Apple's Disclosures Regarding Jobs' Health Remain Under Scrutiny by SEC

[frjonah]

Government is the answer...

I think the SEC has every right to look into Jobs because, after all, we wouldn't want to have any risk in investing, now would we? Furthermore, I think that Jobs should be required to contact the SEC every time he gets into his car because his risk of death will be going up, and we all have a right to know that. The same goes for, well, eating, exercising and using PCs because, as we all know, these things can increase the risk of choking and/or stroke. Come to think of it, the only fair solution to the investors is to have a live web-feed of Steve's life so we can make intelligent decisions on the basis of his behavior.

The "Free Market" definitely has to be totally controlled by infallible government to remain free... that's, like, obvious and stuff.

...am I the only one that is shocked by this rubbish?

iona

Steve, get better and don't worry about ANYTHING but your health right now!

 

[Mattie Num Nums]

The fact of the matter is Apples stock survival has been based on Steve Jobs. By Apple not disclosing the full truth of his condition they put the stock holders in a very bad situation. The SEC has every right to look into this. If for some reason Steve had serious complications, it would have had serious implications on its stock holders new and old.

 

[NT1440]

Steve Jobs, and Apple in general, have profited greatly from his "celebrity" and they have to accept everything that comes with it. If you don't want CEO health/wellbeing to be a marketing/investment consideration, then you have two choices: takes steps to avoid creating an air of celebrity around the CEO, or take the company private and get out from under SEC observation.

What kind of logic is that? Because other people live idolizing people, individuals being idolized should give up their privacy?

Show me the law that says simply because others are stupid enough to care what "celebrities" do with themselves, said celebrities now have no privacy. You are talking about what has sadly become the accepted way of thinking socially, and its just wrong to invade someones life because you think its justified because Joe Schmo has nothing better to do than worship someone.

 

[Shasterball]

It's important to keep the investor communicated what happens health wise to its executives. However, due to the nature of fame (unluckily shall we say?) of the CEO, the issue of privacy arise.

When you become a public figure, you lose a lot of your right to privacy...

 

[Bad Paper]

I don't understand why this SEC rule exists at all -- not just in this particular case. Can anyone convince me that the SEC needs to know this stuff?

 

[NT1440]

When you become a public figure, you lose a lot of your right to privacy...

Show me the law that says that, not just the word of scum sucking paparazzi and the people who have come to think that is right.

What a sickening mindset.

 

[Mattie Num Nums]

I don't understand why this SEC rule exists at all -- not just in this particular case. Can anyone convince me that the SEC needs to know this stuff?

Because if a CEO dies a company could as well. Look at what happened to Apple the first time Steve left. Its very important for a PUBLIC company to keep there shareholders in the loop with things. Privacy for health is one thing but Steve is the CEO of one of the most popular companies in the world and he is a pseudo super star. I guarantee you that if Steve Jobs stepped down tomorrow, Apples stock would go down quite a bit and stay there for a long time. Steve Jobs is Apple.

Show me the law that says that, not just the word of scum sucking paparazzi and the people who have come to think that is right.

What a sickening mindset.

First Amendment. Freedom of Speech and Press. Not saying I like the paparazzi but thats why they are around.

 

[gnasher729]

Apple should disclosure Jobs' Health from the beginning, now they are in hot waters with the government.

In hot waters with the same SEC that ignored how many reports of massive fraud in the Madoff case?

If it involved any sort of fraudulent behavior that affects the way investors would handle stock from a company? Yes, the SEC has lots to say on that. If they feel that there is a legitimate complaint, it is their obligation to investigate.

Apparently they didn't feel that Madoff had to be a fraudster...

 

[NT1440]

Because if a CEO dies a company could as well. Look at what happened to Apple the first time Steve left. Its very important for a PUBLIC company to keep there shareholders in the loop with things. Privacy for health is one thing but Steve is the CEO of one of the most popular companies in the world and he is a pseudo super star. I guarantee you that if Steve Jobs stepped down tomorrow, Apples stock would go down quite a bit and stay there for a long time. Steve Jobs is Apple.

Yet the stock rose even in his absense.....

Yes there was a time where Apple's well being was linked directly with Steve, but now it can easily carry on with the talent its got, it just wont have a "celebrity" out in the public, the companies products are the most loved part of apple. While Steve is well known, the general public doesn't have a clue who he is aside from investors who banked on steve alone rather than apple, geeks like us, and media reporters.

 

[NT1440]

First Amendment. Freedom of Speech and Press. Not saying I like the paparazzi but thats why they are around.

Can you please show me how freedom of speech and the press somehow makes it mandatory that famous people release their medical records? I don't remember that particular part. Sure if they find something by other means they have every right to report on it, they have no right to demand and expect to get that information.

That was quite a stretch there.

 

[DELLsFan]

...Regardless of the extent to which a company has a duty to reveal health matters, it is clear that once a company chooses to speak about an issue, it must do so truthfully...

This is the crux of the matter.

The two matters are separate even though you through them under the umbrella of "personal health matters."

It's called irony. Very few are able to identify it. Those that can and disagree, often use a strawman argument to dilute the effect. I happen to share pavelbure's wonder on the matter.

 

[Mattie Num Nums]

Yet the stock rose even in his absense.....

Yes there was a time where Apple's well being was linked directly with Steve, but now it can easily carry on with the talent its got, it just wont have a "celebrity" out in the public, the companies products are the most loved part of apple. While Steve is well known, the general public doesn't have a clue who he is aside from investors who banked on steve alone rather than apple, geeks like us, and media reporters.

It doesn't matter though. Apple could have said Steve was taking some time off and just ended it there. Instead they disclosed partial information knowingly leaving out certain information because it could be detrimental to the stock. If they said Steve was having a Liver Transplant the stock wouldnt have rose in his absence. You kind of see where I am going. You can't partially disclose info to the public. Thats just a basic SEC law.

Can you please show me how freedom of speech and the press somehow makes it mandatory that famous people release their medical records? I don't remember that particular part. Sure if they find something by other means they have every right to report on it, they have no right to demand and expect to get that information.

That was quite a stretch there.

You said the paparazzi. I refered to that reference.

 

[NT1440]

It doesn't matter though. Apple could have said Steve was taking some time off and just ended it there. Instead they disclosed partial information knowingly leaving out certain information because it could be detrimental to the stock. If they said Steve was having a Liver Transplant the stock wouldnt have rose in his absence. You kind of see where I am going. You can't partially disclose info to the public. Thats just a basic SEC law.

So you have insider info that says at the time Steve took his absence, they knew he was going to need a liver transplant? Unless you do that argument doesn't hold water. Things change, you have no evidence to support that they knew from the beginning he was that bad off.

 

[ULFoaf]

Little doubt they misled

I have little doubt they misled the public about Job's health.

I doubt there will be much action unless someone proves they lost a lot of money because of this misleading. The irony? They would likely have lost more if they said "Steve Jobs has severe health problems causing him to lose weight" and even more later when they said "Steve has to take some time off so he can have a liver transplant."

Such is the stock market - if people believe rise/falls will happen, they take actions that often make it come true. Jobs is sick? I'm selling my Apple stock before it drops! When enough people do this, it of course does drop.

 

[NT1440]

You said the paparazzi. I refered to that reference.

I said paparazzi because they THINK they are entitled to information when theyre not. If they can get ahold of it legally, they can do whatever they want with it, but they cannot demand private information and think they have the legal grounds to do so.

 

[MacCheetah3]

Hi

In that case, I demand to know Steve Ballmer's blood pressure! That dude looks like he's about to pop a vein any second!

Agreed.

I'd be more worried if something happened to Jonathan Ive.

Dang close. Steve is great ( him being fired or fatal medical conditions would be terrible ) and does have influence but he's just the coach ( so to speak ). The players are just as important in the team's success.

On top of that... Apple's overall secrecy hasn't killed them yet. In some ways it helps and some ways it hurts them.

Show me the law that says that, not just the word of scum sucking paparazzi and the people who have come to think that is right.

What a sickening mindset.

Agreed. I get just as annoyed by hearing of such in both that I sometimes couldn't possibly care less and that it shouldn't matter if they are a celebrity. Celebrity equals 24 / 7 FULL surveillance? Their personal life is just that... Personal.

 

[Schtumple]

I'm all for investigating to find OUT if something illegal was done, rather than just assuming either way. Apple should be held responsible if they've broken the law.

But some of the hollering seems to boil down to the premise that a patient's condition doesn't change over time, and that doctors don't do new tests or discover new information over time either.

But the fact is, doctors CAN determine something new--something they did not know a week (or an hour) before.

So if Apple makes one statement one week and an entirely new statement the following week, that's no more impossible than the DOCTOR making a new statement. Which happens all the time. The condition changes, or new test results come in, or whatever.

How much of those private records can be legally seized? I guess we'll find out.

Exactly, to me it does sound entirely plausible that at one point, that's all it looked like, and that was certain (at the time), then some more test results came in that said otherwise, and Apple rightly changed it's line, after this point Steve was on leave, it's kinda (and I mean KINDA) like saying Apple is at fault for not telling people about something that happened to Woz

 

[windywoo]

I said paparazzi because they THINK they are entitled to information when theyre not. If they can get ahold of it legally, they can do whatever they want with it, but they cannot demand private information and think they have the legal grounds to do so.

These aren't the paparazzi interested in Steve Jobs health so they can take pictures and sell magazines. This is an investigative body interested in enforcing industry regulations and shareholders interested in their business.

 

[Beau10]

So you have insider info that says at the time Steve took his absence, they knew he was going to need a liver transplant? Unless you do that argument doesn't hold water. Things change, you have no evidence to support that they knew from the beginning he was that bad off.

Which brings us back to the article this thread is about - the SEC is performing an investigation to find out this is the case. QED.

 

[NT1440]

These aren't the paparazzi interested in Steve Jobs health so they can take pictures and sell magazines. This is an investigative body interested in enforcing industry regulations and shareholders interested in their business.

You're talking about the SEC right? I was talking about the paparazzi in response to someone here saying that we have the RIGHT to someones private life simply because they are famous. Please read my posts in context because this can easily be muddled if not read for what they are.

 

[windywoo]

Your posts confused me. It seemed that you were arguing there was no right to know about his health. If you were arguing just the celebrity side then I apologize.

 

[jbernie]

Anyone heard of HIPA, this should apply to everyone !!!!!! Including Steve .....

I am not sure, but I don't think HIPPA is in play as everyone likes to scream it, the information is released by Apple with Steve Jobs knowledge, not any medical organization (Doctor, hospital, insurance etc). HIPPA is to protect your privacy, not protect you as a CEO from keeping your health a secret. The SEC will not require Apple to release a daily update on Steve Jobs to say he has a cold, or he is jet lagged or whatever, they are only concerned with life changing type events where his health would prevent him from functioning in his assigned role as CEO of Apple.

There are laws regarding full discolure & material information which must be disclosed to the shareholders/investors in a timely manner. Failure to do so raises questions of impropriority regarding all sorts of transactions including buying/selling of stock by insiders. As a shareholder if Apple keeps something quiet, then drops a bombshell on the market and the stocks tank, they will potentially get a fine, but you the shareholder see the value of your portfolio destroyed and all you get to do is wait and see if you can recover your losses or sell out at a potential loss and invest elsewhere.

Warren Buffet is on record as saying his health is material information to his shareholders as he is influential to the performance of the company, just in the same way Steve Jobs is, he also feels that Apple should have been more transparent in what was going on.

---------------------------------

I would think that if Apple was to be found wanting in its communication I would expect them to get a rap over the knuckles and a strongly worded don't let it happen again letter from the SEC, should they be found grossly neglegent ( I don't think they will) I have a feeling they will get a lot more punishment (justified or not) given the current environment and the desire to stick it to businesses who have commited wrong doings.

Apple can do one of two things to make all this talk go away...
1) go private, they would be no longer required to report anything
2) Steve Jobs can take on a different role, ie Evangilist, and step away from the CEO role so his health is not material in the eyes of the SEC. He can still be extremely influential but without the SEC oversight.

Hopefully, this investigation serves a purporse in the sense that the SEC realizes that the laws should be clarified and reduce the grey areas so that companies know that cough = no report, broken leg = no report, liver transplant = report.

I don't disagree that a persons health should remain a private matter, but I realize & understand that for the senior executives of many companies, especially the Fortune 500 type, that the wellbeing of the senior ranks can adversely affect the performance and financial strength of a company.

Yes Apple has boat loads of cash in the bank and they won't fail over night or even next week, month or year should Steve Jobs suddenly die, but short term there is a good chance that Apple's stock would lose value based on this event occuring. Long term investors may see a drop in the value of their investments but not all investors are in Apple or any other stock for the 15-20 year range, some might be in it for the 1-2 year range and knowing the health of the CEO could put his life at stake might make them look for a different company to invest in.

 

[Victor Odin]

Show me the law that says simply because others are stupid enough to care what "celebrities" do with themselves, said celebrities now have no privacy.

When the "celebrities" are CEO's of large publicly traded companies regulated by the SEC, and when their health may have an adverse effect on the stock price ... then there are "laws" that say exactly what you stated above, and the SEC will show them to you in the near future.

 

[iSee]

The SEC is blowing smoke here. They've been asleep at the wheel while the Madoff ran a massive ponzi scheme under their noses (despite being tipped off repeatedly over the years) and while the rating agencies they regulate helped create the global financial meltdown by certifying mortgage-backed securties as AAA investments.

Hey SEC, quit quibbling over the wording of disclosure statements and start doing something useful. These guys are out investigating parking violations while the bank is getting robbed.

 

[Scottsdale]

As a shareholder, I expect the truth. Jobs has his right to privacy, and he would have best served himself to not disclose any information. The problem is it "looks" like Apple was deceptive about the nature of Jobs health issues and there lies a big problem. Jobs took a leave for a diet problem and we later find out he was the sickest patient making him top candidate for the first liver available. I think Apple was deceptive to avoid panic and a stock price drop, and that is a problem. At the same time, this information should be privy to Jobs and his doctors only, so the SEC should have no recourse. Bottom line, don't believe anything Apple discloses about the nature of their employees' health.