Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
By the way I found this on the AP yesterday. After all the hype, smoke and mirrors, this is apparently how other similar companies were reprimanded.

“Dozens of companies already have been forced to restate their earnings, erasing some of their earlier recorded profits, after their stock-option shenanigans came to light.”

In a lot of ways, situations like this, any publicly is good publicity. The only reason this is making news is because of the popularity of Jobs and Apple products.
 
No way Jobs is going to be asked to step down. Ain’t gunna happen.

Is that a guarantee? Can I have it writing? Will you pay me when my Apple stock declines if Jobs is forced out?

Me asking what the appropriate penalty for this in context to similar situations, should not suggest that I think they have been fully exonerated by SEC.

I don’t see the connection to Enron.

Yeah, Jobs is a big dog, but he has teeth too, and isn’t going to be pushed around by an overzealous prosecution.

This is a very legitimate company.

A very legitimate company that just happens to have been caught doing something illegal?

None of us can pretend to know what will happen next. One of them could be Jobs stepping down. Is that likely? Probably not. Is it possible? Absolutely.
 

Thanks for the info…

“McGuire holds $1.1 billion in potentially backdated stock options.”

"The report found that the compensation committee of the UnitedHealth board was not informed about the dates on the stock options and that the board was not informed of the full extent of the financial relationships between McGuire and William Spears, chair of the committee.”

"It might be seen as better than the worst-case scenario. If Hemsley had left too, many investors would have seen this as a complete leadership disruption"

This looks the board didn’t approve the options, so that’s different.

Apparently Jobs didn’t profit from this in the same way.

The company was also concerned how the lack of leadership would affect them. And when you assess Apple, S. Jobs stepping down would be a last resort. That’s why the board expressed their confidence in him.

Apple doesn’t sell health insurance. If you look at Donald Trump, for example, he makes hundreds of millions just by letting developers use his name for hotels and whatnot. I don’t like Trump, but this is the same kind of relationship for Apple and Jobs.

I also never said everyone was fully exonerated and I haven’t been the one suggesting anyone is going to jail or stepping down, without some kind of reasoning to back it up.

I see no reason this will be more than a fine.
 
This looks the board didn’t approve the options, so that’s different.

Proper board approval is also very much an issue in the Apple situation!

Apparently Jobs didn’t profit from this in the same way.

Personal profit isn't the main issue. Correct financial reporting is. If it can be shown that Jobs knew that the back-dated options (not just his!) should have been reported as expenses in the company's balance sheet, then his goose is almost certainly cooked. The problem is, it should not be hard to demonstrate that he knew, or at least should have known. The effort to blame all of this on two departed execs is probably not going to be enough to save him if the feds decide to pursue this issue.

The company was also concerned how the lack of leadership would affect them. And when you assess Apple, S. Jobs stepping down would be a last resort. That’s why the board expressed their confidence in him.

Apple doesn’t sell health insurance. If you look at Donald Trump, for example, he makes hundreds of millions just by letting developers use his name for hotels and whatnot. I don’t like Trump, but this is the same kind of relationship for Apple and Jobs.

I also never said everyone was fully exonerated and I haven’t been the one suggesting anyone is going to jail or stepping down, without some kind of reasoning to back it up.

I see no reason this will be more than a fine.

Unfortunately, I can see plenty of reasons why it could turn far less than fine, and so can quite a number of people who understand these issues. The feds are not going to care two hoots about how important Jobs is to Apple.

Bottom line: I can't afford wishful thinking. I've got too much of my own money at stake.
 
Proper board approval is also very much an issue in the Apple situation!



Personal profit isn't the main issue. Correct financial reporting is. If it can be shown that Jobs knew that the back-dated options (not just his!) should have been reported as expenses in the company's balance sheet, then his goose is almost certainly cooked. The problem is, it should not be hard to demonstrate that he knew, or at least should have known. The effort to blame all of this on two departed execs is probably not going to be enough to save him if the feds decide to pursue this issue.



Unfortunately, I can see plenty of reasons why it could turn far less than fine, and so can quite a number of people who understand these issues. The feds are not going to care two hoots about how important Jobs is to Apple.

Bottom line: I can't afford wishful thinking. I've got too much of my own money at stake.


I was saying is that the shareholders aren’t going to want him to step down. He might get fed up with them, and whatever they take out of his pocket with a lawsuit, he can demand twice as much the next year, cash.

I think this is why the board is supporting him.

I’m not suggesting how anyone should invest their own money.

I’m just not jumping to conclusions.
 
In the bigger scheme of things this may wind up being a very inexpensive lesson for Steve, the board, and the Apple executives - ASSUMING that no other significant wrongdoing took place. The recent lesson in this arena is to NOT compound things with any obfuscation and cover up efforts. Fess up - come clean - pay your "dues" - learn the lesson - get the focus back on serving the customer and stockholders.
 
The Apple board DID approve it.The official date is whats wrong.

The records refer to the date of a board meeting that did not occur. Apple is not saying any more about this, but I have a feeling the feds are not going to be satisfied with this explanation.

I was saying is that the shareholders aren’t going to want him to step down. He might get fed up with them, and whatever they take out of his pocket with a lawsuit, he can demand twice as much the next year, cash.

I think this is why the board is supporting him.

I’m not suggesting how anyone should invest their own money.

I’m just not jumping to conclusions.

The board will stand fully behind him until they don't. That's how it works in the corporate world, and many other places too. If Jobs gets hung by his thumbs by the feds over this, he will leave, and not because the board wants it to happen. They would do it to get out of hot water with the SEC.

Saying, "No way Jobs is going to be asked to step down. Ain’t gunna happen" -- THIS is jumping to conclusions.
 
Bottom line: I can't afford wishful thinking. I've got too much of my own money at stake.

It sounds like you have something to gain by the stocks going down.

What’s that called, trading on the short?

Looks like your friends in the know perhaps weren’t so knowledgeable after all because the stocks went up on friday.

All I’m asking is to make one statement at a time and back it up, otherwise people might think your not playing with full deck of cards or trying to deal off the bottom.
 
No, anyone holding Apple stock should think really carefully about it..



I just said I wasn’t suggesting how anyone should invest their money.

I have backed up all my points, I’m not going to start repeating myself here, simply because a few people take parts of statements out of context.

If I don’t post back here any time soon that doesn’t mean I agree with some of you, nor does it mean I didn’t learn something either.
 
do they really have 84 million lying around from their couple billion dollar profits?

Lets get with the financial program - from Apple's 12/29/2006 10K filing they have right at $10 BILLION in cash or cash equivalents - so $85 million is - well - you do the math.

Secondly - the issue at hand is a balance sheet problem involving shareholder equity. There is CURRENTLY no cash flow requirement to pay anyone $85 million.

The shareholder lawsuit may change that and, if it does, we might see Fred Anderson and several other execs have to come up with $$$$ they should not have received.

We'll know soon.
 
Great now we can move on. How about one more thing.... and another.... and another.... and another..... !!!!!!!! :D :D :D :D
 
So the board should have simply wrote him a check instead of backdating options?

Not necessarily. There's nothing illegal about backdating options - if it's done correctly. The board might prefer to pay him with options rather than cash - since the value of the options are dependent on the share price. Options give him an additional incentive to raise the share price, while paying him with cash does not.

Backdating is simply a clumsy way of giving him both current value and future potential.

Spooky, just replace "UnitedHealth" with "Apple Computer", and "McQuire" with "Jobs".

It's the same story - except that Jobs hasn't been forced to resign yet.

Hardly the same story.

First, the story implies that there were financial ties between the committee chairman and the CEO. That's definitely a no-no, especially when the board is not informed.

Second, the CEO profited handsomely, Jobs did not.

Third, the board apparently didn't know anything about the options - unlike the Apple case.

Finally, Apple has made its shareholders a huge amount of money over the past 4 years and the stock options are an insignificant percentage. The relevant facts are not presented for this case.

I can see how your rabid anti-Apple hatred would make you jump on this case, but it's not even close.
 

Attachments

  • scam1.jpg
    scam1.jpg
    15.4 KB · Views: 96
  • scam2.jpg
    scam2.jpg
    51.7 KB · Views: 89
It sounds like you have something to gain by the stocks going down.

What’s that called, trading on the short?

Looks like your friends in the know perhaps weren’t so knowledgeable after all because the stocks went up on friday.

All I’m asking is to make one statement at a time and back it up, otherwise people might think your not playing with full deck of cards or trying to deal off the bottom.

I'm not sure if I'm following you, but I'm quite certain that you aren't following me. FWIW, I've been a "long" investor in AAPL since 1997. That modest investment nine years ago has turned into quite a chunk of change, a significant part of my investment portfolio. So if something happens to Steve Jobs, I stand to get hurt, big time. I've been there before, having had a front-row seat for every one of Apple's bumps in the road over these years, and having felt them personally in my rear-end. Trust me, there have been far too many.

All of which is more than you deserve to know. The point being, you really ought to pay better attention to what someone is saying, instead of attempting to fabricate ulterior motives for their having said it.

In any event, this the kind of thing people with actual money at stake need to know:

Apple report fails to end stock-option controvesy

CEO Jobs is cleared, but questions remain about his role in backdating grants.

Apple Computer Inc. on Friday cleared Chief Executive Steve Jobs of wrongdoing regarding its improper handling of stock options, but new details from an internal investigation only fueled controversy.

The company revealed that Jobs "was aware or recommended" the selection of favorable dates for stock options awarded to other executives, although he didn't personally profit or "appreciate the accounting implications" of the practice, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Previously, the Cupertino, Calif.-based technology giant said only that Jobs had been aware of the backdating but didn't personally benefit from it.

Apple also disclosed that a special board meeting in which directors were said to have approved an improperly dated option grant to Jobs never took place.

The disclosures could mean that questions regarding the backdating of options at Apple and Jobs' role in it won't go away any time soon, despite the company's effort to put the matter to rest, an industry expert said.

"The company is desperately trying to make us believe that just because [Jobs] wasn't self-dealing directly and because they've come clean and done a thorough investigation, that this is OK," said Christopher Whalen, managing director of Institutional Risk Analytics, a Hawthorne-based financial research firm.

"The problem is that it might not be. We don't know how the SEC or other authorities are going to react to these disclosures."

In the filing, Apple held to its previous claim that the three-month probe by a special board committee had found no wrongdoing by Jobs or other members of its current management.

"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," former Vice President Al Gore, chairman of the committee, and Jerome York, chairman of Apple's audit and finance committee, said in a joint statement.

The current scandal over option backdating has ensnared more than 180 U.S. companies and claimed the jobs of several high-level executives, including Bruce Karatz, then head of Los Angeles home builder KB Home.

Investors have fretted that the issue could potentially unseat Jobs, who is credited with reviving Apple's fortunes with such popular products as the iPod music player.

But Wall Street appeared reassured by the board's strong support for Jobs and the news that correcting the option backdating would require it to reduce its previously reported earnings by $84 million — a relatively small amount for a company that earned almost $2 billion in its fiscal year that ended Sept. 30.

Apple's stock, which had dropped almost 12% in the last month as concerns about the option issue grew, jumped almost 5% on Friday. Several stock analysts and portfolio managers expressed hope that the company would now be able to put questions behind it.

Options are rights to buy stock at a set price within a certain time period. The price of stock to be bought using an option is generally the stock's market price on the day the option is granted by the company's board.

In their current probes of option practices, regulators are focusing on so-called backdating, whereby option grant dates are changed by weeks or months to coincide with the stock's lowest price in a particular period. Doing so could give the executives instant paper gains on their options. It could also cause a company's financial results to understate compensation costs and overstate earnings.

Backdating isn't necessarily illegal, but failing to disclose the practice in a timely manner is.

In its most detailed account yet of its option practices, Apple said its internal investigation uncovered dating irregularities with 6,428 option awards to various Apple employees on 42 dates between October 1996 and January 2003.

Of two option grants made to Jobs during that period, the company's probe found that an award of options to buy 7.5 million shares was dated Oct. 19, 2001, when the exercise price was $18.30 a share, instead of the correct date of Dec. 18, 2001, when the price was $21.01. The difference could have meant an extra $20 million for Jobs.

That grant, along with one awarded in January 2000 for 10 million shares, was canceled in 2003, when Jobs was given 5 million shares of restricted stock, the company said.

The filing also reported that approval of the 2001 grant to Jobs "was improperly recorded as occurring at a special board meeting on October 19, 2001. Such a special board meeting did not occur."

The filing did not elaborate on the meeting that didn't take place, and an Apple spokesman declined to provide additional details. "Apple's most recent filing creates more questions than it answers," said Christopher Bebel, a former federal prosecutor and SEC counsel. "And many of the assertions serve as a launching pad for 20 Questions.

"It seems clear that the board is trying to whitewash these problems. But in reality, it's wishful thinking. This problem is growing larger with each denial, because the denials are so suspect."

The company's insistence that Jobs was unaware of the accounting ramifications of the backdated option grants given to fellow Apple employees also raised eyebrows.

Apple "has a lot of explaining to do," said former federal prosecutor Jan Handzlik. "This is not a matter of esoteric accounting principles applied to very imaginative and aggressive transactions. This is pretty straightforward."

In its SEC filing, Apple again sought to place responsibility for its option backdating on two departed executives. The company hasn't identified the two, but they are understood to be former Chief Financial Officer Fred Anderson, who resigned from the board four days before Apple announced the results of the internal probe Oct. 4, and former General Counsel Nancy Heinen, who left the company in the spring.

Anderson was not a member of Apple's compensation committee at the time of the 2001 grant to Jobs and "had no knowledge of any impropriety relating to this option grant," Anderson's attorney, Jerome Roth, said in a statement.

Heinen couldn't be reached for comment. She has denied any wrongdoing in the matter.

The U.S. attorney's office in San Francisco, which is conducting a broad probe of option backdating, and the SEC declined to comment on Apple's filing.

At least 11 shareholder lawsuits have been filed against Apple alleging improper option dating. The suits have been consolidated into a single case in federal court in San Jose.

In conducting its inquiry, Apple said, the panel analyzed 42,077 option grants made on 259 dates, examining more than 1 million paper and electronic documents and interviewing more than 40 current and former employees, board members and advisors.

Apple's shares closed Friday at $84.84, up $3.97.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-apple30dec30,1,5846395.story
 
All of which is more than you deserve to know. The point being, you really ought to pay better attention to what someone is saying, instead of attempting to fabricate ulterior motives for their having said it.
url]


If you want to come in here lobbing bomb shells, be prepared to back it up. Which you have failed to do.

I could care less about your investments. Your the one who brought it up because you couldn’t support the overzealous prosecution theory.
 
Apparently Microsoft backdated stock options as well.

I’m more interested in primary sources as to how this is going to play out.

I appreciate the dooms dayers, but so far there is no reasoning to support this.

I’m not saying someone isn’t going to drop the bomb, but so far no one has. Just wild speculation.

Ok the stocks have been fluctuating… thanks for the generous info. (wrong thread anyway)

Anyway here is another link... is this similar?


http://users2.wsj.com/lmda/do/checkL...981081966.html
 
If you want to come in here lobbing bomb shells, be prepared to back it up. Which you have failed to do.

I could care less about your investments. Your the one who brought it up because you couldn’t support the overzealous prosecution theory.

Well, it seems that you "could care less" about my investments, because you accused me of "having something to gain" from the stock going down. The only way to respond to this patently ridiculous accusation is to demonstrate how completely wrong it is.

Did you read the article I posted? Are you prepared to comment on it? Have you supplied any evidence for your theories? Any at all?

If you can't answer affirmatively to all of these questions, and if you insist on making personal accusations, then I have to suggest that you back off, before you get yourself in hot water.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.