SEC To Investigate Apple's Disclosures Regarding Jobs' Health?

[Unspeaked]

Looks like the SEC is checking out Apple's recent string of communications concerning Steve's health... as the article clearly states, there's no reason to assume any wrong doing, it's just a routine check, but interesting no less...

LINK (http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2009/01/19/daily26.html)

The Securities and Exchange Commission is looking into how Apple Inc. disclosed news about CEO Steve Jobs' health problems, according to reports.

Bloomberg News on Wednesday said regulators want to make sure investors were not misled over the months between when he appeared gaunt at a public appearance earlier this year and when he announced a leave of absence last week. It cited an unnamed person familiar with the matter who said that the review does not mean the SEC has any evidence of wrongdoing by Apple.

Bloomberg also reported last week that Jobs is considering a liver transplant because of complications from treatment for cancer, citing unnamed people who it said are monitoring his illness.

Jobs at first this month said he was seeking a "relatively simple" treatment for a nutritional ailment. A little over a week later, he announced a five-month medical leave, saying his health issues were "more complex." He was treated for pancreatic cancer in 2004.

Apple stock has declined 8.4 percent since the news of Jobs' medical leave, and dropped $4.13, or 5 percent, to $78.20 Tuesday. The company is scheduled to report earnings after the market closes on Wednesday.

[fleshman03]

Here's another article (http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2009/01/21/sec-digging-into-steve-jobs-health-disclosures) on the topic.

(you just beat me to posting this.)

I wonder why the SEC would bother with an investigation if they thought there was no fault...

[Unspeaked]

I wonder why the SEC would bother with an investigation if they thought there was no fault...

They may have been requested to do so by a large number of shareholders.

Or, it may just be a routine thing.

(If it's the former, I don't know if that may be a harbinger of a class action lawsuit...)

[atszyman]

The SEC may very well believe that there is no fault, but I've heard a few people rumbling that they think Apple may have known more and was managing the press releases to manipulate the stock prices.

There may be some wrong doing, but to be honest I'm not sure how they'd find it. Steve Jobs's medical status is something he does not have to disclose completely to his employer, nor do they need to know all of the details.

They can only release what they are told by Steve, and even if he was lying, it's not ours, nor is it the company's business to know details of his medical status and they can only know what he shares. Without breeching Doctor Patient confidentiality I don't think there's any way to prove what Steve knew and when he knew it.

[SJD]

This investigation can me seen as necessary after Apple's stock options back-dating scandal. I, too, would be worried about how Apple conducts their business as it relates to their stock.

[Unspeaked]

They can only release what they are told by Steve, and even if he was lying, it's not ours, nor is it the company's business to know details of his medical status and they can only know what he shares. Without breeching Doctor Patient confidentiality I don't think there's any way to prove what Steve knew and when he knew it.

I think the problem would be more with Apple knowing what was going on with Steve's health and intentionally misguiding investors.

If they related everything they were told by Steve as they were told it, there shouldn't be an issue. But if it turns out that they smudged things a little to lighten the blow, or withheld conflicting information, it wouldn't look very good.

And here's another link (http://apple20.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2009/01/21/steve-jobs-lawsuits-face-tough-odds) that focuses more on the lawsuit aspect...

Steve Jobs lawsuits face tough odds

The report Wednesday that the Securities and Exchange Commission is looking closely at Apple’s disclosures about the state of Steve Jobs’ health follows speculation last week that stockholders are also likely to file lawsuits against the company.

The issue, of course, is whether Apple and Jobs misled investors by issuing first good news (”hormone imbalance“) that drove the stock up, followed by bad news (”medical leave“) that drove it down.

But even if Jobs has been less than forthcoming about his health problems — as many doctors suspect — legal experts say that neither the SEC probe nor any investor lawsuit is likely to get very far.

Even the sources quoted by Bloomberg News, which reported the SEC rumor, say that the commission would have a tough time bringing a case against Apple. According to Peter Henning, a former SEC prosecuter, it would have to prove that the company tried to benefit by withholding information about an unambiguous diagnosis.

Former SEC commisioner Joseph Grundfest takes an even dimmer view of suits filed on behalf of investors or speculators who lost money in the see-sawing stock price.

“I never underestimate the cleverness of plaintiffs attorneys,” he told Reuters. “But I personally am aware of no theory that would support a filing of a case.”

[fleshman03]

I think the problem would be more with Apple knowing what was going on with Steve's health and intentionally misguiding investors.

If they related everything they were told by Steve as they were told it, there shouldn't be an issue. But if it turns out that they smudged things a little to lighten the blow, or withheld conflicting information, it wouldn't look very good.

What did they know? When did they know it? What did they do do with knowing what they knew?

Those are the questions at the SEC can look at.
Note: They is defined by Apple.

[atszyman]

I think the problem would be more with Apple knowing what was going on with Steve's health and intentionally misguiding investors.

If they related everything they were told by Steve as they were told it, there shouldn't be an issue. But if it turns out that they smudged things a little to lighten the blow, or withheld conflicting information, it wouldn't look very good.


Which is exactly what I said in my brief introduction. Of course if there's no whistle-blower then all they have to do is claim they relayed what they were told and Steve would say the same. Beyond that you start getting into personal culpability on Steve's part if he was intentionally withholding information to manipulate the stock price. But once again it's a who knew what, when? type question that we cannot know without violating Doctor/Patient confidentiality.

[MacBytes]

http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: News and Press Releases
Link: SEC to investigate Jobs health disclosure (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20090121130853)
Description:: And now federal authorities are taking an absurdly high level of interest in Steve's health

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

[QuarterSwede]

“The company has used him and made him a public figure to increase the value of Apple,” said John Dienhart, Professional Ethics at Seattle University. “If you take the good from that, then you have to take the bad.”
Too true.

[zombitronic]

From Steve's letter on January 5, 2009:

The remedy for this nutritional problem is relatively simple and straightforward, and I’ve already begun treatment.

And from Steve's letter on January 14, 2009:

In addition, during the past week I have learned that my health-related issues are more complex than I originally thought.

It seems like this whole thing comes down to whether or not the SEC believes that Steve was lying when he used the word "thought." Lame.

[jayducharme]

I think Sharp hit the nail on the head:

Public neurosis about bad corporate behavior is spilling over on Apple, which is one of a relative handful of companies still profiting and driving innovation in this deepening recession. Pointless distraction...

And Deinhart's comment only reinforces that view:

What’s amping up our skepticism is all those other business failures in the general market.

So Apple is doing well financially when other tech companies are struggling, and the SEC thinks there's something wrong with that? Maybe Deinhart needs to start using Apple products. Then maybe he'll understand why they're doing better than average.

[Kingsly]

So Apple manipulated stock prices by discussing Steve's health, and then a few days later announcing he will be taking a leave of absence? Don't you usually manipulate stock prices with the intent of making them go up?:rolleyes:

[Peace]

So Apple manipulated stock prices by discussing Steve's health, and then a few days later announcing he will be taking a leave of absence? Don't you usually manipulate stock prices with the intent of making them go up?:rolleyes:

Just the opposite. The SEC thinks Apple may have been covering up the severity of the situation before the second letter in order to keep the stock up for a while.

[Blue Velvet]

So Apple is doing well financially when other tech companies are struggling, and the SEC thinks there's something wrong with that?

Are you saying that because a company is doing well financially, that should somehow place them above legal oversight?

[Unspeaked]

Which is exactly what I said in my brief introduction. Of course if there's no whistle-blower then all they have to do is claim they relayed what they were told and Steve would say the same. Beyond that you start getting into personal culpability on Steve's part if he was intentionally withholding information to manipulate the stock price. But once again it's a who knew what, when? type question that we cannot know without violating Doctor/Patient confidentiality.

Yes, I think what it will end up coming down to is what exactly is on record and from whom.

You'd think at least some of this relaying of information would be put down on paper or digitally, but who knows - maybe after that backdating scandal, they conduct more of their business verbally?

[dwman]

Just because they are driving innovation and profitable, it doesn't mean they are exempt from federal oversight. Everyone thought Bernie Madoff was a brilliant investor....how'd that turn out for the folks who invested $50b + with him.
I really don't see this as a pointless investigation. If Apple/Jobs is telling the truth, then they have nothing to hide and the SEC won't find a smoking gun. Unfortunately, the culture of secrecy at Apple makes them a big target and all the cloak & dagger press releases re: Jobs health doesn't instill confidence for their shareholders. If I owned a sizable chunk of Apple stock, I'd want to know what was going on too.

[zombitronic]

Don't you usually manipulate stock prices with the intent of making them go up?:rolleyes:

I guess the accusation in this case would be that they manipulated stock prices with the intent of preventing them from going lower.

Edit: What Peace said.

[Keebler]

personally, i think it's just the SEC doing it's due diligence.
They probably review other companies' CEOs as well, but due to Apple's popularity, it's more of a story.

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/01/21/sec-to-investigate-apples-disclosures-regarding-jobs-health/)

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is planning to review Apple's disclosures about Apple CEO Steve Jobs's health problems (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aDL78iMCdOzk), according to Bloomberg.

People familiar with the matter are quick to note a review does not necessarily indicate the SEC has seen evidence of wrongdoing. However, many Apple investors have been frustrated with Apple's limited and contradictory disclosures regarding the issue, specifically regarding statements made on January 5th (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/01/05/steve-jobs-missing-macworld-due-to-health/) and January 14th (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/01/14/steve-jobs-taking-medical-leave-of-absence-until-june/). The SEC will likely be looking into those statements' effect of causing fluctuations in the company's stock price:

To bring any case, the SEC would probably have to show the company tried to benefit by withholding information about an unambiguous diagnosis, said Peter Henning, a former federal prosecutor and SEC lawyer who now teaches at Wayne State University Law School in Detroit.

"It would be difficult, and certainly a new area of the law," Henning said. “You would have to pin down exactly what they knew, and with a health issue -- unlike a merger or a decline in revenue -- it's not subject to definitive answers."

Article Link: SEC To Investigate Apple's Disclosures Regarding Jobs' Health? (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/01/21/sec-to-investigate-apples-disclosures-regarding-jobs-health/)

[MadDog31]

Not sure they have much of a case with this, given that health is involved. Things most certainly can change over the course of a couple days or even minutes for that matter with doctors.

Why not investigate some of these muck journalists and analysts that seem to be doing all they can to fluctuate the price?

[longofest]

Not sure they have much of a case with this, given that health is involved. Why not investigate some of these muck journalists that seem to be doing all they can to fluctuate the price?

Bloomberg does seem to have a keen interest in digging has hard as they can into the story. However, that is what journalists do, though when it gets to a certain point I don't think it's ethical, but I suppose that's a different discussion.

[Sun Baked]

Hopefully they dredge up something like the doctors requesting he take some time off to focus on his health.

Something they do every now and then for high profile patients.

[Eidorian]

Remember not to get sick or die, ever. :rolleyes:

[theheadguy]

I think we can all agree this is interesting. There have been a lot of posts here saying "the CEO's health is nobody's business." That may be, but, obviously Apple has some explaining to do for one reason or another. They seem to be speaking to the SEC a bit more than the average company? (or rather, the SEC is coming to speak to them)...

[big_malk]

I'm sure an investigation like this is exactly what the doctors recommended to help Steve get better, nothing like a bit of extra stress to help a quick recovery...

[MVApple]

Remember not to get sick or die, ever. :rolleyes:

Steve Job's health isn't like the health of any other employee at Apple though, simply because he is the face of the company. At the same time Job's health should be a private matter but when you have millions of dollars in investment money in a company that depend on one man, many will look at him as a company asset and will argue his health is of concern to investors.

[Maxington]

The sphere of influence of El Jobso is growing smaller. I still think he has great oversight over the company, but his presence on a day-to-day level has clearly diminished.

I think the time is right to move to a semi-retired mode and act as a "consultant" on product development. Apple will take a hit, but will be fine.

[mrtravel123]

It seems likes medical issues are increasingly complex. And, I can certainly see a lot of confusion around trying to diagnose a particular health issue. Thus, just because Steve Jobs didn't know what he had immediately, doesn't mean he or Apple is at fault.

With many people, after a particular health situation persists (such as stomach problems) they eventually visit a doctor. (Who rushes to the doctor the first week? Don't we all wait to see if it heals itself?) Well, even after visiting the doctor there is NO guarantee the doctor will diagnose the problem correctly. And, it may take TIME. Well, the Dr. may say, "take this pill.... and avoid proteins." Well, we never expect that it'll be serious or ultra complicated. But, sometimes these small things persist and continue without a quick fix.

Well, only Steve Jobs and his doctors know exactly what his first symptoms were and how things progressed. My point is: We should realize that doctors don't always have a quick answer to every symptom and issue. And, these things take time to resolve themselves. So, I am not going to be quick to criticize Apple or Jobs because of this health situation. I've seen other situations like this before (myself and friends) and I can certainly imagine that it's quite possible that a CEO might face this type of thing too.

[atszyman]

Yes, I think what it will end up coming down to is what exactly is on record and from whom.

You'd think at least some of this relaying of information would be put down on paper or digitally, but who knows - maybe after that backdating scandal, they conduct more of their business verbally?

When it comes to this sort of thing I would expect that any official records would back up their press releases. How much anyone knew verbally via phone calls at any given point may never be known.

[fblack]

Sounds like someone on the SEC is worried about their apple stock.

[IJ Reilly]

If only Apple and Steve had been more clear about his medical condition from the very start. They didn't need to tell investors much, just not treat us like mushrooms.

[michaelsviews]

So some investors are getting nervous, going to loose the mansion, and yacht, and other properties :D

Its all a show, nothing more than that, how about publicizing the names and or corporations of the mongrels raising the stink to the SEC?

[nagromme]

Steve told everyone about the hormone condition on Jan. 5, saying it was very treatable and would not take him away from his duties.

A lot of people assume that was a lie. 9 days later, the condition was more complex and WOULD take him away for a time. And some people seem certain that this wasn't some new medical info that came up in those 9 days--they're sure that Jobs knew all this on the 5th. Knew it was more than just a simple hormone situation and was going to take him away from his duties.

What I wonder is, what motive do they think Jobs had for lying on the 5th about a departure he was going to reveal anyway in 9 days? Especially since in the 5th he said there would be no more to say. That's quite a silly lie if he knew another shoe was about to drop.

People love to look for blame, and love to convince themselves they're right. Even in the absence of actual, you know... medical information :p

Jobs certainly could have been lying. For all we TRULY know, maybe he never had cancer and is instead fighting an addiction to airplane glue. But where's the evidence that makes people so sure the current medical situation did NOT develop over time, coming to light during those 9 days? People see a change in public announcements of the situation, and they assume this means there WAS no change. The simpler explanation: there WAS a change in the situation, and therefore a change in what was said.

I find it perfectly plausible that Jobs' doctors, in the past, knew less than they know now.

[zombitronic]

After this, the SEC should investigate the flood of speculative/manipulative "news" stories and those statements' effect of causing fluctuations in the company's stock price.

[BornAgainMac]

Has this ever happened with any other CEO?

[Westside guy]

So some investors are getting nervous, going to loose the mansion, and yacht, and other properties :D

You apparently think this is still the 1920s? The vast majority of investor money in the stock market isn't from the rich - it's things like your retirement funds, mutual funds, etc. All very much middle-class money, managed by groups like TIAA, Vanguard, Fidelity, etc.

But back on topic. I think there's certainly enough reason for the SEC to look into this. Steve's health came up last summer, and he finally "revealed" what was really going on to a journalist - remember that? The journalist wasn't allowed to tell us what was going on, but he assured us that everything was under control. Well, now we have a letter from Steve stating that the doctors didn't know what was really going on until just recently - so how is it that last summer things were supposedly fine and being managed, when they now say they didn't know what was going on?

[Linkster82]

Just goes to show that the SEC, like most of Apple's investors, seem to think that Apple and Jobs are one in the same and that the company will cease to exist should Jobs exit Apple.

[IJ Reilly]

But where's the evidence that makes people so sure the current medical condition did NOT develop over time?

We don't know, which is the entire point. We know only that Steve started looking quite gaunt many months ago. Apple's complete response to the understandable questions about Steve's health raised at the time was that he was "fine." This opens up three possibilities, none of them very good from a disclosure point of view. Either (1) Steve was not working with his doctors at that time to determine the reason for his weight loss, or (2) he was, but was withholding this information from the Boards of Directors, or (3) he was telling the Board of Directors, but they were withholding this information from investors.

Hence, the SEC investigation and the specter of a shareholder lawsuit.

[telegix]

Yet the SEC has no issue with bank and other CEO's walking away with 100 million of cool, hard cash whilst the company is going down the drain... Give me a break.. They should reinstate the same tax laws you guys had before 1962.. If you made over $400,000 then you'd pay 90% tax.. Not a huge incentive to rip people off then, eh?

[Hattig]

Steve Job's health isn't like the health of any other employee at Apple though, simply because he is the face of the company. At the same time Job's health should be a private matter but when you have millions of dollars in investment money in a company that depend on one man, many will look at him as a company asset and will argue his health is of concern to investors.

And if you invest based upon the presence of a single person who could get hit by a car, you're an idiot.

[BornToMac]

Just another case of the white man trying to keep a brother down...

[jessica.]

And if you invest based upon the presence of a single person who could get hit by a car, you're an idiot.

Common sense FTW. :)

[IJ Reilly]

Common sense FTW. :)

This and other similar comments completely miss the point, which is that Apple tried to pretend that Steve's ability to run the company was not of material interest to investors. Obviously it is.

[jaw04005]

This will be interesting in that it might spark changes to disclosure law for publicly traded corporations. However, I highly doubt anything will happen to Apple over this.

[TheIguana]

Steve's health is his business, not Apple's investors. If they are not willing to accept that possible risk then they shouldn't be investing in Apple, they should be putting their money in something with little to no risk.

[nagromme]

This opens up three possibilities, none of them very good from a disclosure point of view. Either (1) Steve was not working with his doctors at that time to determine the reason for his weight loss, or (2) he was, but was withholding this information from the Boards of Directors, or (3) he was telling the Board of Directors, but they were withholding this information from investors.

Or 4) Steve WAS working with his doctors, and everything legally required about his private life was revealed (i.e. not much). But then the doctors learned more about his situation as time went along. Medicine is not always simple.

Or 5) Steve WAS working with his doctors, but his condition changed over time, becoming more complex. (He once did not require time off, but now he does.)

Either way, the medical situation COULD have changed over time. That seems highly plausible, and you've overlooked that possibility, focusing only on dishonesty--dishonesty without a clear motive.

So of course if laws might have been broken, that needs to be investigated. But those who seem so certain they HAVE been seem to have a narrow view of all that might have been going on.

[Hattig]

We don't know, which is the entire point. We know only that Steve started looking quite gaunt many months ago. Apple's complete response to the understandable questions about Steve's health raised at the time was that he was "fine." This opens up three possibilities, none of them very good from a disclosure point of view. Either (1) Steve was not working with his doctors at that time to determine the reason for his weight loss, or (2) he was, but was withholding this information from the Boards of Directors, or (3) he was telling the Board of Directors, but they were withholding this information from investors.

Hence, the SEC investigation and the specter of a shareholder lawsuit.

It's his health. Health is a private issue. It is not the job of the BoD to make statements about his health, even if they knew details. In addition complex cases like this appears to be take time to narrow down the issue. If the doctors said "It's 90% likely a minor hormone problem" last year, then there is no reason for Apple to say otherwise, or even Jobs to say otherwise. When that was finally dismissed as a reason, or the real reason was discovered via tests, then and only then could Jobs and Apple decide on what to do.

It's simple. Personal privacy comes first. Reasoned sensible release of information in a responsible manner ONCE AND ONLY ONCE the facts are known is the only way for a company to release this type of information. The SEC will investigate to the point they see the above is true, and then say Apple and Jobs have nothing to answer for.

Jobs isn't Apple. Anyone who has bought shares thinking that is a moron.

[mkoesel]

What I wonder is, what motive do they think Jobs had for lying on the 5th about a departure he was going to reveal anyway in 9 days? Especially since in the 5th he said there would be no more to say. That's quite a silly lie if he knew another shoe was about to drop.

+1

What was so important during those 9 days that people think it would have been worth the smokescreen?

Now if the focus of the investigation is instead on the weight loss over the past year, and any health-related statements made during that period, well, perhaps there are more factors to consider. I don't know the laws, but I do believe I remember at least one or two statements from Apple officials or spokespeople stating that Steve is in good health. If it were somehow proven that these statements were deliberate falsehoods, then I suppose there may be some sort of case. I guess this might be the point of the investigation.

It does bring up a curiousity though: I wonder if it is illegal for someone in Steve's position to simply not see a doctor at all, and then just report that, as far as they know, they are perfectly healthy. No, I'm not suggesting that this is what happened in Steve's case, but if this much is theoretically legal, then any law against outright lying about one's medical history would basically amount to punishing them for going to a doctor to begin with. I think that a lawyer could take that fact and build a defense around it.

I also wonder, is there any precedent for the SEC legally seizing someone's private health records?

[davidnyc]

I Do Not THink Full discloser on health issues are topic for the sec I think they have plenty of other people they should have investigated for True cases of fraud. Get Well Steve!

[swingerofbirch]

So some investors are getting nervous, going to loose the mansion, and yacht, and other properties :D

Its all a show, nothing more than that, how about publicizing the names and or corporations of the mongrels raising the stink to the SEC?

I am invested in Apple. I will not disclose my financial situation, but I am unemployed currently, live with my parents, and (not suprisingly) do not own a yacht. You do need money to buy stock but not a lot! You could become a shareholder of Apple today for $81 (plus about $10 for the exchange).

[nagromme]

This and other similar comments completely miss the point, which is that Apple tried to pretend that Steve's ability to run the company was not of material interest to investors. Obviously it is.

Which statements from Apple can you point to that indicate that Steve's involvement in the company is not important? That's obviously absurd, and I don't think Apple actually pretended any such thing.

I've only seen statements about his health being a private matter--which does NOT indicate his involvement is unimportant. It's the legal and common sense truth, in fact.

Does that privacy have limits? Maybe so--in which case, if you think Apple and/or Steve were being deceptive on January 5 (and prior), you STILL have to assume that Steve's condition was KNOWN to be heading for a (temporary) departure.

When in fact, the need for this time off COULD very plausibly be recent news, not something that was concealed.

[nagromme]

What was so important during those 9 days that people think it would have been worth the smokescreen?

You have to wonder. Did Steve lie on the 5th, sell a bunch of stock, and then admit what he knew all along, that he was about to leave the company (except for major decisions, that is) until summer?

A medical change in those 9 days is the kind of thing that happens every day. Defrauding investors does too... but where's the money trail?

On the other hand, manipulating these stories in the press DOES have a money trail in many cases...

(Sorry for the double-post, guess I thought I was AFK longer than I was.)

[pprior]

Ah yes, the same bunch of coolaid drinkers saying how Steve and the board were completely being honest as over a year's time he wastes away to nothing due to a "simple hormone problem" and then a week later walks away from being CEO of a multibillion dollar company.

I told you then, and I'll say it again, something is rotten in the state of Denmark. Investors have been misled and whether YOU think it's smart or not to invest in apple the point is that as an investor I have the right to have transparency and not be misled by the very body that has a fiduciary responsibility to ME (and all other shareholders), not to Mr. Jobs privacy rights.

Go ahead, claim there is no paper trail. Let's meet back here in a few months and we'll see who is right and who is wrong.

[IJ Reilly]

Or 4) Steve WAS working with his doctors, and everything legally required about his private life was revealed (i.e. not much). But then the doctors learned more about his situation as time went along. Medicine is not always simple.

Or 5) Steve WAS working with his doctors, but his condition changed over time, becoming more complex. (He once did not require time off, but now he does.)

Either way, the medical situation COULD have changed over time. That seems highly plausible, and you've overlooked that possibility, focusing only on dishonesty--dishonesty without a clear motive.

So of course if laws might have been broken, that needs to be investigated. But those who seem so certain they HAVE been seem to have a narrow view of all that might have been going on.

Your numbers 4 and 5 don't really work. That something was wrong last year was obvious to all. A cancer patient who is losing weight is going to be spending time with his doctors finding out why. That person's condition cannot be described as "fine" especially when it's so clear that it is not. Beyond that, I'm not certain of anything. That's the point.

We also have to remember that Steve initially did not have his pancreatic cancer treated medically. He tried at first to deal with it homeopathically. He also supposedly withheld some of this information from the Board. This raises questions in my mind about what he's been doing lately to address his health issues.

It's his health. Health is a private issue.

No, not entirely. If that was the case, then the SEC would not be investigating.

[pprior]

And if you invest based upon the presence of a single person who could get hit by a car, you're an idiot.

By your definition every apple shareholder is an idiot. You see, whether -I- believe that AAPL has good fundamentals or not, the -MARKET- clearly has shown on multiple occasions that in the real world what happens to SJ will markedly affect share price.

Therefore whether YOU think that those people dumping shares right and left after bad SJ health news are idiots or not is irrelevent to those of us that actually hold shares because we get hammered.

Therefore we have a right to know and not be misled by the board, as any such news will be acted on by a large number of traders, whether you and I (who I think actually hold similar views on the long term health of the company) think so or not.

Ultimately the shareholder should be able to trade on truthful information, and a board and CEO that misleads the public should have the hammer put down on them hard.

[gmcalpin]

Go ahead, claim there is no paper trail. Let's meet back here in a few months and we'll see who is right and who is wrong.

Please. Self-righteous posturing know-it-alls never concede when they're proven wrong. Jobs could come out and give every last page of paperwork showing what he learned about his condition before the 5th and after the 5th, and if you're wrong (note that I say IF, because I don't claim any special knowledge about this matter), you'll just insist they're still lying and covering it up.

There is and has never been ANY legitimate, sane reason to believe that Steve Jobs has been lying about his health. He and his doctors may have been wrong about it and learned more details about what was going on. His condition may have worsened. But his statements — vague though they may have been — have NEVER been "contradictory," as this article states.

I'm sorry your Apple stock lost a ton of money, but get over yourself. You don't know one real thing more than anyone else here.

[IJ Reilly]

Which statements from Apple can you point to that indicate that Steve's involvement in the company is not important? That's obviously absurd, and I don't think Apple actually pretended any such thing.

I've only seen statements about his health being a private matter--which does NOT indicate his involvement is unimportant. It's the legal and common sense truth, in fact.

Does that privacy have limits? Maybe so--in which case, if you think Apple and/or Steve were being deceptive on January 5 (and prior), you STILL have to assume that Steve's condition was KNOWN to be heading for a (temporary) departure.

When in fact, the need for this time off COULD very plausibly be recent news, not something that was concealed.

I don't assume anything. The sequence of events should be investigated by the SEC in order to determine if anything of material importance to investors was concealed either by Steve or the Board.

[Unspeaked]

The word "health" keeps being brought up as the main issue here, but really it isn't.

What the SEC investigation really concerns is that Apple's stock price was fluctuating drastically over an issue that at best Apple provided little information on and at worst Apple provided completely conflicting information on.

Now, whether or not the information they provided was all they were aware of, and whether or not it was being relayed to investors as they received it is what's of interest here.

The fact that this information happens to concern the CEO's health is just an aside. What's important is that Apple's share price was moving and whether or not the company did what they needed to protect their shareholders.

(And at this point, no one besides a few people at Apple know the answer to that.)

[jeremy.king]

Are you saying that because a company is doing well financially, that should somehow place them above legal oversight?

Worked for Madoff ;)

[kdarling]

Haven't read the whole thread yet, but...

The first time Jobs found out he had cancer, the Apple board of directors knew... but said nothing for nine months. (Until after his operation.) This did not make them look good at all.

Last summer, Apple said Jobs was just suffering from a common ailment (made you think it was the flu or something). Then it was hormones, then it was worse.

All that would be fine, except the timing of each update was just before something important, which for better or worse, looks suspicious.

[Unspeaked]

There's an excellent article (http://www.cnbc.com/id/28776732/site/14081545) just posted on CNBC about this which prints a letter from Harvey Pitt (former SEC chairman) commenting on things.

In it, he makes a very clear case for why this issue is important.

Here's the story:

One Take On The SEC Inquiry Into Apple Worth Reading

by Jim Goldman

When it comes to Appleand Steve Jobs' health disclosures, indeed any perceived cover-up, it all comes down to what was known, and when.

Easy questions to ask, but harder questions to answer.

With the Securities and Exchange Commission reportedly opening an inquiry into Apple amid those very questions, my colleague Bertha Coombs and I have been trying to shed some light on what grounds the SEC might, or might not, have to bring an action.

Bertha was in touch, via email, today with Harvey Pitt, the former chairman of the SEC (2001 - 2003), who now works for Kalorama Partners LLC in Washington, D.C.

She shared with me the email she received from Mr. Pitt this morning about these very issues, and his analysis of what's going on. His email, posted below, is worth a read.

"The question of Apple's disclosure is an intriguing one, and raises some serious issues," Pitt begins. He says that as a general rule, the SEC has not required companies to breach the personal privacy of senior executives. "As a result, people who have experienced heart attacks, strokes, or have alcohol problems or other medical adversity, are generally not under any obligation to disclose that, subject to certain caveats.

"The underlying assumption always is that if the senior executive has to give up his/her day-to-day duties for any appreciable period of time, appropriate and timely disclosure will be made. In addition, the rule always is that if a company or senior executive makes voluntary disclosure--as Jobs did about his health originally--that disclosure must be fair and accurate. If the normal rules apply--and I'll get to that in a moment--then Jobs and Apple might not have been under any obligation to make affirmative disclosure unless and until he was going to take a leave of absence, as he ultimately did."

This is a key point, and likely the rules under which Apple was operating. The threshold was always a simple one: either he can perform his duties as CEO or not.

Pitt continues: "Of course, once voluntary disclosure was made, Jobs and Apple had an obligation to get it right. There is at least a serious question whether Jobs did get it right. He initially downplayed the significance of his health issues, only to come back and announce that he was taking a leave of absence. Given Jobs' importance to Apple--which is atypical as far as most corporations go--his decision to take a leave of absence was surely material (and the stock market reflected that the moment it was announced). It is hard to believe that, in the short span of time between the initial announcement and Jobs' announcement of a leave of absence, his knowledge of his condition changed materially. It's not impossible, but it does seem improbable, and that's why the SEC is investigating, I suspect."

Possible, but not probable. A long-shot explanation is that Jobs was told one thing on Sunday, and then a week later, his doctors discovered something new. Again, not probable, but still an option. "Right" is a fuzzy thing when you're dealing with fast-moving, complex health issues. That may or not be the case here, but Apple and Jobs can certainly try to make that argument which may offer enough reasonable doubt to avoid any kind of action or prosecution. Another thing to consider: it's very possible that only a few people — if any — knew what the real status was, and that everyone else was sold a bill of goods. If there was a calculated effort to mislead, and I'm not saying there was, Apple's got some real problems. And that, presumably, is what the SEC will examine.

Pitt continues: "In the case of some companies, like Apple, where a CEO is so integrally intertwined with the fortunes of the Company, the general rule may not make any sense. Anything that could affect Jobs' ability to serve is something Apple would have been well advised to consider significant enough of which to make voluntary disclosure. Here, in response to the obvious physical changes in his appearance, they did make disclosure, but it seems as if they didn't get it right. If they knew or should have known it was more serious than he was allowing, they had an obligation to correct his less than accurate assessment."

"Well advised" to consider might be one thing, but legally compelled to do so is another. Further, if Jobs knew one thing, and released it, and then discovered it was something else, or the Board discovered it was something else more serious, they had an obligation to "correct his less than accurate assessment." With that follow-on release about those more "complex" health issues, some might argue that's exactly what Jobs did. Again, legal versus ethical.

Pitt didn't confirm any SEC inquiry and neither Apple nor the SEC is commenting. But Pitt's comments are useful as we all try to figure out what happened, and what happens next.

[nagromme]

I don't assume anything. The sequence of events should be investigated by the SEC in order to determine if anything of material importance to investors was concealed either by Steve or the Board.

Me neither, and I agree--investigated answers are better than questions. Even if this is new territory for the law.

Your numbers 4 and 5 don't really work. That something was wrong last year was obvious to all. A cancer patient who is losing weight is going to be spending time with his doctors finding out why. That person's condition cannot be described as "fine" especially when it's so clear that it is not. Beyond that, I'm not certain of anything. That's the point.

We also have to remember that Steve initially did not have his pancreatic cancer treated medically. He tried at first to deal with it homeopathically. He also supposedly withheld some of this information from the Board. This raises questions in my mind about what he's been doing lately to address his health issues.

"Fine" last year could mean "treatable weight loss as is expected after this pancreas procedure." And yes, the weight loss was known to all of us.

And then at some point the doctors might decide there's more to it (maybe the same problem needing other treatments; maybe other problems). THAT is a change in the medical situation, which your other scenarios didn't account for. Not saying it's the case, just that it's very plausible: the seriousness of the situation MAY have increased over time.

All they may have known last year is, "things look fine now--but you never know." And if that's the case, thats' what we all knew without being told.

[atszyman]

We don't know, which is the entire point. We know only that Steve started looking quite gaunt many months ago. Apple's complete response to the understandable questions about Steve's health raised at the time was that he was "fine." This opens up three possibilities, none of them very good from a disclosure point of view. Either (1) Steve was not working with his doctors at that time to determine the reason for his weight loss, or (2) he was, but was withholding this information from the Boards of Directors, or (3) he was telling the Board of Directors, but they were withholding this information from investors.

Hence, the SEC investigation and the specter of a shareholder lawsuit.

I want to know what business it is of the BoD what his health status is if he, and his doctors, believe him to be capable of performing his job's duties?

Does that privacy have limits? Maybe so--in which case, if you think Apple and/or Steve were being deceptive on January 5 (and prior), you STILL have to assume that Steve's condition was KNOWN to be heading for a (temporary) departure.

When in fact, the need for this time off COULD very plausibly be recent news, not something that was concealed.

A friend of ours had an blood issue pop up that became very dire a couple times. The treatments and diagnoses varied quite a bit over a few weeks' span. None of them prevented him from working, but if one had he could very easily have not known about it even a few days prior to finding that out.

Are we going to start requiring CEOs and company brass to provide full medical disclosures? How about their daily commute schedule so we can assess the risk of car accidents? All vacation itineraries?

Until Jobs and his doctor(s) decided that the Leave was necessary it was no one's business. If Apple knew about the leave and didn't disclose it, then yes, that would be withholding information, but in all likelihood I don't see anything here that would indicate that this was the case.

I don't have anything against the SEC investigating either, if for no other reason to kill all of the speculation that Apple somehow did something illegal.

[Unspeaked]

...Until Jobs and his doctor(s) decided that the Leave was necessary it was no one's business. If Apple knew about the leave and didn't disclose it, then yes, that would be withholding information, but in all likelihood I don't see anything here that would indicate that this was the case.

No, as the Harvey Pitt letter I posted above points out, until Jobs decided to make public comments to Apple shareholders about his health it was no one's business.

Once he went on record saying something, it better have been as truthful as possible.

[NAG]

While there is wild conjecture, in that week between Jobs first statement and his second saying he was taking a leave he could have been better educated by his doctor about the seriousness of the condition.

Honestly, we can't tell what happened during that week (we can't even make a distinction as to the probability of what happened, but then again I'm not playing doctor on the internet). So I don't really see a problem with the investigation even though I do think most of the media is blowing this out of proportion.

[Lumeswell]

Steve Job's health isn't like the health of any other employee at Apple though, simply because he is the face of the company. At the same time Job's health should be a private matter but when you have millions of dollars in investment money in a company that depend on one man, many will look at him as a company asset and will argue his health is of concern to investors.

If that is all the investigation is based on then I would think there is no problem - unless there is a law which says Steve Jobs is to be treated differently to any other employee in America then Apple lawers will shoot it down.

Nobody seems to have mentioned another possibility - and I don't mean this in a negative way - that Steve jobs was lying to himself.

How many people out there lie every day to themselves about their own health, even for the small stuff - how many smokers don't think they will get cancer, how many people ignore that tooth ache, how many people who drink to much don't think they are alcoholics.

You have someone who I think everyone agrees is a control freak, who has already been through a big scare, and again faces something he has no control over. Maybe he avoided going to doctors, buried himself in his work etc until it became to obvious for even him to ignore.

Ever tried to ask an alcoholic friend to do something about it? Imagine you are the board of Apple asking Steve jobs if he is OK, and he says 'Im fine, Im just tired.' He is still doing his job (as far as we know), and the company is going well - legally how much further could you push it without risking a lawsuit from Jobs himself about invading his privacy?

I understand some people feel they have been manipulated on the stock, so have the investigation and get it cleared - if they have done wrong then punish them, but if it finds nothing everyone who was hounding SJ, particularly some of the 'journalists' and 'doctors' who haven't even met him let alone treated him but still felt qualified to pass judgement and create fanciful stories over the last 2 weeks, should take at good hard look at themselves.

[atszyman]

No, as the Harvey Pitt letter I posted above points out, until Jobs decided to make public comments to Apple shareholders about his health it was no one's business.

Once he went on record saying something, it better have been as truthful as possible.

So he went on record with what he knew on the 5th. We get down to what he knew when over the next 9 days. The only people that know this for sure, are Steve and his doctors. How do we know what Steve knew and when he knew it?

The SEC can investigate and I'm happy that they're actually doing some oversight, but somewhere in this we just have to take Steve's word for it.

[pprior]

The SEC can investigate and I'm happy that they're actually doing some oversight, but somewhere in this we just have to take Steve's word for it.

Any why in the world we we just do that?

The man misled the board initially for almost a YEAR as he tried natural treatments for freaking -=pancreatic cancer=-. I know there are the freaks out there that hate all things medical, but come ON man.

Why in the world would you trust him to now be 100% truthful? I think it's equally as likely that he is out eating pinenut oil because he is convinced that it will resolve the recurrence that he very likely is dealing with.

I believe Reagan said it best: Trust, but verify. Until we have a way to verify, I have no trust.

[IJ Reilly]

There's an excellent article (http://www.cnbc.com/id/28776732/site/14081545) just posted on CNBC about this which prints a letter from Harvey Pitt (former SEC chairman) commenting on things.

In it, he makes a very clear case for why this issue is important.

Here's the story:

We could end this entire thread with this post, because it says everything that needs to be said. But somehow I think that won't happen...

[atszyman]

Any why in the world we we just do that?

Simple, Doctor patient confidentiality.

Unless Steve had some other confidant or some other written communication showing that he knew more about his situation and was not disclosing it, thus breaking the law, we don't have any other way to prove that he knew more than he said.

I'm all for investigating to make sure that nothing was intentionally withheld to manipulate the stock prices. Since no one has come forward with Steve dumping or shorting a bunch of Apple stock I don't see Steve's motives for withholding any information aside from his own personal denial or desire to break any bad news to his family before the public releases, neither of which should be considered illegal.

I just don't see why it's so hard for some people to believe that more medical information was gleaned within a week prompting the leave.

[jbernie]

There is no harm in the SEC investigating, when there are odd/unusual occurances they investigate to make sure everything is/was above board. As noted some large shareholders may have requested a review.

If AAPL was not a listed company then this would not be happening. Unfortunately as they are a listed company and Steve Jobs is an influential member of the executive staff etc etc anything major that happens to him/with him that influences his ability to work and function as Apple CEO etc falls under Material information as this influences whether or not people would invest in the company.

I am not necessarily in complete agreement with this but I understand and appreciate why this is happening. The same would happen for other influential people like Michael Dell, Steve Ballmer (or Bill Gates if he was still there), Larry Ellison etc etc. The more influence one person has, or appears to have in the running of a listed company the more "material" their health and well being becomes.

Of course, if Apple was more open and forthcoming to investors about their succession plan for Steve Jobs (he will retire one day) the less concern the markets would have about Steve, they might still be concerned but not at the same level.

[twoodcc]

i don't see how they would have a case here. it's a health issue, which can change over time.

[NAG]

Any why in the world we we just do that?

The man misled the board initially for almost a YEAR as he tried natural treatments for freaking -=pancreatic cancer=-. I know there are the freaks out there that hate all things medical, but come ON man.

Why in the world would you trust him to now be 100% truthful? I think it's equally as likely that he is out eating pinenut oil because he is convinced that it will resolve the recurrence that he very likely is dealing with.

I believe Reagan said it best: Trust, but verify. Until we have a way to verify, I have no trust.

To be fair this is not the form of pancreatic cancer that you are thinking of (the kind that kills within months).

[jbernie]

i don't see how they would have a case here. it's a health issue, which can change over time.

Actually that is part of the problem, when he did the Conference last year and was looking "sick" and it was said to be nothing though it was enough to make a lot of people make comment, now we have progressed to needing a 6 month sabatical. Obviously from Point A (conference) to Point B (taking time off) we have about 6 months where no apparent improvement was made in which case Apple at the board level should have been preparing for the scenario of time off.

If Jobs had had a heart attack (wasnt that a rumour too?) it would be different, although the board would be wanting to make a statement (as it would be hard to hide this from the public) there would no SEC inquiries as a heart attack is very sudden and you can be 100% one day and in hospital the next.

[charlituna]

They may have been requested to do so by a large number of shareholders.

Or, it may just be a routine thing.

(If it's the former, I don't know if that may be a harbinger of a class action lawsuit...)

easy.

they know that Apple didn't do anything wrong because they are only obligated to report when the CEO can't do his/her job and/or takes a leave. they don't even have to say why. it is perfectly legit to report "Jobs will be taking a six week leave of absence from the day to day handling operations for personal reasons. Overseeing such actions during said time will be Tim Cook,COO. Jobs will remain in contact with the company etc"

but so many rumors went around and so many complaints that too many folks are sure that Apple knew from day one that Jobs cancer was never cured, he's gone crazy blah blah. So they are griping to the SEC.

Now the SEC could tell them to shut up and start up rumors that Jobs paid them off. Or they could agree to look into it, find that nothing wrong was done, that due to the extreme nature of Jobs condition things literally can change in a day and there was no lying and so on. Most peeps will then shut up about it, satisfied that someone did something.

[charlituna]

Steve Job's health isn't like the health of any other employee at Apple though, simply because he is the face of the company.


only to the major geeks.

to the general consumers he could keel over tomorrow and as long as the fun toys keep coming who would notice.

but if that sweet "I'm a Mac" boy were to die. well that would be hell to pay.

Has this ever happened with any other CEO?

i do believe that this might be the first time that a company CEO tried to get in good with the public by putting a human face on the company and being an active spokesperson, to the point of turning himself into a Hollywood esque celebrity and thus allowing same said public to believe they have a right to every detail of his life.

in other news, the SEC just released an update, saying that they discovered in fact that this whole cancer thing is a fraud and Steve isn't really on a leave of absence to recover but in fact is in Los Angeles, training to be a dancer in the next Brittany Spears music video for her new single "Leave us the ******* alone"

This and other similar comments completely miss the point, which is that Apple tried to pretend that Steve's ability to run the company was not of material interest to investors. Obviously it is.

on the contrary. they are well aware that the investors have an interest in whether he can run the company. which is why there is an SEC rule that if he can't, they have to fess up.

The disagreement is whether his health issues mean that he can't. Consider this. He had surgery for cancer in what 2004, 2005. since then what has he led Apple into achieving. Despite being on his death bed, blah blah.

when there came a point that he had to choose between his health and taking a leave, they announced he was going on a little break and would be out of the office. just as they had to. until then, they didn't have to say anything and wouldn't have if the public had any respect for the man's right to privacy

what I find interesting and would toss back at Mr Pitt is that the drop in stock was not a sudden thing. it has been dropping over about the last year. how many times that it did drop, even a dime, was it because of a new rumor from a source 'near to the issue' or 'familiar with the situation' etc. where is the investigation into that. so long as Mr Jobs wasn't undressing and running naked down the streets, saying he couldn't do his job because he was a bit thin is a stretch, so how it is anyone's business to know what was discovered and when (ps, those eps of House aren't totally pulled out of someone's 'hat', things can happen just like that when dealing with medical issues)

[Nuvi]

It's his health. Health is a private issue. It is not the job of the BoD to make statements about his health, even if they knew details.

It's simple. Personal privacy comes first. Reasoned sensible release of information in a responsible manner ONCE AND ONLY ONCE the facts are known is the only way for a company to release this type of information. The SEC will investigate to the point they see the above is true, and then say Apple and Jobs have nothing to answer for.

Jobs isn't Apple. Anyone who has bought shares thinking that is a moron.

Unfortunately you are completely wrong with your arguments here. Steve Jobs is not a private person. He is a public figure, a CEO and the face of a multinational corporation. Therefore his health is not private but public issue as he clearly has exceptional value to the company. It can be argued that loss of Steve Jobs could have severe impact on Apple as replacement of his caliber is hard if not impossible to find. Due to this Steve Jobs health issues effect the fluctuation of AAPL and therefore any information regarding Steve Jobs health that could effect his ability to act as CEO of the company should be made public without any delay.

The question remains, did Apple or Steve Jobs know about the severity of the situation? Did they play it down? When you objectively examine the situation you just can't help but to think the needed information wasn't provided in timely manner. Steve has been suffering from severe weight loss for number of months and only explanation Apple and Steve was giving when it was first noticed was that he had a common cold. Then comes Mac World '09 and information that SJ won't be appearing. Flood gates of speculation open up regarding SJ's health. Apple PR and SJ return with letter of pinning down cause of SJ's weight loss of hormonal imbalance. Then comes a new press release from SJ stating his health problem is considerably more complex. Unfortunately all of the symptoms mentioned perviously are common with cancer patients. The question remains, are Apple Inc. and / or Steve Jobs putting investors at risk? If all the information regarding Steve Jobs ability to lead Apple in the future is not made public then they are just doing that and therefore the health of Steve Jobs is far from being private matter.

[Tallest Skil]

but if that sweet "I'm a Mac" boy were to die. well that would be hell to pay.

Just have Jeff Goldblum come back.

[badmac78]

IF investors are wise investors, then they would have done their homework on the other top executives at Apple to understand their abilities to lead to company if something were to happen to Stevey. The assumption that Jobs is the only one that makes the world turn is absurd. Now, can Mr. Job's judgement have been impaired to the point of making a poor business decision, yes. I think the Board of Apple would have had him step down, if they believed that to be the case. Seeing as that the SEC completely missed Bernie Madoff, I have no love for them going after a success story such as Apple. I feel it's more the folks who are speculating against Apple and this "they can't keep it up forever" attitude that is driving them investigate.

[kdarling]

To be fair this is not the form of pancreatic cancer that you are thinking of (the kind that kills within months).

No, but it's still a kind that kills over 50% in five years.

[Lumeswell]

Unfortunately you are completely wrong with your arguments here. Steve Jobs is not a private person. He is a public figure, a CEO and the face of a multinational corporation. Therefore his health is not private but public issue as he clearly has exceptional value to the company.

And if that is enshrined in law then bring it on, lets have the health of every public figure - business, entertainment, sports etc made public, every 6 months.

If a major sports star is struck down with some ailment then it could have massive effects on the financial position of a club, so shareholders deserve to know.

If a director comes down with something in the middle of directing a multi million dollar blockbuster movie then it could have a massive impact on the financial performance of the studio behind it, so shareholders deserve to know.

If the principle of my kids school gets sick it could throw the school in to turmoil for the rest of the year, and effect my childs learning, so parents have a right to know (tm)!

Seriously this is starting to piss me off - where does it end. People whinging that Jobs was sick and may have impacted the price of their shares. Look at the financial results that have just been announced - do you think he could have done better?

Do you think his actual performance over the last 12 months has had any negative impact on the share price?

I still believe the only thing that has had an adverse effect on the price of shares though this is the press speculation and the wanna be investors who panic at the alter of celebrity and believe the stories written by journalists who have no contact with sources who actually have any real knowledge.

Which has had the bigger impact on the share price lately - Jobs and Apple apparently doing their job and the company delivery new products, or the press speculating about how thin he looks, or why he pulled out of presenting at MacWorld, or what some people think he should have done but didn't. Anything other than speculation.

Before everyone starts complaining that the speculation only happens because they didn't release any info. First up - it is a private health matter, so I don't think there was anything Apple had to release, and secondly, when they did release information all the people behind the speculation go into overdrive with more theories about what has been going on. They are a hiding to nothing, so I don't think there is anything Apple could have done to please everyone on this.

Bring on the SEC investigation. I'm prepared to accept its findings if they are negative and hope people are punished - but are the the share price whingers prepared to accept them if they show nothing wrong?

Now - if you can link his health to the decision to drop FW400 support from MBs and MBPs, then maybe you would have a case ....

[princigalli]

Stock investors are among the most disgusting beings that ever existed. And they are the cause of all our economic problems.

[Denarius]

Does anyone else think that the idea of the future of this multi-billion pound corporate giant hinging on the health of one man is a tad ridiculous? If that's the way investors think then it's no wonder the global economy is screwed.

[pprior]

Stock investors are among the most disgusting beings that ever existed. And they are the cause of all our economic problems.

Wow. We have a winner for the highest stupidity per sylable yet in this thread.

Investors are what drive capitalism, which is what has saved the world from dictators, fascists and communists, all of which seek to enslave the people and NONE of which would have ever created a firm like Apple.

I'm not fond of daytraders, but they're a necessary evil within our system and history shows not a single example of any socialist system even coming close to succeeding. In fact the reason our country is faltering is that we are moving closer and closer to that model, bailing out this and that....

Completely off topic, but man that statement was a humdinger of ignorance.

[princigalli]

Wow. We have a winner for the highest stupidity per sylable yet in this thread.

Investors are what drive capitalism, which is what has saved the world from dictators, fascists and communists, all of which seek to enslave the people and NONE of which would have ever created a firm like Apple.

I'm not fond of daytraders, but they're a necessary evil within our system and history shows not a single example of any socialist system even coming close to succeeding. In fact the reason our country is faltering is that we are moving closer and closer to that model, bailing out this and that....

Completely off topic, but man that statement was a humdinger of ignorance.


First of all I NEVER insulted anyone on the macrumor forums. Never. This is obviously a trait you earned from the fascist and nazi dictators you claim to dislike.

Second, I didn't put down capitalism. But I put down the current financial system with emphasis on immediate capital gains for share investors, people who are there today but are somewhere else tomorrow. They consume and leave with no concern for long term planning in any company or economy.

Third, if you study history, you will see that it was financial investors who financed European fascist and nazi dictators from the very start. I don't see how those investors saved the world from nazis when they stared it in the first place, and could never win the war without the help of communist Soviet Union.

Anyway we are moving away from the subject of this thread. The most important thing is that I would never call other people on this forum bad names. I was raised that way, you weren't.

[IJ Reilly]

First of all I NEVER insulted anyone on the macrumor forums. Never.

Really? You just called me (Apple stockholder since 1997) one of the most disgusting beings that ever existed.

Of course, as regulars on these boards knows, that's entirely true. But nevertheless, it is an insult.

[princigalli]

Really? You just called me (Apple stockholder since 1997) one of the most disgusting beings that ever existed.

Of course, as regulars on these boards knows, that's entirely true. But nevertheless, it is an insult.

In this case I apologize, I didn't mean to be insulting and I have nothing against regular shareholders. My complains are directed to large scale speculators.

[IJ Reilly]

In this case I apologize, I didn't mean to be insulting and I have nothing against regular shareholders. My complains are directed to large scale speculators.

If that's what you meant, I agree -- the big speculators can be quite frustrating and disgusting. But they do tend to cancel each other out over the long run.

[jbernie]

Does anyone else think that the idea of the future of this multi-billion pound corporate giant hinging on the health of one man is a tad ridiculous? If that's the way investors think then it's no wonder the global economy is screwed.

Pretty much yes, but Apple has setup itself up for this by the focus being only on Steve Jobs and not shared amongst other senior execs., the more we know about the other execs., in that we see them doing the presentations etc the more comfortable the market feels about them and the less worry there is.

Of course, the media isn't immune to this either as they treat every word from Jobs mouth as the word of the lord and can i get me a hallelujah, praise the lord and all that type of rubbish they spew to sell copies/get more eyes watching them.

[chewietobbacca]

As others have said, I don't see a problem with the investigation. If there was no wrongdoing, Apple has notihng to worry about.

And people saying it's a private issue..

Again, it was private UNTIL they made a public statement saying he was fine. When they reversed course in a week, it's an issue.

And the reason it's investigated is that CEO's dont just dissappear overnight. Yes, it's very possible something came up in those days between, but given that there's usually a transition period to whoever is next going to be in charge, even if temporarily, things tend to get laid out longer in advance, hence all this speculation.

And anyways, Madoff was making tons of money... does that mean the SEC shouldn't have investigated him earlier? Of course not. If you're a public company, then you still need to play by the rules

[atszyman]

As others have said, I don't see a problem with the investigation. If there was no wrongdoing, Apple has notihng to worry about.

And people saying it's a private issue..

Again, it was private UNTIL they made a public statement saying he was fine. When they reversed course in a week, it's an issue.


I see three possible outcomes:

1) Apple knew the truth and tried to soften the blow by releasing a more optimistic release first.

2) Steve knew the truth and for whatever reasons (other than financial gain for himself or friends) tried to spin it differently.

3) Steve didn't know how serious and didn't find out until a follow up appointment the following week.

#1 is definitely not cool, and would deserve punishment. #2 needs the caveat of no financial gain, there are plenty of personal reasons that he might have wanted to keep things quiet, and it's possible that his first release may have been technically correct albeit overly optimistic. #3 seems most likely to me.

I have no problem with the investigation, and believe there will likely be no finding of wrongdoing. Apple execs aren't stupid, and anything done like #1 or #2 above for financial gain or stock price manipulation should have been spotted as illegal or at least very unethical before anything was released to the public and if they did indeed do that then they need to be penalized for it.

[pprior]

In this case I apologize, I didn't mean to be insulting and I have nothing against regular shareholders. My complains are directed to large scale speculators.

Well, now that is not at all what you said....

I stand behind the statement that your statement was foolish, I didn't mean any personal insult towards you since I know nothing of you as an individual, but insulting capitalism as a whole struck a nerve with me, as it seems everyone is running towards socialism these days and the inevitable disaster it will bring.

Anyway, my apologies, I should have stated things more clearly against your statement rather than being as personal.

[IJ Reilly]

I'd like to think that Apple execs aren't stupid, but they did get caught doing something rather dumb in that bush-league options backdating business. Where big money is concerned, you just don't know if otherwise intelligent people will behave intelligently. Take Bernard Madoff. Please.

[princigalli]

If that's what you meant, I agree -- the big speculators can be quite frustrating and disgusting. But they do tend to cancel each other out over the long run.

I just read my original post, and I realized it was very hard. I used words I didn't mean to use and my language was offensive. In this case I was wrong and I need to apologize.

I believe I was angry because at this point I think Steve Jobs needs some peace of mind. I don't know what this investigation will do to help investors, Apple, or customers.

I am not afraid of criticizing Apple and Steve Jobs for program bugs, Iphone selling practices, or lack of updates. But I think Steve Jobs has done his best and we should respect him when he is not well. Apple share holders have made huge profits in the past few years (I don't know about 1997) and should maybe try to forgive and forget this presumed incident. Steve Jobs has been working excellently and full time until he decided to step out with a public announcement. I don't think he needed to do more.

I also believe in free market and the Anglo-American economic model, which has provided us with the best individual development opportunities and produced unmatched creativity. Only in California could Apple start from nothing and provide such innovative solutions.

But I feel that the long time corporate productive model is being replaced by investments seeking short term financial gains. Stock operators with no interest in the companies they invest in. They buy today and sell tomorrow. If the death of a company equals better short term gains, they don't care and are happy.

This system is changing capitalism from a way to optimize output of product and services to a system only focused on short term stock market gains. This system as we know it is only good for banks. It will harm the capitalist model they think they represent.

Once again, I apologize to all Apple shareholders for my previous post, I don't think anything bad about them, I have Apple shares myself. It was an emotional response because I think Steve Jobs deserves to recover in peace.

[IJ Reilly]

I just read my original post, and I realized it was very hard. I used words I didn't mean to use and my language was offensive. In this case I was wrong and I need to apologize.

Don't worry, no harm done, especially since you have explained yourself so graciously.

I believe I was angry because at this point I think Steve Jobs needs some peace of mind. I don't know what this investigation will do to help investors, Apple, or customers.

As I have said whenever this subject comes up, I believe Steve and Apple needed to be more forthright about his medical condition from the very start. Instead they tried to keep it under wraps until the situation became unmanageable. This sort of thing always looks bad.

Most of us sincerely hope that Steve will regain his health and will return to his full-time duties at Apple. But that doesn't mean we think he handled the public relations aspects of this issue well at all.

I don't know what good the investigation will do. I hope it finds that no effort was made to hide what was known about Steve's health. If so, that will be the end of it -- for now at least.

[jbernie]

Of course, we shouldn't forget the backdating of stock options for Apple employees that went on. Yes, other companies got caught doing it as well, but Apple isn't quite have a squeaky clean image.

The first place to look is going to be in executive/insider share trades going back to Dec 1st at least as that takes it prior to the no Steve @ Macworld announcement i.e first indication something might be going on, then follow on through to a week or so after the announcement. So long as there are no unusual trades, which is narrowed down to about any normal trade that person executes on a consistant basis, ie buy/sell 5000 shares on the same day/date every week/month/year.

Second step is looking at unusual trading habits by particular traders during the same time in case someone else is trading on the knowledge.

I am not expecting anything to be found but Apple might get a polite letter from the SEC reminding them to be cautious with their announcements in the future so no questions can be raised.

[chewietobbacca]

Of course, we shouldn't forget the backdating of stock options for Apple employees that went on. Yes, other companies got caught doing it as well, but Apple isn't quite have a squeaky clean image.

The first place to look is going to be in executive/insider share trades going back to Dec 1st at least as that takes it prior to the no Steve @ Macworld announcement i.e first indication something might be going on, then follow on through to a week or so after the announcement. So long as there are no unusual trades, which is narrowed down to about any normal trade that person executes on a consistant basis, ie buy/sell 5000 shares on the same day/date every week/month/year.

Second step is looking at unusual trading habits by particular traders during the same time in case someone else is trading on the knowledge.

I am not expecting anything to be found but Apple might get a polite letter from the SEC reminding them to be cautious with their announcements in the future so no questions can be raised.

Good point. Any insider/executive trading would be a good indicator of intent.

[princigalli]

Of course, we shouldn't forget the backdating of stock options for Apple employees that went on. Yes, other companies got caught doing it as well, but Apple isn't quite have a squeaky clean image.

The first place to look is going to be in executive/insider share trades going back to Dec 1st at least as that takes it prior to the no Steve @ Macworld announcement i.e first indication something might be going on, then follow on through to a week or so after the announcement. So long as there are no unusual trades, which is narrowed down to about any normal trade that person executes on a consistant basis, ie buy/sell 5000 shares on the same day/date every week/month/year.

Second step is looking at unusual trading habits by particular traders during the same time in case someone else is trading on the knowledge.

I am not expecting anything to be found but Apple might get a polite letter from the SEC reminding them to be cautious with their announcements in the future so no questions can be raised.

This makes sense but it's another case after all. Let's just hope he gets well :)

[pprior]

I also believe in free market and the Anglo-American economic model, which has provided us with the best individual development opportunities and produced unmatched creativity. Only in California could Apple start from nothing and provide such innovative solutions.

But I feel that the long time corporate productive model is being replaced by investments seeking short term financial gains. Stock operators with no interest in the companies they invest in. They buy today and sell tomorrow. If the death of a company equals better short term gains, they don't care and are happy.


Funny how we start with such apparent disagreement, yet I couldn't agree with you more on these points! Well put.

[charlituna]

Again, it was private UNTIL they made a public statement saying he was fine. When they reversed course in a week, it's an issue.


the only way it is an issue is if he lied. if he knew that he was NOT fine when he said it.

But if the doctors told him that it was 'a simple hormone imbalance' and then after a week of treatment tested him again and discovered something else was in the mix, like stress, and recommended he take some time off. then he did nothing wrong.

anyone that has ever had a major condition like cancer of any variety, major heart trouble, insulin dependent diabetes, even pregnancy etc knows that your health can change in an instant. And that change can be brought on by pretty much anything.

Find a smoking gun that says that Steve Jobs was told a year ago that his cancer was back and there was no treatment and all this 'stomach flu', 'hormone imbalance' etc is bunk and then you have something to talk about.

because the rules are clear. Even as the CEO of a major public company, Jobs and the Board don't have to say squat about his private life so long as he can do his job. The moment he can't, they have to tell. But until them, lips can be sealed. However, if they tell, they have to tell the truth. and no one can really say that he definitely lied. Not based on the evidence of "well last week he said . . . "

[IJ Reilly]

because the rules are clear. Even as the CEO of a major public company, Jobs and the Board don't have to say squat about his private life so long as he can do his job. The moment he can't, they have to tell. But until them, lips can be sealed. However, if they tell, they have to tell the truth. and no one can really say that he definitely lied. Not based on the evidence of "well last week he said . . . "

The rules are hardly so clear, if only because the way Apple and Steve have handled this from day one has been opaque and apparently contradictory.

I posted this link to MacBytes a couple of weeks ago. It didn't get any comments back then, which is too bad, since I think it goes to the heart of the matter. Maybe someone will be interested in it now.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik15-2009jan15,0,3436551.column