Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
SEC To Investigate Apple's Disclosures Regarding Jobs' Health?
- Thread starter Unspeaked
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Remember not to get sick or die, ever.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
More Bs
So some investors are getting nervous, going to loose the mansion, and yacht, and other properties
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?
So some investors are getting nervous, going to loose the mansion, and yacht, and other properties
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?
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
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.
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
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.
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.
So some investors are getting nervous, going to loose the mansion, and yacht, and other properties
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
+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?