PDA

View Full Version : Apple Stock Options Fallout Continues




somairotevoli
Dec 27, 2006, 09:54 AM
from cnn
http://money.cnn.com/2006/12/27/technology/apple_options/index.htm?postversion=2006122710

Web site says federal investigation could leave company open to criminal prosecution; shares lose 4.5% in early trading.
December 27 2006: 10:05 AM EST


NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Federal prosecutors are reportedly investigating stock option administration documents at Apple Computer that were apparently falsified by company officials, according to a published report.

The Recorder, an online publication of legal news Web site Law.com, reported the allegation of the false documents, citing unidentified people with knowledge of Apple's situation.
The report also says that Steve Jobs, the CEO and co-founder of Apple, has apparently hired his own legal representation, separate from Apple's lawyers, to deal with investigators from the Securities and Exchange Commission and Justice Department. The company has previously said that Jobs was not implicated by its own internal probe of the options scandal.

Shares of Apple (Charts) sank 4.5 percent in morning trade on Nasdaq.

The article does not reveal which documents were allegedly falsified. But Apple had previously disclosed that "stock option grants made on 15 dates between 1997 and 2002 appear to have grant dates that precede the approval of those grants." By changing the date of an options grant, an executive who receives the grant can obtain even greater savings when buying the stock in the future.

The article said that falsification of documents puts Apple at risk for potential criminal prosecution. Federal investigators are looking into allegations about illegal backdating of options at 100-plus companies, and some of them will likely be pursued solely as civil SEC inquiries, while others may face criminal charges.

"When there are falsified documents, the government views them as an intent to defraud, because people generally don't falsify documents unless they're trying to make things different from reality," Keith Krakaur, a partner at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, told the Recorder.

Krakaur told the Web site he was speaking generally and not about Apple, with which he's not involved. But Krakaur was formerly the attorney for Kobi Alexander, the former CEO of Comverse Technology (Charts), who was indicted by Brooklyn federal prosecutors on charges of backdating option grants and has been living as a fugitive in Namibia for the past several months.
Sleazy CEO's options tricks

Brocade Communications Systems (Charts), McAfee (Charts), UnitedHealth Group (Charts) and K.B. Home (Charts) are other companies that have seen their CEO leave under the cloud of options backdating scandals.

Apple has confirmed the probe into its stock option program in June and said it conducted its own internal investigation, which it completed in October and turned over to federal investigators.

It said in a statement in October that an internal investigation of its options program "found no misconduct by any member of Apple's current management team" although it conceded that the probe "raised serious concerns regarding the actions of two former officers in connection with the accounting, recording and reporting of stock option grants."

As to Jobs' involvement, the statement said its CEO "was aware that favorable grant dates had been selected, but he did not receive or otherwise benefit from these grants and was unaware of the accounting implications."

The Recorder's article identified the ex-officers cited but not identified by Apple as a former general counsel, Nancy Heinen, and a former chief financial officer, Fred Anderson.

Anderson retired as CFO in June 2004, but remained on the board until October this year. His resignation from the board was revealed at the same time the conclusion of the internal probe was announced. The company said at that time that he had "informed the company that he believes it is in Apple's best interests that he resign from the board at this time."



Demon Hunter
Dec 27, 2006, 09:57 AM
So how bad is this for Apple?

phillipjfry
Dec 27, 2006, 10:02 AM
So many companies do this sort of thing all the time....

Is it really a crime anymore? :p

somairotevoli
Dec 27, 2006, 10:03 AM
So how bad is this for Apple?

shares lose 4.5% in early trading.

xPismo
Dec 27, 2006, 10:33 AM
Steve Jobs, the CEO and co-founder of Apple, has apparently hired his own legal representation

You don't spend the cash for a team of reps unless you need the protection. :(

nbs2
Dec 27, 2006, 10:36 AM
As more info comes out and my stock continues to tumble, I have one thought for those responsible or aware of the accounting practices: :mad:

Queso
Dec 27, 2006, 10:47 AM
This one continues to rumble doesn't it? Thing to remember nbs2, is that Wall Street typically over-reacts to everything. So if the stock is tumbling 4% today, it will gain some if not all of that loss back tomorrow. The only things that will push it down permanently are 1) if Friday's refiling results in Apple having made enormous accounting errors and being fined by the SEC to the tune of a ten-digit amount, or 2) Steve Jobs resigns.

Personally in your position I'd wait it out. AAPL is valued on future-performance more than anything. Unless 2) above happens, I'd say the stock will rebound quickly enough in early 2007.

theheadguy
Dec 27, 2006, 10:55 AM
So how bad is this for Apple?

This is very, very, bad. This is a crime, and there are severe penalties Apple may incur. They are learning a very harsh lesson here, their secrecy can not keep the Feds from finding inaccuracies.

Although I doubt this will hurt Mac or iPod sales since the products are amazing no matter how many documents have been falsified, the person above me was correct, you hire your own legal representation because you need it, and there is no time to mess around.

I wish I could say due to my love for the executive team that I proclaim their innocence, but I can not as the Feds seem to know more than I do.

Good luck to whatever side is telling the truth.

IJ Reilly
Dec 27, 2006, 10:59 AM
You don't spend the cash for a team of reps unless you need the protection. :(

Or think you might, which isn't exactly the same thing.

The original law.com article:

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1167127308611

I don't think anyone really knows what any of this means. The article implies only that the two Apple execs who have already resigned might be facing criminal charges. The markets are speculating that Jobs might be implicated somehow, but so far nothing anyone has actually said points in that direction.

someguy
Dec 27, 2006, 11:03 AM
Stuff like this makes me feel so stupid.

Someone please help:

What the hell is going on? What exactly was done? What kind of documents were falsified?

I know it says they aren't sure which documents, but I mean, what TYPE of documents? I don't understand the situation.

phillipjfry
Dec 27, 2006, 11:08 AM
You don't spend the cash for a team of reps unless you need the protection. :(

Yes, you do. To protect your rights and make sure that everything is going smoothly. That fingers won't be pointed at you, in the out-of-control fashion that usually arises when everyone is trying to save their own a**.

IJ Reilly
Dec 27, 2006, 11:10 AM
This is very, very, bad. This is a crime, and there are severe penalties Apple may incur. They are learning a very harsh lesson here, their secrecy can not keep the Feds from finding inaccuracies.

Again, this is almost 100% speculation. If criminal prosecutions do occur (still a big if), then the charges seem likely to be limited to two former Apple execs. Unless something deeply shocking and vastly different than what we've been hearing for the last several months emerges, then the damage to the company is also likely to be very limited. Just because the markets are currently in a tizzy over this doesn't mean we should get swept up in the speculation.

failsafe1
Dec 27, 2006, 11:22 AM
I like to remind myself we are all innocent until proven otherwise. If anyone even Steve is guilty of anything willful then he is not above the law. I hope all involved are innocent or perhaps honestly mistaken. I always hope the guilty will admit it instead of trying to cover up.

IJ Reilly
Dec 27, 2006, 11:22 AM
Stuff like this makes me feel so stupid.

Someone please help:

What the hell is going on? What exactly was done? What kind of documents were falsified?

I know it says they aren't sure which documents, but I mean, what TYPE of documents? I don't understand the situation.

Documents filed with the SEC to record the granting of stock options to executives and/or board members. The entire controversy is over stock options that were allegedly back-dated, which means they were awarded in such a way as to be more profitable to the grantee. This isn't allowed. The potentially new dimension here is the possibility that some of these disclosure documents were filed fraudulently, which if true, increases the penalties on whomever was involved.

MongoTheGeek
Dec 27, 2006, 11:23 AM
Stocks fluctuate.

Rumors make stocks fluctuate. When there are rumors of bad the stock drops. When the news actually comes out it goes back up. Look at MacWorld. Right after the keynote, no matter how spectacular the announcement the stock drops.

The articles I've read seem to put most of blame on people no longer there. Jobs most likely will not be indicted. No one ever accused him of being a financial wizard and the issues are intricacies of accounting.

Fred Anderson may be in trouble but he falls into the category of "no longer there"

Whatever the restatement is, it won't change the ground truth. Apple has X shares outstanding, $Y in assets, $Z in sales, and $A in costs. There may be a change in "goodwill" but the EBITDA should stay the same.

skunk
Dec 27, 2006, 11:24 AM
The potentially new dimension here is the possibility that some of these disclosure documents were filed fraudulently, which if true, increases the penalties on whomever was involved.And makes you wonder what they were thinking. Cui bono?

nbs2
Dec 27, 2006, 11:24 AM
I know - I've been sitting pretty through their peaks and troughs all year. It's just a bit frustrating that the issues this time aren't performance related, but rather are accounting related. The performance problems are corrected (and then some) fairly quickly by the market. Accounting issues may be repaired by MWSF, but if Vista actually shows up it will be a couple of heavy rounds into Apple's armor. No permanent damage, but I could see it taking until May or so to recover fully.

iMeowbot
Dec 27, 2006, 11:25 AM
They are learning a very harsh lesson here, their secrecy can not keep the Feds from finding inaccuracies.
Nonsense, Apple volunteered the information to the SEC.

IJ Reilly
Dec 27, 2006, 11:27 AM
And makes you wonder what they were thinking. Cui bono?

Eyes fixed firmly on the money, they were probably thinking of little else.

MongoTheGeek
Dec 27, 2006, 11:38 AM
Documents filed with the SEC to record the granting of stock options to executives and/or board members. The entire controversy is over stock options that were allegedly back-dated, which means they were awarded in such a way as to be more profitable to the grantee. This isn't allowed. The potentially new dimension here is the possibility that some of these disclosure documents were filed fraudulently, which if true, increases the penalties on whomever was involved.

I thought the article said that back dating was legal as long as it was accounted for properly.

Apple should come out of this okay because they led the charge. They will restate some earnings probably fight some shareholder lawsuits but end up being okay.

princealfie
Dec 27, 2006, 11:44 AM
Oh oh, does this end Steve Jobs as CEO? :eek: :confused:

IJ Reilly
Dec 27, 2006, 11:49 AM
I thought the article said that back dating was legal as long as it was accounted for properly.

You could be right, but I read it again and didn't see such a statement. I thought back-dating was never allowed because it builds in an automatic capital gain. If the company wants to award cash grants to their executives, that's certainly allowed, but it has to be disclosed as such in their 10-K statements. The problem with back-dating, as I understand it, is it's an effort to hide compensation from the SEC and stockholders.

skunk
Dec 27, 2006, 11:49 AM
Though he probably signed off various documents, he is claiming that, being no accountant, he did not know the accounting implications. Seems a bit disingenuous as a defence, but unless there's a paper trail showing otherwise, I'd say he'll probably get away with it.

IJ Reilly
Dec 27, 2006, 11:56 AM
Though he probably signed off various documents, he is claiming that, being no accountant, he did not know the accounting implications. Seems a bit disingenuous as a defence, but unless there's a paper trail showing otherwise, I'd say he'll probably get away with it.

It does sound suspiciously like the Ken Lay defense. The SEC recently changed their rules to make it far more difficult for a chief executive to plead ignorance on financial matters, but I don't think these rules apply in this instance, either because of the dates when the grants occurred or because of the nature of the violation. Either way, I haven't heard anyone in the know say that Jobs is in any serious danger of being strung up.

Dont Hurt Me
Dec 27, 2006, 11:56 AM
Its the same old story with any American company, give all the money to the boardroom class & CEO's, then close your american factories, pay your chineese workforce pennys a hour, work em 15 hours a day. Apple is no different then most american companys these days. This just goes to show that Apple isnt thinking different. Apple is guilty and they know it. They should share the wealth with the whole company not just those boardroom brown nosers.

skunk
Dec 27, 2006, 11:58 AM
They should share the wealth with the whole company not just those boardroom brown nosers.The occasional dividend would be nice.

Peace
Dec 27, 2006, 12:00 PM
Remember Jobs is a drop out so he may not really have known what the legal ramifications were.

I'd hire a lawyer too.Especially if I'd signed off on one of the documents but didnt really know it was illegal until a few months ago.

Jobs will get out of this.

AAPL might not though.

princealfie
Dec 27, 2006, 12:03 PM
Remember Jobs is a drop out so he may not really have known what the legal ramifications were.

I'd hire a lawyer too.Especially if I'd signed off on one of the documents but didnt really know it was illegal until a few months ago.

Jobs will get out of this.

AAPL might not though.

Could this be the end of the iPod as we know it? My goodness. I need to worry now.

MongoTheGeek
Dec 27, 2006, 12:14 PM
It does sound suspiciously like the Ken Lay defense. The SEC recently changed their rules to make it far more difficult for a chief executive to plead ignorance on financial matters, but I don't think these rules apply in this instance, either because of the dates when the grants occurred or because of the nature of the violation. Either way, I haven't heard anyone in the know say that Jobs is in any serious danger of being strung up.

These grants were from 1998 to 2003 before the rules change.

It may have been in another article where I read about the back dating being legal. Perhaps also only before the rules change.

As I recall the rules change is what prompted Apple to go back and start restating/reevaluating.

As for Jobs being in trouble I don't know. Odds are he did nothing wrong and even if he did he may not have known it. There are certain instances where ignorance of the law is an excuse and accounting tends to be one of those areas.

Just a little humor.

What's an Auditor?
(Some one who follows along after a battle, bayonetting the wounded.)
What's a Lawyer?
(Some one who follows an auditor looting the bodies.)

solvs
Dec 27, 2006, 12:18 PM
Didn't we know about this months ago? What's changed? Looks worse than I originally thought, but I'm still guessing they get a fine and a slap on the wrist. This isn't Enron here. There have been some other companies that have similar issues, happened to Dell too, but I hate how everyone is making such a big deal out of this just because it's Apple.

Of course, if I'm wrong and there were some shenanigans going on, I hope they are dealt with.

MongoTheGeek
Dec 27, 2006, 12:33 PM
Didn't we know about this months ago? What's changed? Looks worse than I originally thought, but I'm still guessing they get a fine and a slap on the wrist. This isn't Enron here. There have been some other companies that have similar issues, happened to Dell too, but I hate how everyone is making such a big deal out of this just because it's Apple.

Of course, if I'm wrong and there were some shenanigans going on, I hope they are dealt with.

Now there is talk of falsified documents and there is the impending restatement.

according to this.

http://www.biz.uiowa.edu/faculty/elie/backdating.htm

It is provisionally legal to backdate options under certain conditions.

IJ Reilly
Dec 27, 2006, 12:37 PM
These grants were from 1998 to 2003 before the rules change.

It may have been in another article where I read about the back dating being legal. Perhaps also only before the rules change.

As I recall the rules change is what prompted Apple to go back and start restating/reevaluating.

As for Jobs being in trouble I don't know. Odds are he did nothing wrong and even if he did he may not have known it. There are certain instances where ignorance of the law is an excuse and accounting tends to be one of those areas.

Right, thanks -- that explains it.

Good jokes. Appropriate. :)

Didn't we know about this months ago? What's changed? Looks worse than I originally thought, but I'm still guessing they get a fine and a slap on the wrist. This isn't Enron here. There have been some other companies that have similar issues, happened to Dell too, but I hate how everyone is making such a big deal out of this just because it's Apple.

Of course, if I'm wrong and there were some shenanigans going on, I hope they are dealt with.

We did. The only apparent difference is the suggestion that some sort of intent might have been involved, as represented by falsified reporting. Who ever doubted intent?

Peace
Dec 27, 2006, 12:44 PM
I was in accounting a long,long time ago.

It's one thing to backdate a couple months in order to give more options to a new employee but when you go back to a time long before official earnings reports thats called falsification.Doing so is illegal.It's commonly referred to as cooking the books.

But we've known about this for a while now.This is the media jumping on the bandwagon.Nothing has changed.Just because Jobs got a lawyer doesn't imply he's in trouble.He just wants to make sure the Feds do things legally and in correct fashion.
I'd do the same thing if I was innocent of something and had the feds wanting to show off for King George.

IJ Reilly
Dec 27, 2006, 12:48 PM
It is provisionally legal to backdate options under certain conditions.

This was more-or-less my understanding. If an company wants to grant "in the money" options to employees, then they have to record the difference between the option's strike price and the current market value as an expense. Back-dating isn't necessary to do this if everything is above-board. But as the article makes clear, back-dating of stock options is generally an attempt to hide the expense, so in reality they are rarely above-board.

MacNut
Dec 27, 2006, 01:18 PM
So lets say this gets really bad, What happens to MWSF then.

MongoTheGeek
Dec 27, 2006, 01:27 PM
So lets say this gets really bad, What happens to MWSF then.

Absolute worst? Steve Jobs gets led off stage in handcuffs. Pigs flying have a better chance though.

IJ Reilly
Dec 27, 2006, 01:55 PM
Absolute worst? Steve Jobs gets led off stage in handcuffs. Pigs flying have a better chance though.

I'm holding out for flying pigs in handcuffs.

MacNut
Dec 27, 2006, 02:07 PM
Absolute worst? Steve Jobs gets led off stage in handcuffs. Pigs flying have a better chance though.I can see it now, the feds say, oh and one more thing.
I'm holding out for flying pigs in handcuffs.sounds like someone has a kinky night planned.:D

Earendil
Dec 27, 2006, 02:58 PM
Though he probably signed off various documents, he is claiming that, being no accountant, he did not know the accounting implications. Seems a bit disingenuous as a defence, but unless there's a paper trail showing otherwise, I'd say he'll probably get away with it.

I'd have a hrd time believing it to...if he had benefited from it.
Why, in such a hi profile position and company would you commit something so illegal that could harm you and the company you just became the CEo of, without actually getting any benefits yourself?

If indeed he gained nothing from these "errors", as both sides are saying, than I'm not inclined to think he was intentionally involved.

Jay42
Dec 27, 2006, 03:04 PM
looks like its time to buy some more stock soon.

MacRumors
Dec 27, 2006, 03:44 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

With Apple's annual SEC statement due Friday and the pending restatement of historical financial statements, Law.com (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1167127308611) reports that Apple may be under increased scrutiny by the SEC due to apparently deliberately falsified documents by company officials to maximize the profitability of option grants to executives.

In June, Apple began an internal probe (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/06/20060630003057.shtml) of stock option grant "irregularities", the results of which (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/10/20061004180455.shtml) saw the departure of former CFO Fred Anderson from Apple's board amid findings of "serious concern" regarding two former officers. Law.com labels Anderson and former general counsel Nancy Heinen as those former officers.

Over 100 companies including Microsoft, CNet Networks, Intuit, and Computer Associates are in similar situations, and the falsification of documents appears to be a key element under scrutiny in SEC investigations which may lead to criminal charges.

"When there are falsified documents, the government views them as an intent to defraud, because people generally don't falsify documents unless they're trying to make things different from reality," said Keith Krakaur, a partner at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom in New York working on backdating cases. [...]

Krakaur and other defense lawyers -- including several in San Francisco who asked to remain anonymous for fear of affecting local probes -- said government lawyers are focusing on falsified records as a means of proving that executives knew their actions were wrong. "They view that as intent," he said. (Ed Note: Krakaur is not personally involved in the Apple case)

Current officers including CEO Steve Jobs were largely cleared from involvement by the independent investigation. Still, it appears as though Jobs has sought independent counsel beyond Apple's lawyers in dealing with the matter.

rdowns
Dec 27, 2006, 03:46 PM
Was certainly a roller coaster ride for AAPL today. Finished up $0.01 but was down as much as $4.74. Typical Wall Street over reaction.

sbrhwkp3
Dec 27, 2006, 03:47 PM
At least it seems like a common thing, and Apple won't be the center of attention about it...

longofest
Dec 27, 2006, 03:49 PM
Was certainly a roller coaster ride for AAPL today. Finished up $0.01 but was down as much as $4.74. Typical Wall Street over reaction.

They probably saw the news, but then realized that Apple scored BIG in holiday sales, and they therefore realized that is the most important. :D

mac 2005
Dec 27, 2006, 03:51 PM
Can someone refresh my memory? Did Apple bring these irregularities to the SEC's attention, or were the irregularities discovered by a prior SEC investigation?

Dont Hurt Me
Dec 27, 2006, 03:57 PM
At least it seems like a common thing, and Apple won't be the center of attention about it...The common thing is to make millions while screwing the workers and cooking the books. Enron,GM,Exxon, and even Apple are all ran by greedy corporate pigs. Its like Congress giving itself 10 raises in a row and voting down a minimum wage increase every time. These guys all suck if you ask me.

rfrankl
Dec 27, 2006, 04:00 PM
I think it was another intentional hatchet job. Always an anonymous source. They have known about this restatement for months. This one was as blatant as Forestor's report a few weeks ago about iTunes sales slumping severely based on looking at credit card statements...lol.

Flowbee
Dec 27, 2006, 04:02 PM
Was certainly a roller coaster ride for AAPL today. Finished up $0.01 but was down as much as $4.74. Typical Wall Street over reaction.

A $4.74 discount just before MacWorld... it's no wonder the price didn't stay low for long.

Felldownthewell
Dec 27, 2006, 04:11 PM
If apple did wrong, they'll get their punishment. Simple as that; it is not a conspiracy crafted by Bill Gates to destroy apple, its just something that happens when there are laws concerning corperations that aren't that strictly enforced.

People realize they can break them without getting in trouble, and then suddenly the agency in charge of the laws realizes that people are breaking the rules and they should probably do something about it, and situations like this are born.

This is not another Enron, and Apple will make it through this for sure, baring any new major(ly) bad developments.

gnasher729
Dec 27, 2006, 04:28 PM
The common thing is to make millions while screwing the workers and cooking the books. Enron,GM,Exxon, and even Apple are all ran by greedy corporate pigs. Its like Congress giving itself 10 raises in a row and voting down a minimum wage increase every time. These guys all suck if you ask me.

I am sure you have evidence that Apple has been "cooking the books". I am looking forward to a link.

Earendil
Dec 27, 2006, 04:36 PM
The common thing is to make millions while screwing the workers and cooking the books. Enron,GM,Exxon, and even Apple are all ran by greedy corporate pigs. Its like Congress giving itself 10 raises in a row and voting down a minimum wage increase every time. These guys all suck if you ask me.

Could we be any more blatantly, wide sweeping, stereo typing, and overall dripping with negativity?

No, I'm not saying ignore the bad things in life. But by golly, try and find some proof of bad things instead of grouping everyone in the evil pot. Those leaders and corporate execs are human beings, someones fathers and mothers, and actually have the possibility for integrity :cool:

~Tyler

xPismo
Dec 27, 2006, 05:17 PM
You don't spend the cash for a team of reps unless you need the protection. :(

Or think you might, which isn't exactly the same thing. <snip>

Yes, you do. To protect your rights and make sure that everything is going smoothly. That fingers won't be pointed at you, in the out-of-control fashion that usually arises when everyone is trying to save their own a**.

You both just said the same thing I said. :rolleyes:

gnasher729
Dec 27, 2006, 05:39 PM
You don't spend the cash for a team of reps unless you need the protection. :(

Only a complete idiot and moron would not get himself a lawyer in this situation, especially when innocent.

jamesfabin
Dec 27, 2006, 05:47 PM
Who's that knocking on the door, it's opportunity! I just bought up another batch of shares this morning when it was really low - made a few hundred dollars today, but I know in two weeks it'll be worth a lot more!

WS always over-reacts with these issues. I see this as a great time to buy in.

SiliconAddict
Dec 27, 2006, 05:47 PM
You don't spend the cash for a team of reps unless you need the protection. :(

Yes you do.

lorductape
Dec 27, 2006, 05:49 PM
who cares as long as they don't stop selling macs :D

Earendil
Dec 27, 2006, 05:55 PM
You both just said the same thing I said. :rolleyes:

Dang, xPismo, you're getting railed on by people not reading the entire thread, and all because your wording isn't interpreted the way you meant it to be by a few people. If I were you I'd go back and reword it before the thread is consumed by those that don't understand you :D

jbernie
Dec 27, 2006, 06:01 PM
Ignorance does not equal innocence. IIRC Sarbanes Oxley was implimented for things like this, if the CEO/CFO sign off on false documents they are also held accountable regardless of whether they were involved in the errors.

Not say they get the same punishment as the people who commit the crimes, but they are likely to be fined etc.

From what I have seen it does appear to be an isolated group of senior employees, which is good as it isn't a systematic issue, but in saying that it is not good for Apple's image as it was senior employees who are doing it.

I'd guess the drop in stock value is a reflection of Apple losing some of its warm fuzzy feelings, though as one poster noted unless there is some massive outfall from this, the issue will go away the stock will rise and all is good with the world.

If you are an investor and only have AAPL stock you may consider looking for some safer investments short term, don't put all your eggs in one basket etc.

FrankBlack
Dec 27, 2006, 06:17 PM
OK, so I'm a little late to this one....:o

I just checked the stock, and as of 6:56 PM eastern, it had rebounded to 81.71 in after-hours trading. An interesting reaction. Today, all it takes is one little off-the-cuff remark or statement to send any companies' shares tumbling.

So, close to 200 companies, most of them technology based, are being investigated for possibly stock options skullduggery? Well, I can't say I'm surprised. As others have noted already, this has probably been going on for a long time, they are only now getting caught. Unfortunately, Apple is among the best known, and most visible. There a bunch of other technology companies out there that are also under the microscope, but they are going un-noticed. Some time ago, the CEO of McAfee (Ticker symbol: MFE) stepped down over stock options back dating, but it went largely un-noticed. One big problem with some (not all) big-shot execs in any company, is that they don't like the word "enough". They want more, and they think they won't get caught doing something illegal.

My own guess as to why Steve Jobs hired his own attorneys: Probably to fend off any further digging by the feds. He probably felt it was best to have legal representation that had no involvement with the company.

As someone once said, "This too, shall pass".

IJ Reilly
Dec 27, 2006, 06:20 PM
You both just said the same thing I said. :rolleyes:

Not really, no. You said a person doesn't get legal representation unless they needed it. I said they would if they thought they might need it, which is not the same thing.

:rolleyes: yourself!

IJ Reilly
Dec 27, 2006, 06:23 PM
As someone once said, "This too, shall pass".

Whoever said that probably had kidney stones.

theheadguy
Dec 27, 2006, 06:48 PM
Nonsense, Apple volunteered the information to the SEC.

They volunteered information about falsified documents? I think you are referencing simple accounting irregularities. The scope of this investigation is widening, it doesn't mean you have to make bigger pushes to defend Apple. It is what it is and we'll find the results as they come in.

We seem to have two end of the spectrum here, the federal government who could pursue criminal charges based on fraud (yes falsifying documents is indeed fraud), and people here who are running around yelling this is alllll speculation and we should assume Apple is wonderful and would never lie on a single document for a few executive's personal financial gain, Steve included. I think the answer is somewhere in the middle. Time will tell.

Dont Hurt Me
Dec 27, 2006, 06:51 PM
Could we be any more blatantly, wide sweeping, stereo typing, and overall dripping with negativity?

No, I'm not saying ignore the bad things in life. But by golly, try and find some proof of bad things instead of grouping everyone in the evil pot. Those leaders and corporate execs are human beings, someones fathers and mothers, and actually have the possibility for integrity :cool:

~Tyler7.5 million shares with no board approval? I wonder how many shares Apples workers were given? Oh thats right they gave em shuffles. Nothing new here its the same old story the CEO class are raping these companys and the workers are lucky for minimum wage that was set a decade ago unless they are pod makers in China then they get 50 cents a day. Jesus said its easier to thread a camel through the eye of a needle then for these types to make it in heaven.

IJ Reilly
Dec 27, 2006, 06:54 PM
The volunteered information about falsified documents? I think you are referencing simple accounting irregularities. The scope of this investigation is widening, it doesn't mean you have to make bigger pushes to defend Apple. It is what it is and we'll find the results as they come in.

We seem to have two end of the spectrum here, the federal government who could pursue criminal charges based on fraud (yes falsifying documents is indeed fraud), and people here who are running around yelling this is alllll speculation and we should assume Apple is wonderful and would never lie on a single document a few executive's personal financial gain, Steve included. I think the answer is somewhere in the middle. Time will tell.

Now wait just a doggone second. I'm calling it speculation because it is in fact speculation, not because I believe Apple can do no wrong. Those who'd elevate speculation to the level of fact have the opposite problem on their hands -- they're prepared to assume criminal wrongdoing occurred strictly on the basis of somebody saying it might have happened.

longofest
Dec 27, 2006, 07:15 PM
The origninal version of the MacRumors article contained information indicating that Intuit was still under investigation by the SEC. We were just notified by an Intuit rep that Intuit is no longer under investigation, a fact that is verified via this press release (http://web.intuit.com/about_intuit/press_releases/2006/10-30a.html). Intuit's name has been removed from the story, and I apologize for posting apparently out-dated information.

Hobofuzz
Dec 27, 2006, 07:15 PM
I find it a little difficult to believe that Steve Jobs is a greedy man, considering his salary is $1.

If this was Steve Wozniak, I'd be absolutely sure he wasn't greedy. Wozniak spent a few million on his kids' playroom (or was it a birthday party?) once, and from what I've read he spends money without really caring if he got the best deal or not.

I believe Jobs cares too much about Apple to intentionally do something to it that would cause it harm. Apple is the outlet for his artistic vision.

Rocketman
Dec 27, 2006, 07:20 PM
Hello SEC,

Who is definitely reading this . . .

I strongly suggest that given the issues with options and also Sarbanes-Oxley, you simply grant a reprive for everyone, and limit your jusisdiction based revenge (justice), to "fines" not "convictions".

The reason for my statement is simple. This was a pattern and practice in the industry which was approved by --the accountants--, these company officials relied on.

Punishing the sheep (company officials) for the acts of the foxes (accountants) is not justice.

Where are the criminal penalties for the acts and omissions of GOVERNMENT employees??????????????

Well???????????????????????????????????????????????

Where is my jurisdiction to make VALID CLAIMS????????????????????

Rocketman

Dont Hurt Me
Dec 27, 2006, 07:25 PM
Im not saying its Jobs, but someone gave him 7.5 million shares without accounting for them?:confused: Ive never understood these greedy CEO's how they can make millions only to want more millions and millions. When is enough enough for these guys? Enron,Tyco, now Apple.

Rocketman
Dec 27, 2006, 07:27 PM
Not really, no. You said a person doesn't get legal representation unless they needed it. I said they would if they thought they might need it, which is not the same thing.

:rolleyes: yourself!

Since authorities and police are now ALLOWED to LIE about facts and allegations, any person questioned at any time for any reason should take the fifth and hire an attorney forthwith. ESPECIALLY if innocent.

Rocketman

jicon
Dec 27, 2006, 07:28 PM
[QUOTE=Hobofuzz;3184740]I find it a little difficult to believe that Steve Jobs is a greedy man, considering his salary is $1.
QUOTE]

Is that sarcasm or ignorance? :confused: You know he receives a tonne of stock options with that $1 salary, don't you?

He's made a killing from exercising stock options in the past few years.

Dont Hurt Me
Dec 27, 2006, 07:31 PM
[QUOTE=Hobofuzz;3184740]I find it a little difficult to believe that Steve Jobs is a greedy man, considering his salary is $1.
QUOTE]

Is that sarcasm or ignorance? :confused: You know he receives a tonne of stock options with that $1 salary, don't you?

He's made a killing from exercising stock options in the past few years.
Thats a scam and cover, he is given millions and millions of stocks for petes sakes and is allready a millionaire or billionaire. Its something all the big companys are doing except most the others are not only giving these guys millions in stocks but millions in overpaid saleries.

latergator116
Dec 27, 2006, 07:37 PM
The common thing is to make millions while screwing the workers and cooking the books. Enron,GM,Exxon, and even Apple are all ran by greedy corporate pigs. Its like Congress giving itself 10 raises in a row and voting down a minimum wage increase every time. These guys all suck if you ask me.

I agree.

savanahrose
Dec 27, 2006, 08:03 PM
I didn't finish reading the posts but I do have one question.
Why would it affect Steve Jobs? Wasn't it his accounting office that did that? do we assume that Steve knows EVERYTHING that goes on in his company, Apple is a very big company?

Since it is a very big company, would he not have executives to over see certain areas? His only crime in my eyes is trusting the wrong people. I don't see him knowingly doing anything illegal through a company that he seems to love alot.

I think he will be cleared in all of this. I just hope that the feds don't hang him out to dry because he is the CEO.

kironin
Dec 27, 2006, 08:13 PM
Though he probably signed off various documents, he is claiming that, being no accountant, he did not know the accounting implications. Seems a bit disingenuous as a defence, but unless there's a paper trail showing otherwise, I'd say he'll probably get away with it.

Given the overkill of Sarbane-Oxley Act and the appalling erosion over the past 50 years of common law doctrines that kept criminal prosecutors in check, I wouldn't count on it.


if don't believe me, look for this book on Amazon.com
"Go Directly to Jail : The Criminalization of Almost Everything"

Rocketman
Dec 27, 2006, 08:22 PM
Given the overkill of Sarbane-Oxley Act and the appalling erosion over the past 50 years of common law doctrines that kept criminal prosecutors in check, I wouldn't count on it.


if don't believe me, look for this book on Amazon.com
"Go Directly to Jail : The Criminalization of Almost Everything"

I can certify that as actual fact.

Even with a permit!!!

Rocketman

xPismo
Dec 27, 2006, 08:27 PM
Only a complete idiot and moron would not get himself a lawyer in this situation, especially when innocent.
Only a complete idiot or moron? Thank you. You are commenting on a concept no one was talking about.
Dang, xPismo, you're getting railed on by people not reading the entire thread, and all because your wording isn't interpreted the way you meant it to be by a few people. If I were you I'd go back and reword it before the thread is consumed by those that don't understand you :D
If someone just asked what I meant instead of flaming away I might have.
Not really, no. You said a person doesn't get legal representation unless they needed it. I said they would if they thought they might need it, which is not the same thing.

:rolleyes: yourself!

Lets not be silly here. Steve Jobs has a Lawyer. He is adding additional independent representation due to this situation. This would not happen unless he, his lawyer, and/or Apple Legal believed it was required.

The time when any Executive Officer of any large company not having a Lawyer is long gone.

This is the second time you have told me what I meant in one thread IJ Reilly, when did you become the expert on xPismo's thoughts? :rolleyes:

[edit]

Just to push this along:

Since authorities and police are now ALLOWED to LIE about facts and allegations, any person questioned at any time for any reason should take the fifth and hire an attorney forthwith. ESPECIALLY if innocent.

Rocketman

What do you mean, I dont understand. What is the change which allows this?

theheadguy
Dec 27, 2006, 08:46 PM
I find it a little difficult to believe that Steve Jobs is a greedy man, considering his salary is $1.

I believe Jobs cares too much about Apple to intentionally do something to it that would cause it harm. Apple is the outlet for his artistic vision.

/sigh.

His salary is $1. This is what you base his level of greed on? He received MILLIONS of dollars in stock options from Apple just within the past year. Apple in part helps Pixar and Disney, both of which he owns massive amounts of shares of. He contributes very little in proportion to his income compared to similar income high profile figures. You've just been an example of a fan in fairy tale land when it comes to the reality that Jobs is a real person and his actions may be catching up with him and/or others if these allegations prove to be justified. At least I can stop wondering why M$ users call some Mac users zealots.

iMeowbot
Dec 27, 2006, 08:55 PM
They volunteered information about falsified documents? I think you are referencing simple accounting irregularities.

The "accounting irregularities" were the falsified documents. These aren't two separate issues, they are both about the same backdated options.

This is what companies pay internal auditors to find, and it's definitely in the company's self-interest to come forward with this stuff because the auditor is required to disclose it. Remember what happened to Arthur Andersen when they didn't disclose what they found in their clients' records?

kuzma
Dec 27, 2006, 09:10 PM
You have got to be kidding ...

As to Jobs's involvement, the statement said its CEO "was aware that favorable grant dates had been selected, but he did not receive or otherwise benefit from these grants and was unaware of the accounting implications."

Let's see, you build a couple of billion dollar businesses and yet do not understand the accounting implications of backdating options. Give me a break!

And does he actually mean that he understands the implications of falsifying legal documents, which option grants are, and that we should forgive him for this?

Rocketman
Dec 27, 2006, 09:10 PM
What do you mean, I dont understand. What is the change which allows this?

The supreme court RULED police are allowed to LIE to identified folks about facts and claims in cases (NO I DO NOT HAVE a cite, perhaps 2 years ago or less).

This is a really concerning ruling since police/authorities can now, without repercussion, claim things during investigations and "plea bargaining", that further their goals while mis-stating the risks of the "perp", especially if innocent, to further the goals of the prosecutor.

After all, the system is about the prosecutor first, right?

Why?

To assure the legality of imbedded undercover agents. Reasonable. So, why, I ask you, does it apply generally to police and prosecutors and to detectives??????

Reasonable question. Considering their disproportionate power over standard citizens and defendants.

Rocketman

mrl14
Dec 27, 2006, 09:45 PM
FYI Apple's stock has moved downwards 3% in After Hours because something was leaked from the actual report given to the SEC. I know it was mentioned earlier (7.5 million shares) but no one pointed out the stock drop.

IMO, I'd be weary to buy anything more than a half position until Friday. We all know that Apple's stock is moving up on ipod sales, mac sales and rumors, and the first 2 are not going to change. So I see Apple's restatement of earnings doing nothing more than maybe a short term drop of a couple points (buying opp.) OR a relief rally sending this stock on its way up for the pre macworld rally.

MY only fear is a resignation of Jobs before MW....this could be bad.

Note: Somehow I caught the top of the recent rally and sold 25% of my current position.

calyxman
Dec 27, 2006, 09:46 PM
Someone get some marshmallows so we can roast them over this fire....

joeboy_45101
Dec 27, 2006, 10:07 PM
No, I'm not saying ignore the bad things in life. But by golly, try and find some proof of bad things instead of grouping everyone in the evil pot. Those leaders and corporate execs are human beings, someones fathers and mothers, and actually have the possibility for integrity :cool:

~Tyler

Oh boo-hoo! Life isn't fair! Let's all feel sorry for the executives. I mean what a tragedy if they get caught and have to go to jail, then they can't buy that new platinum Bentley they've been wanting.

IMHO I don't believe Steve Jobs did anything with the intent of misleading or swindling the stockholders. I believe the man when he says that somebody handed him some papers and told him to sign there while telling him not to worry this is all just normal business stuff. Jobs is not your run of the mill business man, he doesn't strike me as a business man at all. He's a guy that knows what he wants the company to strive for and how products should work. "Business" is somebody else's department.

I don't blame people for their problems, but their problems are their problems and they have to take responsibility.

whatever
Dec 27, 2006, 10:17 PM
Its the same old story with any American company, give all the money to the boardroom class & CEO's, then close your american factories, pay your chineese workforce pennys a hour, work em 15 hours a day. Apple is no different then most american companys these days. This just goes to show that Apple isnt thinking different. Apple is guilty and they know it. They should share the wealth with the whole company not just those boardroom brown nosers.

SHUT THE FU#K UP!

Having been employeed by a very large (over 10,000 employees world wide) Dutch company, I have to say two things:
1. I'm with Dr.Evil, I too hate the Dutch!
2. There are just as many companies from Europe who pursue cheap labor at least we don't do it with Cuba.

Oh yeah, Job's annual pay at Apple is only $1.00.

whatever
Dec 27, 2006, 10:20 PM
Remember Jobs is a drop out so he may not really have known what the legal ramifications were.

I'd hire a lawyer too.Especially if I'd signed off on one of the documents but didnt really know it was illegal until a few months ago.

Jobs will get out of this.

AAPL might not though.
Have you people been following Apple's stock the past couple of months!

Back in October it dropped down to the $70s. This is actually a common trend for Apple's stock.

whatever
Dec 27, 2006, 10:28 PM
So lets say this gets really bad, What happens to MWSF then.

Nothing!

For years and years, Apple was a great company, with good to great products, with crappy stock. I remember when I first started buying up Apple stock back in 2001, the stock feel from $30 something to $21.00 in one day and then dropped further down to 14.50 a month later. They weren't doing anything wrong, just Wallstreet hated the stock.

GoCubsGo
Dec 27, 2006, 10:31 PM
Nonsense, Apple volunteered the information to the SEC.

They gave what they wanted. Unfortunately, it was just enough to raise eyebrows. Oh well, it's not like they're Enron!

Rytr23
Dec 27, 2006, 10:41 PM
7.5 million shares with no board approval? I wonder how many shares Apples workers were given? Oh thats right they gave em shuffles. Nothing new here its the same old story the CEO class are raping these companys and the workers are lucky for minimum wage that was set a decade ago unless they are pod makers in China then they get 50 cents a day. Jesus said its easier to thread a camel through the eye of a needle then for these types to make it in heaven.

Wow..we get it.. you're a super lefty!! You're for the common man!! Enough already.. I would bet the house that the last time anyone working in cupertino saw minimum wage it was on thier kids paycheck from thier summer job..maybe..

Furthermore.. its not that difficult to thread a camel through a needle.. you just need the right tools.. or a large needle.. So its a win for everyone! :p

whatever
Dec 27, 2006, 10:44 PM
Im not saying its Jobs, but someone gave him 7.5 million shares without accounting for them?:confused: Ive never understood these greedy CEO's how they can make millions only to want more millions and millions. When is enough enough for these guys? Enron,Tyco, now Apple.

It's called business not charity.

Do you know what's involved with being a CEO?

Do you know what many of these people do with their undeserved millions?

Let's see Jobs, started another company from scratch, using a lot of his own money. Paying people's benefits and salaries. That company is NeXT and most likely the OS you're using wouldn't be around (or Apple for that matter) if Jobs didn't spend his money on NeXT. Let's see then he invested heavily in another small company called Pixar. A company that Lucas Films was dumping. If he didn't buy it, most likely Pixar would never been able to maintain there staff and would have just disappeared.

Now how did this all happen, because a CEO used the money he earned to invest in other companies. This is very common. So please get your head out of your ass.

SiliconAddict
Dec 27, 2006, 11:15 PM
Absolute worst? Steve Jobs gets led off stage in handcuffs. G5 PowerBooks Tuesday have a better chance though.



Fixed that for you. :D

SiliconAddict
Dec 27, 2006, 11:23 PM
It's called business not charity.

Do you know what's involved with being a CEO?

Yah sitting on your fat butt making poor decisions and letting the grunts in the company take the brunt of the fallout in the end. In the case of Jobs though he's made some good ones so *shrugs*.
I've never met a CEO from a moderate to large company, I've met about 6 over the years the biggest being Michael Dell 3 years ago at a reception in Irving TX, that I didn't hate intensely. Their perception of reality vs. everyone else's is pretty much inverted. Guess who's is generally right?

IJ Reilly
Dec 27, 2006, 11:56 PM
You don't spend the cash for a team of reps unless you need the protection. :(

This is the second time you have told me what I meant in one thread IJ Reilly, when did you become the expert on xPismo's thoughts? :rolleyes:

Somebody has to do it.

bobber205
Dec 28, 2006, 12:13 AM
I say Jobs should be above the law and does whatever he wants. I love jobs.

Go jobs. ;)

Earendil
Dec 28, 2006, 12:28 AM
Im not saying its Jobs, but someone gave him 7.5 million shares without accounting for them?:confused: Ive never understood these greedy CEO's how they can make millions only to want more millions and millions. When is enough enough for these guys? Enron,Tyco, now Apple.

Could you back that statement up please? Everything I've read has said two things, A: Steve Jobs did not benefit from the falsified documents, and that B: He did not know that someone else did. No where but these boards has anyone directly accused Steve Jobs of anything, and by these boards, I suppose I mean you. Others are just willing to jump on your band wagon as soon as someone actually does make claims against Jobs directly, but you seem to be doing that all on your own... Perhaps you are on the prosecuting team? :rolleyes:

Personally I'm holding the middle ground. I'm neither going to defend Jobs and say he's a saint, nor am I going to call him the devil and believe blindly that he did anything wrong until someone proves it or shows a strong evidence.

Did a CEO kill your cat or something as a kid? :confused:

solvs
Dec 28, 2006, 12:41 AM
Wow..we get it.. you're a super lefty!!

DHM a lefty!?! HA! You must be new here.

Appleinsider is covering this right now. Still reserving judgment. I've worked with some rich executives, some seem perfectly normal to me, some complete asses who are oblivious to everything. Same with politicians. But I'm more than willing to criticize any of them when they screw up. Even Jobs.

Just saying what most of us are though and giving them the benefit of the doubt... for now.

Apple Corps
Dec 28, 2006, 01:13 AM
Could you back that statement up please? Everything I've read has said two things, A: Steve Jobs did not benefit from the falsified documents, and that B: He did not know that someone else did. No where but these boards has anyone directly accused Steve Jobs of anything, and by these boards, I suppose I mean you. Others are just willing to jump on your band wagon as soon as someone actually does make claims against Jobs directly, but you seem to be doing that all on your own... Perhaps you are on the prosecuting team? :rolleyes:

Personally I'm holding the middle ground. I'm neither going to defend Jobs and say he's a saint, nor am I going to call him the devil and believe blindly that he did anything wrong until someone proves it or shows a strong evidence.

Did a CEO kill your cat or something as a kid? :confused:

You should read this: ttp://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aCED2MspivRw&refer=us

Apple Corps
Dec 28, 2006, 01:19 AM
Another perspective which suggests that Steve DID NOT benefit - he surrendered that grant w/o exercising it:

http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?view=CN&storyID=2006-12-28T062829Z_01_N28477922_RTRIDST_0_APPLE-OPTIONS.XML&rpc=66&type=qcna

Aniej
Dec 28, 2006, 01:31 AM
this is getting worse than guessing about what will be released at mwsf, on that note back to that thread.

swingerofbirch
Dec 28, 2006, 01:57 AM
I just read this article:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/801e1b82-9605-11db-9976-0000779e2340.html

and came here to make sense of it and found this thread already going.

According to the article Jobs was given 7.5 million options at 18.30 a share. So, does that mean at any time he could sell the stock without really having bought it to begin with? An option is essentially the option to sell a stock if the price is favorable?

If that understanding is correct, do you at the point you sell it gain the profit of the value of those shares, or the difference between the current price and what the shares were given to you at?

And if it is the latter, is that why they backdate to give the employees the lowest possible price?

If Jobs really has committed a crime, it would be rather ironic given his comments about karma and purchasing legally, and that every iPod says "Don't steal music."

tmornini
Dec 28, 2006, 03:49 AM
looks like its time to buy some more stock soon.

Looks like Jay is the first one to give the right advice!

Buy on bad news, sell on good news.

Just be ready to buy some more if it keeps going down. :-)

princealfie
Dec 28, 2006, 08:09 AM
Looks like Jay is the first one to give the right advice!

Buy on bad news, sell on good news.

Just be ready to buy some more if it keeps going down. :-)

So stupid to advise this...!!!

Of course, if Steve Jobs leaves or resigns I wouldn't be surprised... such is the evil of the corporate life.

BenRoethig
Dec 28, 2006, 08:32 AM
Oh oh, does this end Steve Jobs as CEO? :eek: :confused:

I'd say they already addressed this possibility when Eric Schmidt joined the board. I think you'll probably see Jobs move into a President of the board/ figure head position with Schmidt taking over day to day operations for it. Apple could be a better company in the long run for it too. If he can keep the culture at Apple intact while adding more practical elements that Steve was biased against, this company could really take off.

Swarmlord
Dec 28, 2006, 08:32 AM
Yah sitting on your fat butt making poor decisions and letting the grunts in the company take the brunt of the fallout in the end. In the case of Jobs though he's made some good ones so *shrugs*.
<snip>

In other words, no, you don't know what a CEO does. Nice stereotype though. Should we go over the lazy union slobs down in shipping and receiving sitting on their fat butts waiting for an opportunity to lodge a grievance or strike? Both characterizations are as accurate.

BenRoethig
Dec 28, 2006, 08:38 AM
Another perspective which suggests that Steve DID NOT benefit - he surrendered that grant w/o exercising it:

http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?view=CN&storyID=2006-12-28T062829Z_01_N28477922_RTRIDST_0_APPLE-OPTIONS.XML&rpc=66&type=qcna

But the CEO is ultimately responsible for what happens at his company.

FYI Apple's stock has moved downwards 3% in After Hours because something was leaked from the actual report given to the SEC. I know it was mentioned earlier (7.5 million shares) but no one pointed out the stock drop.

IMO, I'd be weary to buy anything more than a half position until Friday. We all know that Apple's stock is moving up on ipod sales, mac sales and rumors, and the first 2 are not going to change. So I see Apple's restatement of earnings doing nothing more than maybe a short term drop of a couple points (buying opp.) OR a relief rally sending this stock on its way up for the pre macworld rally.

MY only fear is a resignation of Jobs before MW....this could be bad.

Note: Somehow I caught the top of the recent rally and sold 25% of my current position.

He could lessen any impact by changing over the operational reigns while remaining president of the board during some kind of change of command ceremony during the keynote. He could use health as an excuse. The more "normal" it seems, the better for Apple.

mac-er
Dec 28, 2006, 08:41 AM
I'd say they already addressed this possibility when Eric Schmidt joined the board. I think you'll probably see Jobs move into a President of the board/ figure head position with Schmidt taking over day to day operations for it. Apple could be a better company in the long run for it too. If he can keep the culture at Apple intact while adding more practical elements that Steve was biased against, this company could really take off.

If the SEC determines that Steve Jobs acted inappropriately, that would be the end of his career (maybe he could work in the shipping department or manage a retail store), the SEC would not allow him to serve on the Board or any any executive position.

This is a fairly serious situation at this point. Many CEOs have bit the dust due to this situation.

Dont Hurt Me
Dec 28, 2006, 09:00 AM
This is the sign of todays greedy corporate society in America, the CEO class get all the perks,stock options ,$$$, Jets etc and the people who actually make the company work like the guy building those computers,the guy shipping those products to your house or even the 50 cents a day chinamen putting those pods together in China get zilch. Apple was just looked into because of its practices in CHINA for christ sake.
Because everyone is doing something doesnt make it right. Its interesting how so many want to defend Apple for illegal activity. Its time for these greedy corporate types to share with the others who really make the company work rather the then the boardroom committee members who are sitting on their fat buts having coffee & donughts.
I myself doubt Jobs is responsible but I know that the CFO of that company is. APPLE,GM,TYCO,ENRON,....................all the same, close factories here in the U.S. and screw your workers so the paper pushers who do the least get everything. Its time to clean up all the boardrooms in all the corporations.

MacVault
Dec 28, 2006, 09:13 AM
1) Should I hold off on buying a Mac now because of this scandal?
2) Will this put Apple out of business leaving me with no support for my Apple products?
3) Is Macworld still going to happen?
4) And is Steve Jobs still going to Keynote the Expo?
5) Will this really put a damper on Macworld Expo?
6) Does this just spell the end of a great company with great products but $h1ty accountants/executives?

Swarmlord
Dec 28, 2006, 09:22 AM
<snip>...sitting on their fat buts <sic> having coffee & donughts <sic>.
<snip>

Maybe they got higher marks in Hooked on Phonics.

Queso
Dec 28, 2006, 09:39 AM
1) Should I hold off on buying a Mac now because of this scandal?
2) Will this put Apple out of business leaving me with no support for my Apple products?
3) Is Macworld still going to happen?
4) And is Steve Jobs still going to Keynote the Expo?
5) Will this really put a damper on Macworld Expo?
5) Does this just spell the end of a great company with great products but $h1ty accountants/executives?
No, No, Yes, Possibly Not, Possibly, No. And 6 comes after 5 :p

Dont Hurt Me
Dec 28, 2006, 09:49 AM
Maybe they got higher marks in Hooked on Phonics.Attack spelling, its a regular tactic when you dont have a argument isnt it? Spelling mistakes dont bother me that much anymore.:) This isnt a newspaper.:p

skunk
Dec 28, 2006, 09:50 AM
Attack spelling, its a regular tactic when you dont have a argument isnt it? Spelling mistakes dont bother me that much anymore.:) This isnt a newspaper.:pIt's one of your many charms. :)

Dont Hurt Me
Dec 28, 2006, 09:58 AM
It's one of your many charms. :)or faults! sometime ill go back and make corrections sometimes not. This one is a not.:D
I really feel strong about the seperation of the wealth in America and our govt and the corporations are killing off the middleclass,terminating factories,and giving all the wealth to the corporate CEO's and little to anyone else. How many times must we read about these moral misdeeds by greedy corporate america? Greed is destroying our manufactoring base. Does apple even have a American assembled Mac anymore? Heck even my Dell was made in the U.S.A.

whatever
Dec 28, 2006, 10:06 AM
Yah sitting on your fat butt making poor decisions and letting the grunts in the company take the brunt of the fallout in the end. In the case of Jobs though he's made some good ones so *shrugs*.
I've never met a CEO from a moderate to large company, I've met about 6 over the years the biggest being Michael Dell 3 years ago at a reception in Irving TX, that I didn't hate intensely. Their perception of reality vs. everyone else's is pretty much inverted. Guess who's is generally right?

Yes, their perception is slightly different. It's more macro than micro. Where you might be concerned about individual employees, they have to worry about entire towns, cities and sometime states and while all of that happens worry about the bottom line.

Then if the CEO cares about the company, they'll make the tough decisions to keep the company alive, no matter what.

Ultimately the employee has a choice, either be a team player or get out.

Now that might sound negative, but how many great companies have started and been successful, just because of that. The employees pull together and the company rises or employees are disgruntled and leave only to create their "utopian" company. It happens everyday.

IJ Reilly
Dec 28, 2006, 10:14 AM
I just read this article:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/801e1b82-9605-11db-9976-0000779e2340.html

and came here to make sense of it and found this thread already going.

According to the article Jobs was given 7.5 million options at 18.30 a share. So, does that mean at any time he could sell the stock without really having bought it to begin with? An option is essentially the option to sell a stock if the price is favorable?

More or less. The difference between the granting price and the market price is a cash value to the recipient. He could either sell the options or convert them into shares, and then either sell or hold. However, in this case the price dropped and the options were cancelled because they'd become effectively worthless.

If that understanding is correct, do you at the point you sell it gain the profit of the value of those shares, or the difference between the current price and what the shares were given to you at?

And if it is the latter, is that why they backdate to give the employees the lowest possible price?

The options are an opportunity to buy the shares at a fixed price, so the option-holder has to come up with cash if they want to convert the options to stock. If the market price for the shares is higher than the option price, then the option-holder gets a discount.

The incentive to back-date is that it's a way of giving execs and board members a cash bonus that doesn't get recorded as an expense on the company's books.

If Jobs really has committed a crime, it would be rather ironic given his comments about karma and purchasing legally, and that every iPod says "Don't steal music."

I think it is very unlikely that Steve Jobs has committed a crime.

Dont Hurt Me
Dec 28, 2006, 10:17 AM
Yes, their perception is slightly different. It's more macro than micro. Where you might be concerned about individual employees, they have to worry about entire towns, cities and sometime states and while all of that happens worry about the bottom line.

Then if the CEO cares about the company, they'll make the tough decisions to keep the company alive, no matter what.

Ultimately the employee has a choice, either be a team player or get out.

Now that might sound negative, but how many great companies have started and been successful, just because of that. The employees pull together and the company rises or employees are disgruntled and leave only to create their "utopian" company. It happens everyday.
CEo's worring about towns:D People:D Please these guys worry about two things, their pocketbooks and the stockholders and no one else. I dont think Apple was giving a hoot about those chineese working 15 hr days until someone did some poking around. Dont spin corporate greed into morals. Apple is worried about one thing $$$. Corporate America doesnt worry about any town,city or state unless there is money in it for them period.

hagjohn
Dec 28, 2006, 10:29 AM
More or less. The difference between the granting price and the market price is a cash value to the recipient. He could either sell the options or convert them into shares, and then either sell or hold. However, in this case the price dropped and the options were cancelled because they'd become effectively worthless.


Even if the options where "canceled" because of a price drop, it would still be illegal, if true.

gnasher729
Dec 28, 2006, 10:34 AM
Heck even my Dell was made in the U.S.A.

Only because some state paid Dell a few hundred million dollars for the privilege of having a Dell plant there. Not exactly the way capitalism is supposed to work.

BenRoethig
Dec 28, 2006, 10:38 AM
I think it is very unlikely that Steve Jobs has committed a crime.

Even so, are the investors still going to trust him?

IJ Reilly
Dec 28, 2006, 10:39 AM
Even if the options where "canceled" because of a price drop, it would still be illegal, if true.

I don't think it's a question of truth -- the option grants happened. The issue is intent, and who was responsible for the decision to back-date. The new question which has apparently arisen is whether filing documents were prepared fraudulently in an effort to cover up. I have a very strong feeling that the fault is going to be laid squarely on two already departed Apple employees. One point which is going to be made in Jobs' defense is that he was at the time the CEO of two companies and was not micromanaging such matters, that it was the responsibility of his CFO, among others, to file the proper paperwork.

Unspeaked
Dec 28, 2006, 10:41 AM
Only because some state paid Dell a few hundred million dollars for the privilege of having a Dell plant there. Not exactly the way capitalism is supposed to work.

I dunno, that sounds exactly like capitalism to me!

:D

IJ Reilly
Dec 28, 2006, 10:41 AM
Even so, are the investors still going to trust him?

Only if he can continue increasing Apple's revenue and profits. :)

In the end, this is what investors care about.

Swarmlord
Dec 28, 2006, 10:43 AM
Attack spelling, its a regular tactic when you dont have a argument isnt it? Spelling mistakes dont bother me that much anymore.:) This isnt a newspaper.:p

Just using sarcasm to make a point. (I make my own share of spelling mistakes too thanks to these cheap, key bouncing keyboards!) I've been an executive at one Amex traded company and a director level profession at two others and I find the stereotypes attributed to executives in this forum amusing.

There are certainly bad apples at the top of many companies, but if people think that highly paid executives aren't scrutinized more closely than their employees for the compensation that they are paid then they would be very wrong. They also don't all have fat butts, eat donuts and watch people do "real" work. If they didn't have the qualifications to run the company as far as the owners of the company were concerned, the person wouldn't hold the job very long.

I do think that the current compensation techniques used by publicly traded companies is out of whack though. A bonus by definition should be a fraction of a person's wages and not a multiple of it.

Dont Hurt Me
Dec 28, 2006, 10:43 AM
Only because some state paid Dell a few hundred million dollars for the privilege of having a Dell plant there. Not exactly the way capitalism is supposed to work.I really dont know but I like to see those made in America stickers these days because corporate greed has almost eliminated them.

Swarmlord
Dec 28, 2006, 10:47 AM
I really dont know but I like to see those made in America stickers these days because corporate greed has almost eliminated them.

Designing things and providing technical services pays a heck of a lot more than making things. We make plenty of things especially things that aren't mass produced and will continue to do so.

I don't know about you, but I'm glad I work providing computer services rather than working in a cotton mill or a factory assembling McToys.

Dont Hurt Me
Dec 28, 2006, 10:52 AM
Just using sarcasm to make a point. (I make my own share of spelling mistakes too thanks to these cheap, key bouncing keyboards!) I've been an executive at one Amex traded company and a director level profession at two others and I find the stereotypes attributed to executives in this forum amusing.

There are certainly bad apples at the top of many companies, but if people think that highly paid executives aren't scrutinized more closely than their employees for the compensation that they are paid then they would be very wrong. They also don't all have fat butts, eat donuts and watch people do "real" work. If they didn't have the qualifications to run the company as far as the owners of the company were concerned, the person wouldn't hold the job very long.

I do think that the current compensation techniques used by publicly traded companies is out of whack though. A bonus by definition should be a fraction of a person's wages and not a multiple of it.Just for example I have a very well off brother in law who works for a major company. He made big money shutting down call centers in the U.S. and moving them to India and Canada. Apple has talked to him about their call centers as matter of fact. Its called the selling out of America, firing americans and moving overseas and then the CEO types get even fatter checks. When we worship only the $$$ and little else we have problems. The CEO class is way, way, way, overpaid,over compensated and I agree the situation is out of control.

whatever
Dec 28, 2006, 11:04 AM
Even so, are the investors still going to trust him?

Trust him?

Steve Jobs is as important to the Apple brand as the iPod and more important their the Macintosh.

We all saw what happened to Apple when he was gone and we all know how Apple would appear to be like without him (a ship without a rudder).

Like it or not, he is Apple.

whatever
Dec 28, 2006, 11:11 AM
CEo's worring about towns:D People:D Please these guys worry about two things, their pocketbooks and the stockholders and no one else. I dont think Apple was giving a hoot about those chineese working 15 hr days until someone did some poking around. Dont spin corporate greed into morals. Apple is worried about one thing $$$. Corporate America doesnt worry about any town,city or state unless there is money in it for them period.

So let's see if I have this right. You have issues with democracy and capitalism. Let me guess you're agains organized religion too.

It seems like your perfect society would be communism. Which I would I be the first one to admit is a beautiful concept, except for it's one giant flaw, human nature.

Swarmlord
Dec 28, 2006, 11:13 AM
<snip> The CEO class is way, way, way, overpaid,over compensated and I agree the situation is out of control.

On this we both agree. If incentivizing employees with options that yield multiples of their salary is such a good thing, then it should apply to all the employees. It does make me ill to see employees getting a bonus that is a small, fixed percentage of their salary (say 3%) and the compensation package given to a handful at the top is 40 times their base salary.

IJ Reilly
Dec 28, 2006, 11:15 AM
Like it or not, he is Apple.

I understand your point, but in reality, we'd better hope not. One of these days he's going to retire. Apple does need to learn to get along without Steve Jobs, and the sooner the better. As an investor, I'm getting pretty weary of seeing the stock price gyrate madly every time a new rumor about Steve starts the rounds. Apple will never be a fully mature company until it can operate successfully without a god-head figure like Jobs.

steveh
Dec 28, 2006, 11:17 AM
So many companies do this sort of thing all the time....

Is it really a crime anymore? :p

Actually, it's the other way around; until quite recently, it wasn't seen as an accounting problem at all.

Dont Hurt Me
Dec 28, 2006, 11:18 AM
So let's see if I have this right. You have issues with democracy and capitalism. Let me guess you're agains organized religion too.

It seems like your perfect society would be communism. Which I would I be the first one to admit is a beautiful concept, except for it's one giant flaw, human nature.
No we just need some balance, at the moment everything is for these boardroom guys even if the company tanks these guys reap millions. Thats wrong. Im for spreading the wealth a little more throughout a company rather giving 99.9% to the boardroom clowns. Capitalism can run amok, and it has.

steveh
Dec 28, 2006, 11:20 AM
You don't spend the cash for a team of reps unless you need the protection. :(

These days, because of the possible consequences, you get representation even if you're pure as the driven snow.

While criminal law, in theory, assumes you're innocent until proven guilty, in tax-related issues, you have to prove that you're innocent, it's not assumed.

whatever
Dec 28, 2006, 11:21 AM
Just for example I have a very well off brother in law who works for a major company. He made big money shutting down call centers in the U.S. and moving them to India and Canada. Apple has talked to him about their call centers as matter of fact. Its called the selling out of America, firing americans and moving overseas and then the CEO types get even fatter checks. When we worship only the $$$ and little else we have problems. The CEO class is way, way, way, overpaid,over compensated and I agree the situation is out of control.

What you described is called Off-shoring. A big trend in 2003-2005, but has since proved to be a bad decision. Although it saved many companies money (we actually discovered it was cheaper to keep our call center in Hagerstown, Pennsylvania, however our Dutch owners who are two years behind the times are still considering the move which will cost the company over $20,0000 a month more, smart huh) to move their call centers to India, ultimately it was discovered that the customer experience was not up to par. So companies have already begun to reverse the trend.

As I mentioned before would you prefer some employees to lose their jobs, only to make a company stronger or keeps things the way they are and have the company go out of business? These are the tough decisions that CEOs have to make!

steveh
Dec 28, 2006, 11:27 AM
These grants were from 1998 to 2003 before the rules change.

It may have been in another article where I read about the back dating being legal. Perhaps also only before the rules change.

As I recall the rules change is what prompted Apple to go back and start restating/reevaluating.

Yep. That's part of what's so confusing about the whole affair.

Accounting/tax law is pretty perverse; in other areas of law, it would be a case of "ex post facto", which is frowned on. It's even mentioned in section 9 of the Constitution: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

Oh well.

whatever
Dec 28, 2006, 11:30 AM
I understand your point, but in reality, we'd better hope not. One of these days he's going to retire. Apple does need to learn to get along without Steve Jobs, and the sooner the better. As an investor, I'm getting pretty weary of seeing the stock price gyrate madly every time a new rumor about Steve starts the rounds. Apple will never be a fully mature company until it can operate successfully without a god-head figure like Jobs.
As an Apple shareholder you be happy that the stock gyrates at all. A flat stock is a dead stock.

Five years ago Apple was dead in the water. They had a plan and they managed to carry out that plan. Most of us saw this happening and knew what was coming, but Wallstreet didn't care, because Apple was dead to them.

Apple is a fully mature company.

They were at the brink of elimanation from the game once and came back. If that's not a mark of a mature company what is? Google? Dell? Novell? Lotus? RC? Pepsi? Kenner?

Please help me out?

Dont Hurt Me
Dec 28, 2006, 11:38 AM
Whatever, I agree with what you say here. For example I have had to use Apple support and was able to talk to an American and it was a good experience. Had to talk to Dell and I was clearly talking to a Indian and the whole process was a struggle.

I dont mean to paint with such a wide brush but I think U.S. companys should be "Forced" to keep a percentage of production,manufactoring whatever in the U.S. What that amount is I dont know but say for example things with China goes sour and they invade Taiwan? Apple would be crapping bricks! so would a lot of companys. Going a little off topic now I know but building everything in China including China's military isnt a good thing for the U.S. Think about China for a moment, what would Apple do? just a few points that chasing the biggest profit margin isnt allways in everyones interests.

jbernie
Dec 28, 2006, 11:47 AM
Another perspective which suggests that Steve DID NOT benefit - he surrendered that grant w/o exercising it:

http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?view=CN&storyID=2006-12-28T062829Z_01_N28477922_RTRIDST_0_APPLE-OPTIONS.XML&rpc=66&type=qcna

That would be like stealing a brand new tv, still in its box, from a store, sitting on it for a month without opening the box and using the tv, and then returning it (guilty consience) and saying you shouldn't be arrested for your crime as you didn't benifit.

I would be astounded if Jobs was awarded 7.5 million stock options and he was not made aware. Maybe with as many shares and share options as he has he lost count? Whats a 7.5 million share options between friends? Even with only a $20 per share gain that is $150 million in profit before taxes. Not exactly small change given AAPL shares of late.

IJ Reilly
Dec 28, 2006, 11:53 AM
As an Apple shareholder you be happy that the stock gyrates at all. A flat stock is a dead stock.

Five years ago Apple was dead in the water. They had a plan and they managed to carry out that plan. Most of us saw this happening and knew what was coming, but Wallstreet didn't care, because Apple was dead to them.

Apple is a fully mature company.

They were at the brink of elimanation from the game once and came back. If that's not a mark of a mature company what is? Google? Dell? Novell? Lotus? RC? Pepsi? Kenner?

Please help me out?

Trust me, I'm fully aware of Apple's history. I became an investor in 1997 when Steve returned. I suspected that this would be a turning-point for the company and happily I guessed right.

But I recognize that Apple is still not a fully mature company. A fully mature company nurtures leadership within its ranks, such that the culture created by its founders is passed along and sustained after they leave. Long after they leave -- even after they are dead and buried. As nearly as I can tell, this is not occurring at Apple, and as someone with a lot of money tied up in the stock, it worries me. It also worries the markets, which as we can so plainly see, hang breathlessly on every rumor about Steve. This should also worry anybody else who cares about Apple's future, which won't be secure until a succession of leadership is in place. That's corporate maturity. Dependency on one person is not.

IJ Reilly
Dec 28, 2006, 11:56 AM
I would be astounded if Jobs was awarded 7.5 million stock options and he was not made aware. Maybe with as many shares and share options as he has he lost count? Whats a 7.5 million share options between friends? Even with only a $20 per share gain that is $150 million in profit before taxes. Not exactly small change given AAPL shares of late.

Aware of what?

hagjohn
Dec 28, 2006, 12:00 PM
What you described is called Off-shoring. A big trend in 2003-2005, but has since proved to be a bad decision. Although it saved many companies money (we actually discovered it was cheaper to keep our call center in Hagerstown, Pennsylvania, however our Dutch owners who are two years behind the times are still considering the move which will cost the company over $20,0000 a month more, smart huh) to move their call centers to India, ultimately it was discovered that the customer experience was not up to par. So companies have already begun to reverse the trend.

As I mentioned before would you prefer some employees to lose their jobs, only to make a company stronger or keeps things the way they are and have the company go out of business? These are the tough decisions that CEOs have to make!

Seems to me that if you need to outsource our employees, your doing a lousy job at running your company.

Peace
Dec 28, 2006, 12:14 PM
Here's what probably happened..

The financial Times said phone minutes were falsified.This tells me there was a BOD conference call to offer Jobs the 7.5 million option.Jobs was on the phone assuming all the other directors were too.Jobs took the option.
Later the two people that quit did so because they falsified the phone conference minutes.Jobs found out about this later and then turned down the option NOT because of any devaluation of stock but because he found out the whole board wasn't in on the conference call.Then it hit the fan.Apple started an internal inquiry and later the CFO quit as did the corporate lawyer.The two people that probably falsified the phone minutes...

If it is shown that Jobs did indeed return the option because of this he is off the hook.
On the other hand if it is discovered that Jobs was in on it from the beginning Apple is going to have a new CEO after January.And it won't be Steve Jobs.

Lets hope this was an innocent screw up on his part..

kalisphoenix
Dec 28, 2006, 12:30 PM
So let's see if I have this right. You have issues with democracy and capitalism. Let me guess you're agains organized religion too.

It seems like your perfect society would be communism. Which I would I be the first one to admit is a beautiful concept, except for it's one giant flaw, human nature.

I have issues with democracy and capitalism and organized religion, too 8)

Democracy is just plain wretched. "Let's do whatever the greatest number of people want to do!" Bright ****ing idea. The majority of people eat at McDonald's, have no interest in reforming the two-party system, believe in God, and so forth. This means that the minority is completely at the mercy of the majority -- an example being that homosexuals are not allowed to be legally married.

Capitalism is the pits. "Let's do whatever makes a profit!" Crime skyrockets. A black market proliferates, with legality of the traded material often hinging on monetary interests rather than objective judgments -- witness marijuana vs. alcohol and cigarettes. Money (and therefore, profitable activities) determines public policy -- note frequency of American/European involvement in certain regions of the world compared with others. Conspicuous consumption (for example, a $15 000 purse or a $30 000 wedding ring) takes precedence over the lives that could be saved with that same amount of money. According to almost every ethical system (save that of Objectivism, the chief philosophical champion of capitalism), this is evil. Technological advancement is touted as a benefit. Meanwhile, global climate change seems inevitable, and is inevitable because financial concerns pre-empt societal concerns such as, you know, life.

And organized religion is the pits. Why? Don't ask me, God told me to say that. Perhaps you'd better pray for an explanation from Him directly. Here, kneel on this rice and flagellate yourself until He reveals Himself.

In general, I don't see anything wrong with communism. As Milton Friedman himself said, collectivism is very much in line with human nature. Free-market capitalism is as opposed to human nature as anything. No, really, he said that. So we work for the common good! Excellent. Within that constraint, we encourage competition. And we provide public healthcare, public education, and public suffrage so that each individual is provided with an equal footing for success in the public arena. People don't get exploited, everyone lives more or less comfortably, and their charitable donations to third-world countries are an order of magnitude greater than that of the US! In addition, their citizens are better-informed, vote more often, are more secularized, and, to top it off, are pretty damn foxy!

Jesus Christ! That sounds... like... Iceland or something!

Damn those Scandinavians!

noonespecial
Dec 28, 2006, 01:10 PM
I just read this article:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/801e1b82-9605-11db-9976-0000779e2340.html

and came here to make sense of it and found this thread already going.

According to the article Jobs was given 7.5 million options at 18.30 a share. So, does that mean at any time he could sell the stock without really having bought it to begin with? An option is essentially the option to sell a stock if the price is favorable?

If that understanding is correct, do you at the point you sell it gain the profit of the value of those shares, or the difference between the current price and what the shares were given to you at?

And if it is the latter, is that why they backdate to give the employees the lowest possible price?

If Jobs really has committed a crime, it would be rather ironic given his comments about karma and purchasing legally, and that every iPod says "Don't steal music."

The options in this case were a right to buy the stock at $18.30 a share; 25% of the 7.5 million shares vested on the grant date of October 19, 2001. Considering that Apple's stock was greater than this for almost every trading day between then and mid-2002, Jobs could have made money by exercising his options: buying for $18.30 and reselling on the open market. However, he didn't do this. As mentioned, his options went out of the money past the midpoint of 2002, when Apple's stock tanked. In 2003, Apple converted his options to millions of restricted stock units (ie. bona fide pieces of stock that he could sell after certain dates). See Apple's Form 4, filed to the SEC on March 21, 2003.

I did some sleuthing on this whole matter earlier today, and I found some interesting stuff in Apple's 2000-2002 annual reports along with the Schedule 14-A filed on March 21, 2002. 14-A holds the first mention that I've found of the 7.5 million option grant to Jobs; the 2002 annual report provides the actual grant date of October 19, 2001. 1.875 million of these vested on that 19th.

The 2000 annual report states that Jobs had 20,060,000 options; these were exercisable as of June 2001. Now, here's the interesting part. The 2001 report (filed December 21, 2001) claims that Jobs had 20,060,000 exercisable options as of OCTOBER 31, 2001. Those 1.875 million exercisable (of the 7.5 million total) options purportedly granted on OCTOBER 19, 2001 are NOT listed. Schedule 14-A of course fixes this by listing a total of 21,935,000 (=20,060,000 + 1,875,000) exercisable options as of January 31, 2002.

Does this look fishy to anyone? Have I screwed up in reading through the filings?

I've got a perhaps cleaner writeup at http://www.scrabbly.com/scribbles/20061228-apple-options.html that holds some links to the SEC filings at the EDGAR database. (No ads or anything on that page; just plain jane HTML, so no worries!)

Keebler
Dec 28, 2006, 01:24 PM
i think this is the start of something bad.

my prediction: jobs will go to jail.

do i want that to happen? hell no.

BUT, completely being pessimistic here - this sounds just like the big companies brought down (enron was it?) where there were lies and deception surrounding their stock. i know this is different, but the smell is still the same stinky smell - people at the top doing their own thing for their own benefit.

unfortunately, we are at the mercy of the media and what is allowed to be disclosed so only God and a few people really knows what happened.

hopefully, a good truth will come out of this and this thread will be nothing but a waste, but the pessimitic side of me really wonders about human greed and if it got the better of the top folks at apple. i hope i'm completely wrong in my thinking.

then, you never know, maybe this is a conspiracy theory by Gates to screw over Apple :)

weirder things have happened ;)

lu0s3r322
Dec 28, 2006, 01:24 PM
oh no, it's made the yahoo homepage, not good. :eek:

http://img123.imageshack.us/img123/1640/picture1fh5.png

Earendil
Dec 28, 2006, 01:28 PM
What you described is called Off-shoring. A big trend in 2003-2005, but has since proved to be a bad decision. Although it saved many companies money (we actually discovered it was cheaper to keep our call center in Hagerstown, Pennsylvania, however our Dutch owners who are two years behind the times are still considering the move which will cost the company over $20,0000 a month more, smart huh) to move their call centers to India, ultimately it was discovered that the customer experience was not up to par. So companies have already begun to reverse the trend.

As I mentioned before would you prefer some employees to lose their jobs, only to make a company stronger or keeps things the way they are and have the company go out of business? These are the tough decisions that CEOs have to make!


As an aside, I love the two headed dragon we have here in conversation. It's called a global economy. We have an economy, some countries don't, why? Mostly because we have jobs, (and a half way decent government to back it up). People in the US don't lose their jobs *JUST* to make a company stronger. You forget that some poor family in another country has just been provided a job that they might not otherwise ever get. You feed money into their economy, and provide them with a chance to grow. yes, they get paid less than Americans do, but they also have a lower cost of living than us more often than not, or at least have their priorities in life a little more clear (who needs an SUV, really folks?).

The idea that economy is "us" vs "them", and if Large companies don't side with "us" the Americans, they are doing the world some grand evil is just assbackwards. They may do it entirely for their own pocketbook, but the net result does not equate to evil.

[/rant]

charkshark
Dec 28, 2006, 01:30 PM
oh no, it's made the yahoo homepage, not good. :eek:

http://img123.imageshack.us/img123/1640/picture1fh5.png

unbelievable :(

I love apple, but to see them doing something like this is unnacceptable. But considering how many companies do this, can it really be counted as a crime anymore :) just trying to look on the upside.

SiliconAddict
Dec 28, 2006, 03:22 PM
You have got to be kidding ...

Let's see, you build a couple of billion dollar businesses and yet do not understand the accounting implications of backdating options. Give me a break!



Are you a CEO? Do you know what its like to run a business the size of Apple? If not then please be quiet. we have NO idea at what granular detail Jobs is involved with Apple. Yes he directs te company, and helps if not outright designs the ascetics of Apple's products. But to suggest that he keeps detailed tabs on accounting details....all I known is if I was in Jobs position I'd hire someone else to balance my checkbook. Its good to be king......er rich. *shrugs* Personally I don't care. If he, Apple, or anyone at Apple did something wrong I hope they are punished. Justice should be blind. I don't care if its Apple, Microsoft, HP, or the company I work for. Let justice be done and lets move on with life.

whatever
Dec 28, 2006, 04:10 PM
Seems to me that if you need to outsource our employees, your doing a lousy job at running your company.

That statement makes no sense.

Saving money, by outsourcing is the same as saving money by using machinery. What's the difference. Do you think it's wrong for manufacturers to use robotics instead of people?

Although I'm not all for outsourcing to foreign countries, I do understand that if outsourcing is a money saving measure, which will improve a companies bottom line, then it's the responsibility of management to evaluate it. Not doing so, would mean that management is "doing a lousy job of running your company."

Remember at the end of the day a resource is just that a resource. Be it human or a machine. It's up to management to decide the most cost effective way to use that resource.

I know that sounds cold, but this is simply Economics 101.

Earendil
Dec 28, 2006, 04:14 PM
That statement makes no sense.

Saving money, by outsourcing is the same as saving money by using machinery. What's the difference. Do you think it's wrong for manufacturers to use robotics instead of people?

Although I'm not all for outsourcing to foreign countries, I do understand that if outsourcing is a money saving measure, which will improve a companies bottom line, then it's the responsibility of management to evaluate it. Not doing so, would mean that management is "doing a lousy job of running your company."

Remember at the end of the day a resource is just that a resource. Be it human or a machine. It's up to management to decide the most cost effective way to use that resource.

I know that sounds cold, but this is simply Economics 101.

To add to that:
Companies, after all, are not in existence to provide you a job, but to provide the consumer a product. The motivation behind the supplying of that product is compensation.

~Tyler

whatever
Dec 28, 2006, 04:26 PM
I have issues with democracy and capitalism and organized religion, too 8)

Democracy is just plain wretched. "Let's do whatever the greatest number of people want to do!" Bright ****ing idea. The majority of people eat at McDonald's, have no interest in reforming the two-party system, believe in God, and so forth. This means that the minority is completely at the mercy of the majority -- an example being that homosexuals are not allowed to be legally married.

Capitalism is the pits. "Let's do whatever makes a profit!" Crime skyrockets. A black market proliferates, with legality of the traded material often hinging on monetary interests rather than objective judgments -- witness marijuana vs. alcohol and cigarettes. Money (and therefore, profitable activities) determines public policy -- note frequency of American/European involvement in certain regions of the world compared with others. Conspicuous consumption (for example, a $15 000 purse or a $30 000 wedding ring) takes precedence over the lives that could be saved with that same amount of money. According to almost every ethical system (save that of Objectivism, the chief philosophical champion of capitalism), this is evil. Technological advancement is touted as a benefit. Meanwhile, global climate change seems inevitable, and is inevitable because financial concerns pre-empt societal concerns such as, you know, life.

And organized religion is the pits. Why? Don't ask me, God told me to say that. Perhaps you'd better pray for an explanation from Him directly. Here, kneel on this rice and flagellate yourself until He reveals Himself.

In general, I don't see anything wrong with communism. As Milton Friedman himself said, collectivism is very much in line with human nature. Free-market capitalism is as opposed to human nature as anything. No, really, he said that. So we work for the common good! Excellent. Within that constraint, we encourage competition. And we provide public healthcare, public education, and public suffrage so that each individual is provided with an equal footing for success in the public arena. People don't get exploited, everyone lives more or less comfortably, and their charitable donations to third-world countries are an order of magnitude greater than that of the US! In addition, their citizens are better-informed, vote more often, are more secularized, and, to top it off, are pretty damn foxy!

Jesus Christ! That sounds... like... Iceland or something!

Damn those Scandinavians!
Problem is, that it really doesn't work on the scale. Your statement of "everyone lives more or less comfortably" is the problem. In your utopia, who selects who lives "more" comfortable and who lives "less" comfortable? I know, I will. I will live more comfortable than you. But what does more and less mean. I'll solve that too, I'll define it you can sleep in a shack with just cold water and I'll live in a castle. Yeah, I'm starting to see things more your way and I'm starting to like it.

Please try to remember that Iceland as a population (307,261) smaller than Rhode Island (1,048,319). It's not exactly an Apple to Oranges comparisons. However, China (with over 20% of the worlds population) is a Communist country with all of those great things that you want, need I go on.

IJ Reilly
Dec 28, 2006, 04:29 PM
Let's try to keep this on-topic, shall we? I don't think we want this Apple-related thread kicked into the Politics and Religion forum, which is where it's headed if this hijack continues. Thanks. :)

Apple Corps
Dec 28, 2006, 05:24 PM
Apple closed at $80.87 today - not bad at all given all of the emphasis and doomsayers on the topic. I had to do a "gut check" early this morning as to how many of my shares to sell. It was "huevos grande" time and I decided to not sell any - Steve, Apple, share holders and consumers will get this behind them and Apple will be a better company going forward.

jbernie
Dec 28, 2006, 06:22 PM
Apple closed at $80.87 today - not bad at all given all of the emphasis and doomsayers on the topic. I had to do a "gut check" early this morning as to how many of my shares to sell. It was "huevos grande" time and I decided to not sell any - Steve, Apple, share holders and consumers will get this behind them and Apple will be a better company going forward.

A few nervous investors probably sold quick just in case. Long term view for Apple right now is, two ex-Execs are going to be facing some issues. It would not appear to be a systematic issue where all execs are doing it. Although Jobs appears to be getting some extra scrutiny over the options, I doubt he would get more than a fine if they do want to take him to court.

As this is an issue of share benifits for directors that won't affect Apple's bottom line I doubt the institutional investors will worry and that is the most important thing for Apple.

Of course, if there was to be any talk of Jobs being forced to resigned etc, then AAPL stock will catch the flu and there will be problems. I don't really see that happening, unless the Feds find something.

steebu
Dec 28, 2006, 07:40 PM
This really has nothing to do with the conversation, but I just wanted to point out the irony that Force Quit on Macs is Apple/Command–Option–Escape.

I could never look at my keyboard the same way again if Steve had to Force Quit over this Option scandal.

Sorry... I couldn't help myself.

FrankBlack
Dec 28, 2006, 07:44 PM
I understand your point, but in reality, we'd better hope not. One of these days he's going to retire. Apple does need to learn to get along without Steve Jobs, and the sooner the better. As an investor, I'm getting pretty weary of seeing the stock price gyrate madly every time a new rumor about Steve starts the rounds. Apple will never be a fully mature company until it can operate successfully without a god-head figure like Jobs.

I agree, and you make a valid point here. I'd like to think that Apple (the company) is very well aware that Steve Jobs, like all of us, is mortal and that he will not be the CEO forever. I would guess that a contingency plan is already in place. When Steve was recovering from surgery two years ago, Timothy Cook ran the company, and by all accounts, did fine.

Didn't investors get jittery a few years back, when the legendary General Electric CEO, Jack Welch, retire and hand over the keys to a younger, but carefully selected, replacement?

IJ Reilly
Dec 28, 2006, 08:08 PM
Didn't investors get jittery a few years back, when the legendary General Electric CEO, Jack Welch, retire and hand over the keys to a younger, but carefully selected, replacement?

Very much so, and Welch was one of the examples I was going to cite. He wasn't the founder of GE of course, but he did have a lot to do with creating the GE we know today. His transition to retirement was very carefully orchestrated by the company because they knew investors would be watching very closely for any signs of continuity loss. Steve Jobs is even a tougher person to replace if only because he's such a visible part of Apple's corporate personality. Is Steve mentoring his replacement? Is Steve even the kind of person to mentor anyone? I'm concerned, because I just don't see any signs of it.

savanahrose
Dec 28, 2006, 09:41 PM
Records purporting to show that a full board meeting had taken place to approve the remuneration were later falsified, the paper said. Jobs later returned the stock options.

Apple said in October that it had cleared Jobs of any wrongdoing related to option grants, blaming two other managers who it said had left the company.

Found this on yahoo tonight. He gave the stock options back, he is not guilty of anything. The two people who are guilty have already left the company. I assume this to be that Apple and Jobs are safe.

mudger
Dec 28, 2006, 09:59 PM
Records purporting to show that a full board meeting had taken place to approve the remuneration were later falsified, the paper said. Jobs later returned the stock options.

Apple said in October that it had cleared Jobs of any wrongdoing related to option grants, blaming two other managers who it said had left the company.

Found this on yahoo tonight. He gave the stock options back, he is not guilty of anything. The two people who are guilty have already left the company. I assume this to be that Apple and Jobs are safe.

you assume wrong. Jobs is still linked to the shares apparently, whether or not he gave them back. Guilty by association??

Sucks, I just switched to Apple and I love them, seriously.

joeboy_45101
Dec 28, 2006, 10:28 PM
I have issues with democracy and capitalism and organized religion, too 8)

Democracy is just plain wretched. "Let's do whatever the greatest number of people want to do!" Bright ****ing idea. The majority of people eat at McDonald's, have no interest in reforming the two-party system, believe in God, and so forth. This means that the minority is completely at the mercy of the majority -- an example being that homosexuals are not allowed to be legally married.



Majority rule is the only way to get things done. If you try to please EVERYBODY then nothing gets done, it's pure and simple. So, you try to satisfy the most people possible to maintain structure and keep things working. Democracy doesn't mean the majority is always going to support the right decisions or right ways of doing something, but it does mean that the most of society can benefit from the process.

Government itself is just groups of people coming together to solve problems that they normally could not solve on their own or with their own limited resources.

AidenShaw
Dec 28, 2006, 11:26 PM
you assume wrong. Jobs is still linked to the shares apparently, whether or not he gave them back. Guilty by association??

Sucks, I just switched to Apple and I love them, seriously.
Also, if you check out the press releases for the period in question - Jobs didn't simply return the illegal options.

They were underwater at the time, and they were exchanged for other stack grants that were a better deal. (At least, that was the "story" at the time.)

I'm sure that Ives will be able to design a stunning prison wardrobe for Steve. ;)

(although, I've heard, looking good in prison isn't necessarily what you want to do)

SiliconAddict
Dec 28, 2006, 11:47 PM
That statement makes no sense.

Saving money, by outsourcing is the same as saving money by using machinery. What's the difference. Do you think it's wrong for manufacturers to use robotics instead of people?.

Short answer yes. People need to learn that in the long run you can't outsource everything or you could conceivably outsource every job at the company, right up to and including CEO, other then the shareholders. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Companies should take into consideration the human factor in the bottom line. Ahh but there is the beauty of the corporation. The very notion of morals goes right out the window with the large business entity where you single sole goal is to make money.
In the next 20 years we are going to find that literally every job out there can be replaced by robotics or machinery, up to and including the minimum wage burger flippers at McDonalds, and the janatorial staff in most buildings with the next generation of Roombas.
Where does it end? I think businesses, throughout all industries, somehow need to step back as a whole and ask just how far are we going to go with automation in the quest to make things cheaper. The reasoning this is happening is pretty straight forward. We live in the Walmart culture. Where everyone expects everything dirt cheap. There is a trickle "up" effect in all of this that really needs to stop, somehow.

tmornini
Dec 29, 2006, 02:04 AM
In the next 20 years we are going to find that literally every job out there can be replaced by robotics or machinery, up to and including the minimum wage burger flippers at McDonalds, and the janatorial staff in most buildings with the next generation of Roombas.
Where does it end?

I'm not sure where it ends, but I'll tell you where it started: 10 years old sewing on buttons in NYC in the 1800s.

Damn machinery put all those kids out of jobs. What a shame!

Get used to it. Technology means fewer and fewer people work menial jobs. It's a *good* thing.

freediverdude
Dec 29, 2006, 03:01 AM
Sounds to me like these two ex-execs were in on some kind of plot to "give" Jobs these options, and then later bring him down. But sounds like Jobs caught on to it and got these people to leave at the time. I imagine he has to be very careful of the people around him. I hope it doesn't end up bringing him down, it doesn't sound like it will at the moment. The Sarbanes-Oxley stuff has just gotten way out of hand though. I normally don't take the side of big business, lol, but large companies have had to add a whole Sarbanes-Oxley compliance department, a whole other level of bureaucracy to cope with this stuff. Not only is there internal and external auditing, but also a third Sarbanes-Oxley auditing as well. It's just bordering, in fact, not even bordering, it absolutely is absurd.

kalisphoenix
Dec 29, 2006, 03:05 AM
Problem is, that it really doesn't work on the scale. Your statement of "everyone lives more or less comfortably" is the problem. In your utopia, who selects who lives "more" comfortable and who lives "less" comfortable? I know, I will. I will live more comfortable than you. But what does more and less mean. I'll solve that too, I'll define it you can sleep in a shack with just cold water and I'll live in a castle. Yeah, I'm starting to see things more your way and I'm starting to like it.

The phrase "more or less comfortably" refers to the fact that some people will always be uncomfortable -- the mentally ill, the imprisoned, your family, that sort of thing. Comfort being a subjective matter. What can be provided objectively to all citizens are things that determine the potential for comfortable living: public healthcare (prevents plagues, to a certain extent), public education (helps prevent morlocks), and other public properties and entitlements (which work against the existence of privileged classes like the nomenklatura, the Inner Party, and the British aristocracy).

"Who selects what?" Why, what a ridiculous question to ask of an anarchist. Each selects his own comfort -- ask a Hindu ascetic and any suicidal rock star for their differing levels of comfort at radically different levels of opulence. As for the means of existence? All deserve these things equally. The oppression I oppose is the denial of these means. As for the means of luxury? I won't deny anyone those Vera Wang wedding dresses -- that'd be rather ananarchist (archist?) of me. But I can say that I believe it's immoral.

Please try to remember that Iceland as a population (307,261) smaller than Rhode Island (1,048,319). It's not exactly an Apple to Oranges comparisons.

All the more reason to break large countries into smaller countries, and unite them under some sort of United Nations thing. Corporations are not the only things that become increasingly incompetent and impossible to manage with increasing size -- governments do too.

However, China (with over 20% of the worlds population) is a Communist country with all of those great things that you want, need I go on.

China is Communist, ostensibly, but not communist. Colossal difference. I can declare my apartment to be the Glorious Dictatorial Kalisphoenixate of Myschwanzinyourear, but the people who are really in charge are the people who own the apartment complex. What we in the "reality" business like to do in such cases is evaluate whether or not something is true, and then act accordingly. In this case, we see that China has absolutely nothing to do with what I was discussing, and can then stick out our collective tongues at you and mock you with our stirring Chicken Dance.

rdowns
Dec 29, 2006, 06:12 AM
PR Newswire 6:18 am December 29, 2006

Apple(R) today filed its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 1, 2006 and its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2006 with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"). Both filings had been delayed pending the conclusion of an independent investigation by the special committee of the board of directors into past stock option practices and the resulting restatement of the Company's financial results. Apple undertook this investigation on its own initiative and has informed the SEC and the U.S. Attorney's Office of the results.

Based on an analysis of the findings of the independent investigation, the Company has recognized total additional non-cash stock-based compensation expense of $84 million after tax, including $4 million and $7 million in fiscal years 2006 and 2005, respectively. The restatement arises solely from certain stock option grants made between 1997 and 2002; the investigation found no grants after December 31, 2002 that required accounting adjustments.

"The special committee, its independent counsel and forensic accountants have performed an exhaustive investigation of Apple's stock option granting practices," in a joint statement said Al Gore, chair of the special committee, and Jerome York, chair of Apple's Audit and Finance Committee. "The board of directors is confident that the Company has corrected the problems that led to the restatement, and it has complete confidence in Steve Jobs and the senior management team."

skunk
Dec 29, 2006, 06:25 AM
Sounds pretty small beer to me. What's a few million between friends?

devman
Dec 29, 2006, 09:08 AM
It also gives details of the grants which were misdated.

Many, it suggests, were the result of dating options to when a compensation committee agreed them, instead of when the board signed them off.

In some cases, the discrepancy was a single day - although for many the difference in dates is not specified.

Steve Jobs' options

For Mr Jobs, Apple's founder, the investigation found that one of two grants made between 1997 and 2002 had the wrong date.

The grant of 7.5 million options was initially approved at a board meeting in August 2001. They were dated 19 October and priced at that day's share price of $18.30 - up from $17.83 at the August meeting.

In fact, they were not finalised until 18 December, by which time Apple shares were worth $21.01.

The investigation found board sign-off had been "improperly recorded" as occurring at a 19 October "special board meeting" - a meeting it said had never occurred.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6216825.stm

nbs2
Dec 29, 2006, 10:07 AM
Talk about forgiving! Up 4 points and we aren't even to lunch!

stagi
Dec 29, 2006, 10:20 AM
Stock is back up over $85 again :)

IJ Reilly
Dec 29, 2006, 10:26 AM
Talk about forgiving! Up 4 points and we aren't even to lunch!

Just another overreaction to the previous overreaction.

Rocketman
Dec 29, 2006, 10:59 AM
CEo's worring about towns:D People:D Please these guys worry about two things, their pocketbooks and the stockholders and no one else. I dont think Apple was giving a hoot about those chineese working 15 hr days until someone did some poking around. Dont spin corporate greed into morals. Apple is worried about one thing $$$. Corporate America doesnt worry about any town,city or state unless there is money in it for them period.

Apple had a supplier policy on this issue preceeding the controversy. They were doing the "right thing" well ahead of any law or regulation requiring it. When the controversy arose about if they were following their own VOLUNTARY policy or not, they investigated it at considerable cost.

They found a limited number of irregularities on the VOLUNTARY policy and asked their supplier to come into compliance, which they did.

It turns out the employee was so excited to get paid so much under such good conditions, they wanted to work MORE than allowed.

Apple and their suppliers are such meanies :D

Rocketman

nbs2
Dec 29, 2006, 11:03 AM
Just another overreaction to the previous overreaction.

Is it? Or is it people coming to there senses after an overreaction?

I suppose in the end it is an indictment of capitalism - no man is bigger than a company of which he is just a cog. Even if he is a big cog.

Peace
Dec 29, 2006, 11:05 AM
Jeez.Talk about blowing something out of proportion..

MacVault
Dec 29, 2006, 11:13 AM
Why would Jobs have just hired an attorney if he is innocent? Surely he would have know Apple would shortly thereafter find him to be clear of any wrongdoing. What's the attorney for now? Is it just that Apple found him clear but now maybe the SEC will find otherwise?

Peace
Dec 29, 2006, 11:20 AM
Apple took a $84 million charge due to back-dating.

Want some contrast ?

"Last week, Juniper Networks admitted that it would have to take a $900 million charge, while civil and criminal charges have been filed against several former executives of storage vendor Brocade Systems."

From Cnet News (http://news.com.com/2100-1047_3-6146295.html?part=rss&tag=2547-1_3-0-5&subj=news)

MacVault your implication that only the guilty hire lawyers shows how the average person thinks.

IJ Reilly
Dec 29, 2006, 11:21 AM
Is it? Or is it people coming to there senses after an overreaction?

The markets often act on pure emotion -- fear vs. greed. Yesterday it was fear, today it's greed. It's difficult to describe either emotion as being very sensible.

Why would Jobs have just hired an attorney if he is innocent?

Now, there's a great bit of reasoning for you.

tmornini
Dec 29, 2006, 01:36 PM
So stupid to advise this...!!!

Of course, if Steve Jobs leaves or resigns I wouldn't be surprised... such is the evil of the corporate life.

But I *did* tell you so.

Most people (perhaps yourself included) buy and sell in the stock market the opposite of the way they should, both at the wrong times (buy on good news, sell on bad news) for emotional reasons.

For me, I'll buy emotional shares at a 12% emotional discount *happily*.

Apple is a long-term buy, and likely has years of good news ahead, much like Microsoft in the 80/90's. Buying on bad news, and thinning holding on good news is a good way to manage your risk and increase your profits during that time.

IJ Reilly
Dec 29, 2006, 08:42 PM
Apple is a long-term buy, and likely has years of good news ahead, much like Microsoft in the 80/90's. Buying on bad news, and thinning holding on good news is a good way to manage your risk and increase your profits during that time.

I'd certainly like to think so, but realistically I recognize that Apple is always one product flop away from a major loss of investor confidence. Apple has forever been viewed as a company that defies gravity, and I don't expect that treatment to change any time soon. This is very unlike the way the markets regard Microsoft, a company that can turn out one flop after another, and nobody much cares. The second major caveat is one we've talked about: Apple's over-dependancy on the cult of personality. Apple needs a clear succession of leadership to be established. If we've learned anything at all this week, it is that Apple and Steve Jobs cannot remain one and the same, or eventually we all lose.

tmornini
Dec 31, 2006, 02:36 AM
I'd certainly like to think so, but realistically I recognize that Apple is always one product flop away from a major loss of investor confidence. Apple has forever been viewed as a company that defies gravity, and I don't expect that treatment to change any time soon. This is very unlike the way the markets regard Microsoft, a company that can turn out one flop after another, and nobody much cares. The second major caveat is one we've talked about: Apple's over-dependancy on the cult of personality. Apple needs a clear succession of leadership to be established. If we've learned anything at all this week, it is that Apple and Steve Jobs cannot remain one and the same, or eventually we all lose.

100% agreed. That's why I mentioned thinning on good news!

I'm guessing we're 1-2 years of increasing market share and profitability for the market in general to realize that Apple is not a 1 trick pony.

I tell people *all the time* that there's ZERO in the current stock price to reflect the growing market share of Macintosh computers, or the huge potential to eat into the cable and satellite television markets.

And, the mobile phone market is extremely ready for a really well engineered phone that people will use for more than phone calls and text messaging. Apple has shown that they can get people to plug in a mobile device (iPod) to a computer once in a while...

Can you imagine the potential if they can extend that to mobile phones?

IJ Reilly
Dec 31, 2006, 12:55 PM
100% agreed. That's why I mentioned thinning on good news!

I'm guessing we're 1-2 years of increasing market share and profitability for the market in general to realize that Apple is not a 1 trick pony.

I tell people *all the time* that there's ZERO in the current stock price to reflect the growing market share of Macintosh computers, or the huge potential to eat into the cable and satellite television markets.

And, the mobile phone market is extremely ready for a really well engineered phone that people will use for more than phone calls and text messaging. Apple has shown that they can get people to plug in a mobile device (iPod) to a computer once in a while...

Can you imagine the potential if they can extend that to mobile phones?

Apple will need to pull a few more rabbits out of its hat before the markets will believe that the iPod wasn't a fluke. This could take a few more years, best case scenario.

radio893fm
Jan 1, 2007, 01:31 PM
Only a complete idiot and moron would not get himself a lawyer in this situation, especially when innocent.

Jajaja. Innocent?

I thought the brainwashing was just for the *beautiful products*, but I see that it goes all the way to the *leader*.

luminosity
Jan 1, 2007, 02:04 PM
there are more than a few people out there who don't know that apple makes ipods, and instead believe that they aren't compatible with macs.