Filed under: Apple Financial
Apple releases 2009 proxy statement
Yesterday, Apple released a proxy statement detailing the financial compensation that executives enjoy as part of their participation on the board of directors.
Steve Jobs retained his $1 salary for 2008, but has over 5.5 million shares of Apple stock, which is worth over $500 million on paper. Jobs is worth about $5.7 billion, thanks largely to the fact that he's Disney's largest individual shareholder. Fidelity Investments continues to be Apple's largest investor with over 46 million shares of stock.
There are five shareholder proposals up for voting this time around:
- Proposal 1 asks to re-elect the board of directors, consisting of Steve Jobs, William Campbell, Millard Drexler, Al Gore, Andrea Jung, Arthur Levinson, Eric Schmidt, and Jerry York.
- Proposal 2 asks for more transparency surrounding Apple's political contributions.
- Proposal 3 asks the company to adopt a statement supporting universal health care for everyone, and not just employees.
- Proposal 4 asks the company to release a report on corporate strategies surrounding climate change and greenhouse gas emissions before July.
- Proposal 5 asks to adopt a policy that gives shareholders more input on executive compensation. (Thanks, Scott!)
The board of directors, perhaps not surprisingly, recommends approving the first proposal, and rejecting the other four.
The proxy statement is available from Apple's Investor Relations website, and will not be mailed to shareholders unless requested.
[Via MacDailyNews.]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Scott G. said 3:39PM on 1-08-2009
You guys missed the fifth proposal, which is in regards to Apple's Compensation of management and others.
You can see the PDF of all proprosals online:
http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/irol/10/107357/08_75107/AAPL_Proxy_2009.pdf
I understand why the fifth proposal was made, although I don't think it's necessary. It's (essentially) in response to the compensation issues that arose some-time ago with Steve Jobs. Big deal.
Reply
Robert Palmer said 4:03PM on 1-08-2009
Thanks for that -- I must have fallen asleep before getting to the fifth item. :) I've added it to the post.
Eric said 4:11PM on 1-08-2009
Universal healthcare for everyone, not just employees?
I'm going to need an explanation.
Reply
Paul said 4:17PM on 1-08-2009
Basically, Apple has turned around and is supporting 1984.
Allan L. said 5:18PM on 1-08-2009
It might be helpful to clarify that the proposal for the election of directors comes from the company; the other proposals are being offered by shareholders over the company's protest.
Even so, I think it's heart-warming to think someone thinks Apple could provide universal health care.
Reply
fishbert said 7:33PM on 1-08-2009
Oh no, the measure isn't asking Apple to provide universal health care... just to release some statement saying they like the idea.
The question I have is: are these political issue measures normally up for vote, or is this a new trend?
If it's the latter, I wonder if it might dissuade Apple from doing things similar to their donation and statement in support of gay rights during the Prop. 8 campaign. If the potential for these measures to go through is the thanks Apple gets for taking a stand on civil rights, maybe they'll be less likely to bother in the future.
bigdilvey said 5:14PM on 1-08-2009
I want a company that makes good products, but this political crap is ridiculous. Focus on what you do and do it well. Although I like applecare, i don't need it for my heart, lungs, liver, etc. if they want to give it their employees it as a perk... great, but I don't want them to look over my chart and tell me it was because I fell too hard or ate too many cheeseburgers that they refuse my "warranty". Make computers and other cool gadgets, keep the political crap out.
Reply
Le Big Mac said 5:48PM on 1-08-2009
Maybe it's obvious, but these aren't proposals Apple is putting forward. They're required to submit them to a shareholder vote based on corporate law because some shareholder obtained sufficient support for his/her proposal.
fishbert said 7:33PM on 1-08-2009
agreed.
while I may support some of the ideals presented in these questions, I think I'd rather have Apple focus on being a technology company rather than a politician.
Caleb E. Roberts said 1:01AM on 1-09-2009
Al Gore??????????? Universal Health Care?????????
I agree with what has been said that they should stay out of the political business and stay to making great products. This may make rethink my commitment to Apple.
Reply
J said 10:03AM on 1-09-2009
I vote to not return Al Gore. The man is dangerous.