goes down every month AAPL does so-so.

This is an excellent / recent article that may shed more light than heat on the topic: http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2014/01...ign=Feed:+fortuneapple20+(FORTUNE:+Apple+2.0)

 

[BaldiMac]

Please show where I ever said I was Apple's biggest shareholder.

I didn't claim you did. I was simply making the point that I don't care that you claim that you are a shareholder, no matter how much stock you claim to hold.

A number of my shares were procured at under $100 per share - and that is why I have done so well. However, that performance goes down every month AAPL does so-so.

And the fact that you don't even know what a cost basis is says even more than your claim to be a shareholder.

This is an excellent / recent article that may shed more light than heat on the topic: http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2014/01...ign=Feed:+fortuneapple20+(FORTUNE:+Apple+2.0)

Exactly. Tim Cook is running the Apple business at a scale that dwarfs its competition. Returning billions to it's shareholders. And you want him to change Apple's strategy to concentrate on the stock price.

 

[ctyrider]

I am a long tern investor in AAPL - have significant holdings with a cost basis in the double digits - so I have done very well.

No one cares. Your claims to be this or that on an anonymous Internet forum are worth exactly nothing, and add zero credibility to your arguments.

And again - you are off topic.

 

[Apple Corps]

I didn't claim you did. I was simply making the point that I don't care that you claim that you are a shareholder, no matter how much stock you claim to hold.



And the fact that you don't even know what a cost basis is says even more than your claim to be a shareholder.



Exactly. Tim Cook is running the Apple business at a scale that dwarfs its competition. Returning billions to it's shareholders. And you want him to change Apple's strategy to concentrate on the stock price.

I certainly do know what a cost basis is - what in the world are you talking about?

----------

No one cares. Your claims to be this or that on an anonymous Internet forum are worth exactly nothing, and add zero credibility to your arguments.

And again - you are off topic.

Than move on and quit reading..

 

[BaldiMac]

I certainly do know what a cost basis is - what in the world are you talking about?

Cost basis is not the price that you bought a stock at. It is the total amount that you spent to purchase a stock or fund including any reinvested divedends or capital gains.

 

[KanosWRX]

Bloody nonsense. If instead of picking the best ten candidates out of 100 white males you manage to pick the best ten candidates out of 100 white males, 30 females and 20 members of some minority, surely you will get better candidates? And if for some reason you kept these 30 women and 20 minority members away and one of the them was the most qualified person, then you _didn't_ hire the most qualified one, did you?

That makes no sense, I say pick the 10 best candidates out of 100, or the 10 best out of 150 (if you have 100 white males, 30 females, 20 minority). 10 best no mater what.. whats so complicated about that? Why would I keep them away??? Not sure what your trying to say here...

----------

Just hiring white old dudes means you are highly unlikely to be hiring the best person for the job.

Then don't hire white old dudes? what why discriminate against white old dudes? I know some of them are pretty smart, unless your saying they are all dumb?