Who knows? We're in an entirely new environment (post-Enron) where board room misdealing are concerned. The Enron situation itself was obviously different, and far, far more serious -- but the Jobs defense is eerily similar. If Jobs gets caught in a web of "should have known," or even worse, "did know but claims ignorance," then I can see him being forced to step down. We're obviously not there yet, but keep in mind admitting wrongdoing is not the same as being exonerated for wrongdoing. Apple can't give themselves a pass. Only the SEC and the courts can do that.
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.
IJ Reilly said,
“This strains belief, and sounds suspiciously like the Ken Lay defense. It didn't work for Lay, where far more complicated financial dealings were involved, and I would not expect it to work for Jobs.”
I responded,
But what happened to Enron is not the same situation at all with Apple.
You said,
Who knows? We're in an entirely new environment (post-Enron) where board room misdealing are concerned...the Jobs defense is eerily similar. If Jobs gets caught in a web of "should have known," or even worse, "did know but claims ignorance," then I can see him being forced to step down...”
Next,
You said,
“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.”
(Fine, but where is the source to back this up? And what people understand these issues?)
I said,
“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.”
You also added,
“True, but Apple being in even worse company does not improve their situation where the law is concerned, and all the mea culpas in the world don't cut much ice with federal prosecutors. They very well might want to make an example of somebody, preferably a prominent somebody, and Apple and Steve Jobs might just be the big fish they're looking for. We just don't know.”
That’s all there was to it. You are lobbing bomb shells but can’t back it up.
Why not respond to the link I posted for Micro Soft back dating stocks?
