That is perhaps a false dichotomy. A company that truly cares about creating long-run value for its shareholders cannot achieve that goal without being in it for their customers.
Exactly. Focus on the really important facet of your business (the customers) and the rest (i.e. shareholder value) will take care of itself.
The point I've made a couple of times already here is that I think it's a shame that Apple exposes the company to lawsuits of this kind
Our legal system is so fractured right now that they could cough at an inopportune moment and get sued for sending an inappropriate signal.
I don't place that as a problem with Apple but the system in general. You obviously don't agree - and that's fine. As you point out, the only way this will ever be "resolved" is for something to play out in court. Until then, it's just speculation (something this place lives for). Have fun speculating and pontificating...
And that's exactly where the problem lies. Other than that, he owes you an apology but only if you apologise to him first for all the times you were wrong!
I am sure I will upset the Apple fanboys in here but this is wrong. I am an Apple shareholder and Jobs health affects the price of the stock. If he should pass on without warning many people would take a hit in regards to their investment. I do not applaud the manipulation by Apple on this issue. There are laws against this because of the importance of this type of information in regards to a companies value that is so dependent on the presence of one person. Whether there are other people that will adequately run the company or they have great products the passing of Jobs if it happened would negatively affect the stock for a time. I hope for once someone puts Apples feet to the fire on this.
Have you read the SEC rules? I didn't think so. Everything you wrote is wrong.
Apple is required by law to report known information that is material to the company performance. There are many defenses to your argument. Just a few:
1. By law, Apple is precluded from releasing that information (HIPAA). That would make it a criminal offense to report on Jobs' health.
2. Apple claims that at the time of their report, all they knew was that there was a hormone imbalance. When they learned that it was more complex, they reported THAT. Do you have evidence that they knew back in January that he was going to have a liver transplant? How do you know that Jobs told the board ANYTHING beyond what the board reported? What makes you think he's required to?
3. Apple has incredible depth in their management ranks. They seem to be doing just fine without Jobs - so it's not hard to argue that his health was not material.
4. By the time the liver transplant became an issue, Jobs was on leave - so it was clearly not material.
5. By your logic, Dell should report that Michael Dell eats cheeseburgers at McDonalds. Or Steve Ballmer doesn't exercise regularly. Or Scott Nealy has high cholesterol. Or Bill Gates visits hookers. (I don't know - or care - if any of those are true. I made them up as examples). Any one of those things can lead to incapacity or death, as well. The fact is that none of them need to be reported.
In spite of all the ranting of conspiracy loonies, there's absolutely no evidence that Apple had an obligation to report more than they did.
The damnable irony is that if Apple had only been slightly more up-front about this, then nobody would be talking about it. It's their effort to slam the lid down tight that has caused all the chatter.
Bull. The media has shown that regardless of disclosure they will always be all up in Jobs' junk, or any one else's for that matter. Only a fool would think that nobody would be talking about Jobs' health if there were some kind of full disclosure. The media are ruthless jackals that feed off "The next big story", regardless of truth or disclosure.
No, because they think it's a good idea. There is no evidence that says "....it's generally a good idea..."
This seems like a distinction without a difference. Where rules create grey areas, some chose to play away from the hazy line, and others choose to play close to the line. That's a choice. The former is less likely to be exposed to litigation than the latter.
Quote:
The article is shallow nonsense. For instance, Prof Elson is quoted in the article as saying: "In this environment, where transparency is critical, the more information you give the marketplace the better,.....?
There is absolutely no evidence to back up a sweeping assertion like that.
I took that as being in terms of potentially running afoul of the SEC regulations. I don't think it's an over-generalization to suggest that erring on the side of disclosure is less likely to get a company in trouble than minimizing disclosure.
Bull. The media has shown that regardless of disclosure they will always be all up in Jobs' junk, or any one else's for that matter. Only a fool would think that nobody would be talking about Jobs' health if there were some kind of full disclosure. The media are ruthless jackals that feed off "The next big story", regardless of truth or disclosure.
It tends to be difficult to indulge in speculation when the facts are known.
And that's exactly where the problem lies. Other than that, he owes you an apology but only if you apologise to him first for all the times you were wrong!
Man- he must have done something good to you, the way you're defending him all over the place.
Besides he already admitted that I was correct ( which is the same as admitting that he was wrong).
And finally I have no idea what you are talking about-"all the times you were wrong"?
Our legal system is so fractured right now that they could cough at an inopportune moment and get sued for sending an inappropriate signal.
I don't place that as a problem with Apple but the system in general. You obviously don't agree - and that's fine. As you point out, the only way this will ever be "resolved" is for something to play out in court. Until then, it's just speculation (something this place lives for). Have fun speculating and pontificating...
Fine, but I'm not the one doing the speculating, or trying to judge the worthiness of the regulations or the legal system. I don't know why anyone would in this context. I'm also not the one pretending to know precisely what the regulations require. Nobody really does. Even the experts don't agree. That's the entire point of what I've been saying. If you want to stay out of court, steer clear of the fuzzy legal lines. Seems like noncontroversial, straight-forward common sense to me.
Bull. The media has shown that regardless of disclosure they will always be all up in Jobs' junk, or any one else's for that matter. Only a fool would think that nobody would be talking about Jobs' health if there were some kind of full disclosure. The media are ruthless jackals that feed off "The next big story", regardless of truth or disclosure.
Jobs besides being the COO of Apple is also a celebrity - what do you expect from the media and the public?
OK. There's way too much speculation and misinformation going on here on the topic of what is required disclosure by the SEC for listed US companies.
------
Here's what the SEC says is ..."The comprehensive list of prescribed corporate events that are presumptively material and that must be disclosed, or will likely be required to be disclosed, with the U.S. SEC on Form 8-K:"
• Changes in control of a company;
• A company’s acquisition or disposition of a significant amount of assets;
• A company’s bankruptcy or receivership;
• Changes in a company’s certifying accountant;
• Resignations of a company’s directors, circumstances for the departure of a director, the appointment or departure of a principal officer, and the election of new directors other than pursuant to a vote of security holders at an annual meeting;
• Change in a company’s fiscal year and amendments to a company’s articles of incorporation or bylaws that were not previously disclosed in a proxy statement or other such disclosure document;
• Entry into a material agreement not made in the ordinary course of business;
• Termination of a material agreement not made in the ordinary course of business;
• Termination or reduction of a business relationship with a customer that constitutes a specified amount of the company’s revenues;
• Creation of a direct or contingent financial obligation that is material to the company;
• Events triggering a direct or contingent financial obligation that is material to the company, including any default or acceleration of an obligation;
• Exit activities including material write-offs and restructuring charges;
• Any material impairment;
• A change in a rating agency decision, issuance of a credit watch or change in a company outlook;
• Movement of the company’s securities from one exchange or quotation system to another, delisting of the company’s securities from an exchange or quotation system, or a notice that a company does not comply with a listing standard;
• Conclusion or notice that security holders no longer should rely on the company’s previously issued financial statements or a related audit report;
• Any material limitation, restriction or prohibition, including the beginning and end of lock-out periods, regarding the company’s employee benefits, retirement and stock ownership plan;
• Unregistered sales of equity securities by the company;
• Material modifications to rights of holders of the company’s securities;
• Earnings releases;
• Changes in earnings guidance; and
• Other materially different information regarding key financial or operations trends from that set forth in periodic reports.
Fine, but I'm not the one doing the speculating, or trying to judge the worthiness of the regulations or the legal system. I don't know why anyone would in this context. I'm also not the one pretending to know precisely what the regulations require. Nobody really does. Even the experts don't agree. That's the entire point of what I've been saying. If you want to stay out of court, steer clear of the fuzzy legal lines. Seems like noncontroversial, straight-forward common sense to me.
And when you have surgery, do you always want the whole world to know about it?
Steve Jobs is not just Apple's CEO. He's a real person, with a real family, real friends, and a life outside of work. This is a personal, medical matter which doesn't seem to have had a materially adverse effect on AAPL's performance.
We should all have enough decency to respect the privacy of others. This becomes even more important when someone is going through something painful, like a liver transplant.
My entitlement is due to the fact I invested hard earned money into their stock and I have a right under the law to such important information. If Apple does not want to abide by the law or wants this type of privacy then let them take that stockpile of cash and take the company private.
I, too, own a ton of AAPL, & legally as long as the Board truthfully (the operative word) keeps the public informed of the status of Steve Jobs as related to his capacity at Apple, that is sufficient. NOBODY has a right to know the details of his health issues nor what is going on in the design labs. Please quit whining folks.
Here's what the SEC says is ..."The comprehensive list of prescribed corporate events that are presumptively material and that must be disclosed, or will likely be required to be disclosed, with the U.S. SEC on Form 8-K:"............
I should have added above that the '8-K' is the report that companies must file with the SEC to announce major events that shareholders should know about.
My entitlement is due to the fact I invested hard earned money into their stock and I have a right under the law to such important information. If Apple does not want to abide by the law or wants this type of privacy then let them take that stockpile of cash and take the company private.
You might have some credibility if you actually had some harm done to you, but you haven't. If you bought AAPL on January 14, when the hormone imbalance and leave of absence were announced and sold it today, you'd be up 57% in a little over five months.
There is absolutely nothing there about the health of a CEO. Period.
The word "presumptively" is the key here. Those are the items which must be disclosed. Other material events are arguably covered by the general need to disclose material events. Note also that this list is seven years old, and the document says that this list was expected to be expanded. I believe it was under Sarbanes-Oxley.
Comments
That is perhaps a false dichotomy. A company that truly cares about creating long-run value for its shareholders cannot achieve that goal without being in it for their customers.
Exactly. Focus on the really important facet of your business (the customers) and the rest (i.e. shareholder value) will take care of itself.
1.To exist; reside: Our sympathies lie with the plaintiff. (And this is where I meant it- not to physically lay down (a lie?)
In that sense you are correct. Touché.
The point I've made a couple of times already here is that I think it's a shame that Apple exposes the company to lawsuits of this kind
Our legal system is so fractured right now that they could cough at an inopportune moment and get sued for sending an inappropriate signal.
I don't place that as a problem with Apple but the system in general. You obviously don't agree - and that's fine. As you point out, the only way this will ever be "resolved" is for something to play out in court. Until then, it's just speculation (something this place lives for). Have fun speculating and pontificating...
My rules are not only clearer, they are absolute.
And that's exactly where the problem lies. Other than that, he owes you an apology but only if you apologise to him first for all the times you were wrong!
I am sure I will upset the Apple fanboys in here but this is wrong. I am an Apple shareholder and Jobs health affects the price of the stock. If he should pass on without warning many people would take a hit in regards to their investment. I do not applaud the manipulation by Apple on this issue. There are laws against this because of the importance of this type of information in regards to a companies value that is so dependent on the presence of one person. Whether there are other people that will adequately run the company or they have great products the passing of Jobs if it happened would negatively affect the stock for a time. I hope for once someone puts Apples feet to the fire on this.
Have you read the SEC rules? I didn't think so. Everything you wrote is wrong.
Apple is required by law to report known information that is material to the company performance. There are many defenses to your argument. Just a few:
1. By law, Apple is precluded from releasing that information (HIPAA). That would make it a criminal offense to report on Jobs' health.
2. Apple claims that at the time of their report, all they knew was that there was a hormone imbalance. When they learned that it was more complex, they reported THAT. Do you have evidence that they knew back in January that he was going to have a liver transplant? How do you know that Jobs told the board ANYTHING beyond what the board reported? What makes you think he's required to?
3. Apple has incredible depth in their management ranks. They seem to be doing just fine without Jobs - so it's not hard to argue that his health was not material.
4. By the time the liver transplant became an issue, Jobs was on leave - so it was clearly not material.
5. By your logic, Dell should report that Michael Dell eats cheeseburgers at McDonalds. Or Steve Ballmer doesn't exercise regularly. Or Scott Nealy has high cholesterol. Or Bill Gates visits hookers. (I don't know - or care - if any of those are true. I made them up as examples). Any one of those things can lead to incapacity or death, as well. The fact is that none of them need to be reported.
In spite of all the ranting of conspiracy loonies, there's absolutely no evidence that Apple had an obligation to report more than they did.
The damnable irony is that if Apple had only been slightly more up-front about this, then nobody would be talking about it. It's their effort to slam the lid down tight that has caused all the chatter.
Bull. The media has shown that regardless of disclosure they will always be all up in Jobs' junk, or any one else's for that matter. Only a fool would think that nobody would be talking about Jobs' health if there were some kind of full disclosure. The media are ruthless jackals that feed off "The next big story", regardless of truth or disclosure.
No, because they think it's a good idea. There is no evidence that says "....it's generally a good idea..."
This seems like a distinction without a difference. Where rules create grey areas, some chose to play away from the hazy line, and others choose to play close to the line. That's a choice. The former is less likely to be exposed to litigation than the latter.
The article is shallow nonsense. For instance, Prof Elson is quoted in the article as saying: "In this environment, where transparency is critical, the more information you give the marketplace the better,.....?
There is absolutely no evidence to back up a sweeping assertion like that.
I took that as being in terms of potentially running afoul of the SEC regulations. I don't think it's an over-generalization to suggest that erring on the side of disclosure is less likely to get a company in trouble than minimizing disclosure.
Bull. The media has shown that regardless of disclosure they will always be all up in Jobs' junk, or any one else's for that matter. Only a fool would think that nobody would be talking about Jobs' health if there were some kind of full disclosure. The media are ruthless jackals that feed off "The next big story", regardless of truth or disclosure.
It tends to be difficult to indulge in speculation when the facts are known.
And that's exactly where the problem lies. Other than that, he owes you an apology but only if you apologise to him first for all the times you were wrong!
Man- he must have done something good to you, the way you're defending him all over the place.
Besides he already admitted that I was correct ( which is the same as admitting that he was wrong).
And finally I have no idea what you are talking about-"all the times you were wrong"?
Our legal system is so fractured right now that they could cough at an inopportune moment and get sued for sending an inappropriate signal.
I don't place that as a problem with Apple but the system in general. You obviously don't agree - and that's fine. As you point out, the only way this will ever be "resolved" is for something to play out in court. Until then, it's just speculation (something this place lives for). Have fun speculating and pontificating...
Fine, but I'm not the one doing the speculating, or trying to judge the worthiness of the regulations or the legal system. I don't know why anyone would in this context. I'm also not the one pretending to know precisely what the regulations require. Nobody really does. Even the experts don't agree. That's the entire point of what I've been saying. If you want to stay out of court, steer clear of the fuzzy legal lines. Seems like noncontroversial, straight-forward common sense to me.
Bull. The media has shown that regardless of disclosure they will always be all up in Jobs' junk, or any one else's for that matter. Only a fool would think that nobody would be talking about Jobs' health if there were some kind of full disclosure. The media are ruthless jackals that feed off "The next big story", regardless of truth or disclosure.
Jobs besides being the COO of Apple is also a celebrity - what do you expect from the media and the public?
------
Here's what the SEC says is ..."The comprehensive list of prescribed corporate events that are presumptively material and that must be disclosed, or will likely be required to be disclosed, with the U.S. SEC on Form 8-K:"
• Changes in control of a company;
• A company’s acquisition or disposition of a significant amount of assets;
• A company’s bankruptcy or receivership;
• Changes in a company’s certifying accountant;
• Resignations of a company’s directors, circumstances for the departure of a director, the appointment or departure of a principal officer, and the election of new directors other than pursuant to a vote of security holders at an annual meeting;
• Change in a company’s fiscal year and amendments to a company’s articles of incorporation or bylaws that were not previously disclosed in a proxy statement or other such disclosure document;
• Entry into a material agreement not made in the ordinary course of business;
• Termination of a material agreement not made in the ordinary course of business;
• Termination or reduction of a business relationship with a customer that constitutes a specified amount of the company’s revenues;
• Creation of a direct or contingent financial obligation that is material to the company;
• Events triggering a direct or contingent financial obligation that is material to the company, including any default or acceleration of an obligation;
• Exit activities including material write-offs and restructuring charges;
• Any material impairment;
• A change in a rating agency decision, issuance of a credit watch or change in a company outlook;
• Movement of the company’s securities from one exchange or quotation system to another, delisting of the company’s securities from an exchange or quotation system, or a notice that a company does not comply with a listing standard;
• Conclusion or notice that security holders no longer should rely on the company’s previously issued financial statements or a related audit report;
• Any material limitation, restriction or prohibition, including the beginning and end of lock-out periods, regarding the company’s employee benefits, retirement and stock ownership plan;
• Unregistered sales of equity securities by the company;
• Material modifications to rights of holders of the company’s securities;
• Earnings releases;
• Changes in earnings guidance; and
• Other materially different information regarding key financial or operations trends from that set forth in periodic reports.
------
Here's the link: http://idea.sec.gov/about/offices/oi...incdisclos.pdf (see pp. 9-10).
There is absolutely nothing there about the health of a CEO. Period.
Fine, but I'm not the one doing the speculating, or trying to judge the worthiness of the regulations or the legal system. I don't know why anyone would in this context. I'm also not the one pretending to know precisely what the regulations require. Nobody really does. Even the experts don't agree. That's the entire point of what I've been saying. If you want to stay out of court, steer clear of the fuzzy legal lines. Seems like noncontroversial, straight-forward common sense to me.
And when you have surgery, do you always want the whole world to know about it?
Steve Jobs is not just Apple's CEO. He's a real person, with a real family, real friends, and a life outside of work. This is a personal, medical matter which doesn't seem to have had a materially adverse effect on AAPL's performance.
We should all have enough decency to respect the privacy of others. This becomes even more important when someone is going through something painful, like a liver transplant.
My entitlement is due to the fact I invested hard earned money into their stock and I have a right under the law to such important information. If Apple does not want to abide by the law or wants this type of privacy then let them take that stockpile of cash and take the company private.
I, too, own a ton of AAPL, & legally as long as the Board truthfully (the operative word) keeps the public informed of the status of Steve Jobs as related to his capacity at Apple, that is sufficient. NOBODY has a right to know the details of his health issues nor what is going on in the design labs. Please quit whining folks.
And when you have surgery, do you always want the whole world to know about it?
I don't run a public corporation.
Here's what the SEC says is ..."The comprehensive list of prescribed corporate events that are presumptively material and that must be disclosed, or will likely be required to be disclosed, with the U.S. SEC on Form 8-K:"............
I should have added above that the '8-K' is the report that companies must file with the SEC to announce major events that shareholders should know about.
I don't run a public corporation.
And if you did, you would not be required to let the world know about it. Move along....
My entitlement is due to the fact I invested hard earned money into their stock and I have a right under the law to such important information. If Apple does not want to abide by the law or wants this type of privacy then let them take that stockpile of cash and take the company private.
You might have some credibility if you actually had some harm done to you, but you haven't. If you bought AAPL on January 14, when the hormone imbalance and leave of absence were announced and sold it today, you'd be up 57% in a little over five months.
Is that somehow not a good enough return for you?
There is absolutely nothing there about the health of a CEO. Period.
The word "presumptively" is the key here. Those are the items which must be disclosed. Other material events are arguably covered by the general need to disclose material events. Note also that this list is seven years old, and the document says that this list was expected to be expanded. I believe it was under Sarbanes-Oxley.
And if you did, you would not be required to let the world know about it. Move along....
Since the experts don't seem to agree, I don't see how you can be so sure.