Apple shareholders nix disclosure of Jobs succession plan Apple shareholders have rejected a proposal that would have required the company to disclose its CEO succession plans. So we still have no way of knowing how the company is handling the ongoing health problems facing current CEO and spiritual leader Steve Jobs. The succession plan proposal was floated by the Central Laborers' …
A 20 foot sealed Perspex tube with a plastic shopping bag floating in it.
It will glow lightly at the base and spout off in a harsh robotic voice.
“OUR NEW PRODUCT IS THE GOOD. IT IS THE GOOD MORE THAN OTHER PRODUCT OF MICROSOFT. THIS IS ACCEPT YOU THE FACTS. TUBE KNOWLEDGE MORE THAN YOUR SPECIES. HUMAN BRAIN IS 0%”
What would actually happen if they did disclose the method of choosing the next Apple CEO?
Would it not result in a spasm of upper-management infighting as each tries to ensure that they are either going to get the post, or at least be 'seen favourably' by the one who does?
In fact, when was the last time anyone saw the method of choosing a CEO at all? Even after the fact?
Doctors dealing with cancer never make firm statements about treatment, symptoms, or long term repercussions. Everything is couched in "maybe", "perhaps", and percentages based on previous cases. You can ask as many questions as you like, but the answers leave you feeling as uncertain as before.
If shareholders want certainty about Steve's condition, there's no one who can provide it. He might return to a full-time role and carry on for many years. He might be there periodically. He might never return from his current illness. All of these are possible.
Apple is managing the current situation by placing others in Steve's role as required. No doubt the same people will do so in a full-time capacity in the event that Steve cannot return, in which case more permanent plans will be put in place. There is no point speculating about these plans if the need for them never arises. It's all about pragmatic risk management.
Announcing detailed plans for covering a situation that does not yet exist would just be a waste of time and expose Apple to additional risks. The fact is, Apple is doing fine and providing a good return for shareholders. The company does not revolve around Steve - no individual can spread themselves that thin - and they have the capacity to carry on with the same strength and agility as before.
Jobs' medical status is not particularly important to shareholders. There are a few things that Apple's shareholders should worry though: a) Any company of that size _must_ have a succession plan for its key people. b) Saint Jobs is both chairman and CEO. c) Apple's success seems much stronger linked to the person of St. Jobs than most other comparable companies.
The shareholders typically do not need to know the details of a succession plan (these plans may well be a company secret for good reasons), it is a task for the board of directors. As a shareholder I'd be quite happy if I knew that there is a succession plan - whether St. Steve dies of cancer or is flattened by a meteorite does not matter.
You become a shareholder with the intention of profiting
Everything you vote for is to increase your chance to profit
Therefore if plans were disclosed the expectation is to lose money not make it
Therefore the plans, or lack of, will cause the stock to tank
Therefore the stock should tank anyway.
Sell Sell Sell.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
