Your GENUINELY?
That's very emphatic, you were obviously VERY excited about the iPhone.
Well your not alone.
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 Re-Investigate Jobs?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Your GENUINELY?
That's very emphatic, you were obviously VERY excited about the iPhone.
Well your not alone.
Why is this news??
Everyone already knew steve was aware about the backdating, he just wasn't cognizant of the legal repercussions. The SEC knew that, so Anderson's statement isn't revelatory in any way that I can see.... he's just trying to say "its not my fault."
Everyone already knew steve was aware about the backdating, he just wasn't cognizant of the legal repercussions. The SEC knew that, so Anderson's statement isn't revelatory in any way that I can see.... he's just trying to say "its not my fault."
I'm only trying to help....
Yes I am excited about iPhone - It's virtually a mac' in my pocket - what Apple fan wouldn't be excited about that ?
Maybe the SEC did accept that Jobs was unaware of the legal issues and as such chose to cut him some leeway. Unfortunately the CFO testifying that he'd made Jobs aware of the issue would at best cast doubt on that defence, if not knacker it completely.
The SEC are these days absolute death on improper accounting practices so if they do get sufficient information to prosecute I would expect them to throw the book at Jobs (and with good reason).
Personally I have no idea what really happened but have to let the SEC do their job - if that means reopening the investigation then so be it, if not then fine.
None of this is news and all is gossip/rumors/spin/distraction, pushed by hedge funds, etc., intended to create uncertainty and volatility in Apple stock. Like clockwork, in the past couple years, good news at Apple has been accompanied by "SJ ate my dog" caliber stories. Further, IMHO, the SEC is unlikely to do anything since any action against SJ would hurt Apple and the shareholders, thus hurting one of the few innovative US companies doing well on the world stage. The Bush administration has enough trouble without shooting itself in the other foot.
If he did make false statements, that would be perjury. Not only would he not be able be an officer in any publicly traded company, he would be spend a couple years hanging with Scooter Libby in a federal prison. That's not so good.
But a press release can't be perjury.
Its possible that Anderson is trying to throw Jobs under the bus. Its also possible that Steve knew about what was going on an that it was illegal. Then again I think all of this happened pre-Sarbains-Oxley(damn scary that the spell checker recognizes both names!)
Ya know,
I really, really hope this ain't true. I will feel pretty let down.
I think we all had a soft spot for the Jobster. If he turns out to be a another callous, self serving, arrogant, egocentric, (ok, i'm getting carried away)
then....I don't know.
I mean,
Bummer man.
Stevie, say it isn't so!
I really, really hope this ain't true. I will feel pretty let down.
I think we all had a soft spot for the Jobster. If he turns out to be a another callous, self serving, arrogant, egocentric, (ok, i'm getting carried away)
then....I don't know.
I mean,
Bummer man.
Stevie, say it isn't so!
Well, we knew all that already. The only issue for me is, what happens to Apple once he's out of the picture? Does he have any capable underlings, or would it suddenly be like the 90s all over again? We've already had the cancer scare; I was looking forward to old age and retirement being the only barriers to keeping him in charge permanently. Frickin' SEC... well if he deserves it they should throw the book at him; I just hope the judge and jury value their iPods and MacBooks more than, like, the law, or the truth or what have you...
I guess if he had some smoking-gun type evidence, he would have used it in his defense. Instead he cried mommy and made a plea deal. I don't know if that means he does or doesn't have hard evidence.
Now something else to consider is the other defendant that did NOT make a plea deal. She might have firm evidence of Jobs involvement.
In any case, I feel Jobs, being CEO, should have personally made sure this (and ANY financial statement) was properly filed knowing people go to jail for things like this.
Now something else to consider is the other defendant that did NOT make a plea deal. She might have firm evidence of Jobs involvement.
In any case, I feel Jobs, being CEO, should have personally made sure this (and ANY financial statement) was properly filed knowing people go to jail for things like this.
He isn't gone yet!
Man, he isn't gone yet... Let's give Steve the benefit of the doubt and not talk about him in the past tense like he's already in jail...
Man, he isn't gone yet... Let's give Steve the benefit of the doubt and not talk about him in the past tense like he's already in jail...
I'm not sure that is correct. I believe that Apple itself can be sued as a company, and then in a quite separate instance, the SEC can go after individuals within Apple.
Yeah, why would it matter if he lied to officials charged with investing possible illegal corporate activity? What's the big deal, right?
I'm impressed with Steve Jobs' skill at running Apple and providing market vision but that is completely irrelevant in relation to this investigation.
If he was involved with back-dating stock grants this is equivalent to stealing from the company, stealing from every shareholder of Apple stock. I never understood why people view burglars and shop-lifters as horrible people but a criminal that uses legal documents and accountants is only being a little mischievous. At least most criminals that commit traditional thievery do it out of desperation. White-collar crime is not done out of desperation - it's done out of greed and that's far worse in my opinion.
Steve Jobs and Apple cooperated fully with the SEC. Anderson pleaded the fifth; The SEC should either drop it or investigate Anderson more since he seems to be the one who wasn't initially being very cooperative and then all the sudden drops this bomb.
Maybe under good faith Apple should pay the stockholders the difference.
Since all of the happened before the new law was added; it makes sense that any wrong doing should be punished how ever it was before the new law.
-mark
Maybe under good faith Apple should pay the stockholders the difference.
Since all of the happened before the new law was added; it makes sense that any wrong doing should be punished how ever it was before the new law.
-mark
Hello?? Do you understand the issue? It's not stealing. It's not greed. It's accounting. SJ didn't just give himself options at a lower price w/o the knowledge of the board. What he received was bargained for compensation. More options would have had to have been given if at a higher price to confer the same benefit. Generally, under existing rules, options grants are supposed to be at the price on the date of the grant, or if at a lower price, under accounting rules there's an immediate value, and expense to the corporation. If over the course of a week a stock goes up 10%, those options are worth 10% more a week later. Backdating confers an immediate benefit, even though not presently exercisable, and even if drop 10% a week later, becoming worthless. But substantively, nothing has changed. The options are there. The exercise price is the same. It's an accounting issue. It's wrong. It's now clearly against the rules. But it was fairly common back then in accounting circles. That doesn't make any of it right, but put it in the proper perspective.
I think it may have been mentioned already, but there's little doubt that whatever Fred Anderson had to say to the SEC, he said to them long ago -- or a least before they struck the plea agreement with him. It looks to me like Anderson is the guy who feels like he's been thrown under the bus and is getting back at Steve Jobs in the one way he can -- by making public statements he's already made to SEC investigators.
No. First, it may be like betting on a 10 lap race after the first 100 yards when there are restrictions on exercise. Second, it's betting with the same entity granting the options which is willing to give that little, potential head start, not with the general public. There is nothing wrong with getting options with a backdated lower price. It's how they are accounted for that's the problem.
There is something illegal about falsifying board meetings to get your back dated stock options. In my opinion, the only reason SJ is still Apples CEO is because if they fire him, Apples stock will lose 25% of its value. The thing that pisses me off is, SJ has more money than 100 of us will ever see in our lifetime,s and he still is involved in a scheme to get more. If he in innocent, then he will proven so, if he is guilty, then he needs to be punished for it.
I love Apple products as much as the next guy, but Im tired of people being greedy. Its the little guy that always pays.
I love Apple products as much as the next guy, but Im tired of people being greedy. Its the little guy that always pays.
