Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tim Cook Rejects Politics of the NCPPR

macobserver.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 134 posts

Re: Tim Cook Rejects Politics of the NCPPR

#61

Post by bowlofpetunias »

mongol wrote: post #60
rjknight wrote: post #48

I understand and agree with the idea that companies should maximise shareholder value, but I've never understood the argument that shareholder value is exclusively determined by profit. As I see it, the stock market consists of various firms saying "buy our stock, and we will try to achieve X with your investment", where X might be maximum ROI, but I don't understand why it has to be. If I want to found a company whi…

"Future philanthropic principles" are probably not for the CEO to decide. It sounds like something for the board. However I agree that a company should be able to define its mission and include things apart from maximum profit.

However, this is not necessarily "philantropic". It's marketing, and directly connected with ROI.

If Apple had the social and environmental sense of responsibility of GoDaddy, I lot less of us would feel comfortable buying Apple products.

Re: Tim Cook Rejects Politics of the NCPPR

#62

Post by aragot »

k-mcgrady wrote: post #58
mikestew wrote: post #8

" said that there are many things Apple does because they are right and just, and that a return on investment (ROI) was not the primary consideration on such issues" The next time someone trots out the tired old "companies are legally obligated to maximize profits/shareholder value" to explain away crappy corporate behavior, I'm linking to this. And kudos to Cook for telling NCPPR to take a figurative hike.

>> The next time someone trots out the tired old "companies are legally obligated to maximize profits/shareholder value" to explain away crappy corporate behavior, I'm linking to this. What he's doing IS MAXIMISING SHAREHOLDER VALUE! In the long term the sustainability projects will be important. Over 97% of shareholders rejected the proposal put forward so technically he was doing what the majority of the shareholde…

> IS MAXIMISING SHAREHOLDER VALUE

Did the stock go up after the event? http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=AAPL&t=5d&l=on&z=l&q=l&c=

Re: Tim Cook Rejects Politics of the NCPPR

#63

Post by chalst »

rjknight wrote: post #48

I understand and agree with the idea that companies should maximise shareholder value, but I've never understood the argument that shareholder value is exclusively determined by profit. As I see it, the stock market consists of various firms saying "buy our stock, and we will try to achieve X with your investment", where X might be maximum ROI, but I don't understand why it has to be. If I want to found a company whi…

The fiduciary duty of the directors of a company entails that they make no decisions that prejudice the general shareholders of a company. The classic case is making an issue of equity that benefits only a limited group who can buy it at the expense of diluting the value of the equity of other shareholders.

The idea that (i) the entire value of a company is the NPV of future profits to the shareholders, and that (ii) this fiduciary duty is very broad and bears on all decisions made by the directors, so that any decision that might reduce return is prejudicial to the interest of shareholders, does pretty much entail what the NCPPR claim. And there have been efforts in places to expand fiduciary duty in some jurisdictions to this strong requirement. But I have the impression that lawyers generally think the idea is daft and undermines good corporate governance.

IIRC, Steve Milloy of Junk Science operates a crank activist hedge fund that attempts to undermine environmental innitiatives in the kind of way described in the article. I believe they have produced dismal returns for their investors, which suggests that they do not eat their own dog food.

Re: Tim Cook Rejects Politics of the NCPPR

#64

Post by zacinbusiness »

I think it would be awesome if Apple could somehow go "unpublic." Is there a word for that? Buy back all of their stock and dissolve it. A powerhouse of design and engineering like Apple would be a real force if it didn't have to blow their asshole investors each quarter or risk some kind of coup.

Re: Tim Cook Rejects Politics of the NCPPR

#65

Post by honksillet »

rdl wrote: post #47

All things being equal, I'd like it if Apple provided these numbers to shareholders/the public. I support Apple continuing to participate in these programs, but giving shareholders accurate numbers seems like a worthy goal, and I'd actually like to know the scale of Apple's investment in green energy as a benchmark for how far along the green energy industry is coming -- if it's a 100% markup, it's got a long way to…

I agree. Regardless of what one think about the questioner, I would really like to know the answer to the first question.

Re: Tim Cook Rejects Politics of the NCPPR

#66

Post by dredmorbius »

zacinbusiness wrote: post #64

I think it would be awesome if Apple could somehow go "unpublic." Is there a word for that? Buy back all of their stock and dissolve it. A powerhouse of design and engineering like Apple would be a real force if it didn't have to blow their asshole investors each quarter or risk some kind of coup.

Is there a word for that?

"Private"

Re: Tim Cook Rejects Politics of the NCPPR

#67

Post by lotsofmangos »

aragot wrote: post #62
k-mcgrady wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> The next time someone trots out the tired old "companies are legally obligated to maximize profits/shareholder value" to explain away crappy corporate behavior, I'm linking to this. What he's doing IS MAXIMISING SHAREHOLDER VALUE! In the long term the sustainability projects will be important. Over 97% of shareholders rejected the proposal put forward so technically he was doing what the majority of the shareholde…

> IS MAXIMISING SHAREHOLDER VALUE Did the stock go up after the event? http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=AAPL&t=5d&l=on&z=l&q=l&c=

Stock going up just after an event doesn't mean that event was good for the company. A dead cat bounce is stock going up.

Re: Tim Cook Rejects Politics of the NCPPR

#68

Post by lotsofmangos »

zacinbusiness wrote: post #64

I think it would be awesome if Apple could somehow go "unpublic." Is there a word for that? Buy back all of their stock and dissolve it. A powerhouse of design and engineering like Apple would be a real force if it didn't have to blow their asshole investors each quarter or risk some kind of coup.

That's what Dell just did.

Re: Tim Cook Rejects Politics of the NCPPR

#69

Post by zacinbusiness »

dredmorbius wrote: post #66
zacinbusiness wrote: post #64

I think it would be awesome if Apple could somehow go "unpublic." Is there a word for that? Buy back all of their stock and dissolve it. A powerhouse of design and engineering like Apple would be a real force if it didn't have to blow their asshole investors each quarter or risk some kind of coup.

Is there a word for that? "Private"

It's 6am. Also I'm a dumbass sometimes. But thank you :-)

Re: Tim Cook Rejects Politics of the NCPPR

#70

Post by amirmc »

lotsofmangos wrote: post #68
zacinbusiness wrote: post #64

I think it would be awesome if Apple could somehow go "unpublic." Is there a word for that? Buy back all of their stock and dissolve it. A powerhouse of design and engineering like Apple would be a real force if it didn't have to blow their asshole investors each quarter or risk some kind of coup.

That's what Dell just did.

And Richard Branson's Virgin Group. Also, DeBeers diamond business, I believe.
Post reply on HN