Originally Posted by akhomerun
normally, maybe a CEO needs to disclose health issues. then again, are you obligated to disclose every health issue you have to your company? not at all, in fact, you don't have to disclose anything.
a CEO...maybe that's different. most CEOs would surely disclose something so serious right away. but i think steve jobs is in the unique situation of being a tech icon, and more than any other tech CEO there's a perception by customers and shareholders that he is directly responsible for the company even surviving.
word of steve jobs being seriously and potentially terminally ill would have impacted apple negatively more than any other tech company's CEO.
and like i said, your health is a private matter. even if you're a CEO.
It's funny how you talk as if Apple was a PRIVATELY HELD COMPANY...
Get back to me with your feelings on this subject once you find out Apple is in fact a PUBLICLY traded corporation on the NASDAQ and how all listed companies have obligations to the SHAREHOLDERS (aka INVESTED OWNERS) of the company as well as obligations to the SEC and or other agencies/bodies.... when it comes to many different circumstances that CAN, WILL or COULD negatively impact the company. It's VERY sad that the 'issue' brings the CEOs health into question but Steve accepted the position as CEO as with it goes a certain unpleasant things that an ordinary worker wouldn't be required to discuss. A corporate CEO of a publicly held company is no more a 'private citizen' then any other person of celebrity, notoriety, infamy, etc BUT unlike hollywood stars and such, a CEO of a public company has a federal agency AND stockholders to directly answer to.
The SEC tends to 'look poorly' on companies that have a market cap of BILLIONS one day and then a with a single news headline - BANG - the stock (and perhaps the entire market or sector) tanks so low you'll need to dig a 6' hole to find it again.
Yea they're funny that way... they really insist on known in advance as possible negative issues the company is facing so they can prepare the market (so to speak). Nobody wants an en-mass panic stock sale especially when its not necessarily warranted, sometimes the mad sell off is actually warranted and in cases like that the SEC might want to temporally suspend all trading on a certain stock to give the new a chance to 'sink in' and then resume trading - this 'controlled stop may also be helpful to the rest of the sector so the entire industry doesn't get panicked for no reason other than initial hysteria.
Perhaps the mad sell off will continue but the SEC did the best it could to defuse a potential disaster and at the very least may have saved the crashing of an entire sector.
Now some events that befall a company might simply be unavoidable, catastrophic natural disasters and such... HOWEVER, if the reason for such an unexpected fire-sale of company stock due as a result of a negative event that befell the company (untimely death of the CEO would certainly qualify) AND
this possible eventuality was previously
known (for any length of time) to individuals inside the company and it wasn't disclosed then an investigation by the SEC (at the very least) is all but a certainty.
Nondisclosure is taken really serious now a days (imagine that!
) and it only
took how many trillions of dollars lost from investors (of all types) before the officials said HEY! YA think we oughta do.... something?!? About this crazy stuff? Well thankfully they are. Public corporations have a laundry list of rules and regs they are required to follow. If serious health conditions suffered by a CEO is considered a 'required disclosable item' then Apple clearly did wrong... If the area is 'gray' Apple may not have done anything wrong (legally).
However with a CEO so tied to the financial success of a company I would certainly consider 'bad heath reports' on Steve a real concern to the stockholders as well as the company employees. Yes, yes, yes, Steve is a human being and has the right to deal with this in his own way without interference and we should respect the entire families privacy but not at the expense of keeping the Apple shareholders and unfortunately 'the general public' as a result informed on ALL issues that could have a dire/measurable/negative effects on the company.
A long long long time ago, Apple was forced to 'pre-annouce' some VERY bad news about the finances... This was quite ODD since Apple was in it's 'quiet period' leading up to a quarterly earnings report filing and was not permitted to speak about anything that might hint at what they were going to be reporting in the next week or so...
The market was expecting Apple to post an average but unspectacular profit when compared to the same period last year ( a C or C- on the report card )... and much to the shock of everyone, Apple was NOT on track to post an 'unspectacular profit' this quarter but instead are expecting/posting a SUBSTANTIAL LOSS ( bright red F on the report card ).