Job's health

[carlgo]

The recent false news about Jobs health makes me wonder. It is the law for corporations to disclose situations that could negatively impact their stock price. Jobs is the ultimate icon and his health would certainly seem to fall under this law.

Isn't it a surprise that Apple stockholders haven't sued for the release of this information? If Jobs was rushed to the hospital with a serious disease that he had been treating with bogus alternatives for some time, and the stock crashed even lower, you can bet there would be a huge lawsuit for non-disclosure.

Jobs clearly doesn't think he owes anyone an explanation. As a private citizen he would be right. As an iconic symbol of a huge corporation that is connected to millions of stockholders and retirement investments he has to give up that part of his individuality.

It is part of the price for having jets and billions of dollars.

My disclosure is that I have 100 shares that are at a greater risk than they should be. And I have no jet

 

[northy124]

My god they haven't sued as it was false, we have to stop with these BS threads asking or saying something about Job's health.

People need to stop taking rumours so seriously until they are confirmed.

Sorry for the rant, might of ****ed up what I was trying to say but whatever.

 

[SkyBell]

He already stated he knew it was false, but I think he's talking about a hypothetical situation here.

 

[zioxide]

lol what? Suing for somebody's private medical information?

 

[northy124]

He already stated he knew it was false, but I think he's talking about a hypothetical situation here.

Hmm OK but it is hard to tell as he flip flops.

 

[nick9191]

Steve Jobs does not have to tell you anything. If you don't like it then don't invest. Simple as.

 

[EricNau]

Unless you're aware of alternative evidence, it seems to me that Apple Inc. has been very honest and forthcoming regarding Steve Jobs' health.

Just because some choose not to believe it, doesn't warrant an investigation.

 

[kornyboy]

Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.1 Mobile/5F136 Safari/525.20)

Steve Jobs does not have to tell you anything. If you don't like it then don't invest. Simple as.

And if you are already invested don't be so skiddish and sell when Jobs farts. Apple is a company that is doing pretty well even in "difficult" times (quoting the US government) and though Jobs health probably will have an effect on stock price, it is private information. This information probably shouldn't have anything to do with stock price but this happens when a companies success is tied so closely to an individual by its own stock holders (ie if the stock drops because something happens to SJ it is the fault of the stock holders themselves). I don't think anyone has any ground to sue apple for not disclosing personal information.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Unless you're aware of alternative evidence, it seems to me that Apple Inc. has been very honest and forthcoming regarding Steve Jobs' health.

Actually, no they haven't. They have hardly addressed it at all.

But I also don't understand why we need yet another thread on this topic. The questions about whether Apple "is required" to disclose more about Jobs' health (they are not), or whether they "should" disclose more about his health (absolutely) have been discussed at great length elsewhere.

 

[EricNau]

Actually, no they haven't. They have hardly addressed it at all.

They haven't given us any evidence, no, but they've made several announcements regarding Jobs' health. There's no reason why we shouldn't believe them.

 

[jemeinc]

The recent false news about Jobs health makes me wonder. It is the law for corporations to disclose situations that could negatively impact their stock price. Jobs is the ultimate icon and his health would certainly seem to fall under this law.

I:

In your opinion.. I agree with your assessment of the value Jobs brings to the company, but they have done NOTHING illegal.. maybe they haven't fulfilled their moral obligation to their shareholders, but they're well within their legal obligations

 

[Melrose]

As a private citizen he would be right. As an iconic symbol of a huge corporation that is connected to millions of stockholders and retirement investments he has to give up that part of his individuality.

My health is my business, his health is his business. Whatever happened to privacy? Everyone should be treated equally - granted if you're trying to get into the Marines you need to be in good health, but running a company? C'mon...

And I wouldn't say he's the 'ultimate icon.' Don't get me wrong, I love Apple products - but it really has nothing to do with whether I like Steve of not...

Steve Jobs does not have to tell you anything. If you don't like it then don't invest. Simple as.

word. No one forced Jobs to become so popular.. he did his thing and did it well and people followed.

 

[carlgo]

I really wasn't trying to rehash the sickness thing, or discuss privacy issues. Those have indeed been discussed to death. I am just interested in the actual corporate legalities because I haven't really seen anything on this.

 

[IJ Reilly]

They haven't given us any evidence, no, but they've made several announcements regarding Jobs' health. There's no reason why we shouldn't believe them.

Evidence wasn't a word I used. I'm not seeking evidence, and I doubt many others are either. Unless you can show me another, the most "detailed" official reference to his health, several months ago, was that he was "fine." Just looking at him, most people would say that this one word answer doesn't pass the smell test. A slightly longer answer might well do the trick, as in: "Weight loss is a common result of surgery for pancreatic cancer. Steve is being tested regularly and appropriately by his doctors and remains cancer free."

There you go, all of 25 words, which would go a long way towards calming investor fears. That didn't hurt so much, did it?

In your opinion.. I agree with your assessment of the value Jobs brings to the company, but they have done NOTHING illegal.. maybe they haven't fulfilled their moral obligation to their shareholders, but they're well within their legal obligations

Probably not "illegal" but as you say, the way Steve and Apple have handled these issues leaves a lot to be desired ethically.