or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Late Apple director was 'disgusted' Jobs didn't reveal health issues
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Late Apple director was 'disgusted' Jobs didn't reveal health issues - Page 2

post #41 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vandelay Industries View Post

Interesting article.

I believe the President releases news about health scares soon after the event.

Mr York was rightly upset by Mr Jobs' behavior IMO.

With Mr Jobs at the end of his career, diversification not concentration of authority would be the road to take.

Stick to latex and latex-related products.
post #42 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElmCityWeb View Post

Not knowing much about these types of business situations, was Jobs under any moral, ethical or legal obligation to disclose his personal health issues?

To answer you question, "No. No. And no."
Quote:
Apple's board has taken one step toward independence. Early last year, the board named Ms. Jung as its co-lead director alongside Mr. Levinson. Ms. Jung replaced Mr. Campbell, a longtime friend of Mr. Jobs and a former Apple executive.

But investors and governance experts said the company has a long way to go. Most of the current directors were handpicked by Mr. Jobs and are loyal to him, said people familiar with the situation. Mr. Drexler, a veteran retail executive, admires Mr. Jobs and considers him a genius, according to an individual familiar with Mr. Drexler's thinking.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...921476048.html


One has to wonder where the so-calledinvestors and governance experts were during the latest Wall Street debacle.

Obvious some of them would have endorsed the following Board. The certainly appeared to be 'independent'however that is defined
Quote:
ENRON's Board of Directors
  • Robert Belfer (1, 3)
 New York. Chairman, Belco Oil & Gas Corporation.
  • Norman Blake (3, 4)
Colorado Springs, Colorado. Chairman, president and CEO, Comdisco. Former CEO and secretary general, US Olympic committee.
  • Ronnie Chan (2, 3)
 Hong Kong. Chairman, Hang Lung group.
  • John Duncan (1*, 4)
 Houston, Texas. Former chairman, executive committee of Gulf & Western Industries.
  • Wendy Gramm (2, 5)
 Washington. Director, regulatory studies programme of the Mercatus centre at George Mason University. Former chairwoman, US commodity futures trading commission.
  • Ken Harrison
 Portland, Oregon. Former chairman and CEO, Portland General Electric.
  • Robert Jaedicke (2*, 4) 
Stanford, California. Professor of accounting emeritus and former dean, graduate school of business, Stanford University.
  • Kenneth Lay (1)
 Houston, Texas. Chairman, Enron. Resigned January 24 2002.
  • Charles Lemaistre (1, 4*)
 San Antonio, Texas. President (emeritus), University of Texas. Managing director, Anderson Cancer Center.
  • John Mendelsohn (2, 5)
 Houston, Texas. President, University of Texas. Anderson Cancer Center.
  • Jerome Meyer (3, 5)
 Wilsonville, Oregon. Chairman, Tektronix.
  • Paulo Ferraz Pereira (2, 3)
 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Executive vice president, Group Bozano. Former president and chief operating officer, Meridional Financial. Former president and CEO, State Bank of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
  • Frank Savage (3, 4) 
Stamford, Connecticut. Chairman, Alliance Capital Management Inte[B]rnational (a division of Alliance Capital Management).
  • Jeffrey Skilling (1)
 Houston, Texas. President and CEO, Enron. Resigned August 2001.
  • John Urquhart (3)
 Fairfield, Connecticut. Senior adviser to the chairman, Enron. President, John Urquhart Associates. Former senior vice president, Industrial and Power Systems, General Electric.
  • John Wakeham (2, 5*)
 London, England. Former UK secretary of state for energy and member of the House of Lords.
  • Herbert Winokur (1, 3*)
 Greenwich, Connecticut. President, Winokur Holdings. Former senior executive vice president, Penn Central Corporation.

(1) Executive Committee (2) Audit Committee (3) Finance Committee (4) Compensation Committee (5) Nominating Committee * Denotes Chairman

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...tefraud.enron3


post #43 of 119
Can you have some of the posters change their signature lines--it is a bit distracting and is really getting out of hand--kind of like pop ups when you are on the Internet. What next BOLD, FLASHING FLORESCENT RED 120 FONT---opps see that 7's the limit?

thanks
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #44 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by miniMoe View Post

AppleInsider should say that the WSJ ALLEGES Mr. York said these things. Unless the WSJ publishes audio recordings to substantiate this, they have no credibility, in my opinion.

Well, the WSJ lost all credibility about five minutes after Rupert Murdoch purchased them IMHO.
Pity the agnostic dyslectic. They spend all their time contemplating the existence of dog.
Reply
Pity the agnostic dyslectic. They spend all their time contemplating the existence of dog.
Reply
post #45 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

Can you have some of the posters change their signature lines--it is a bit distracting and is really getting out of hand--kind of like pop ups when you are on the Internet. What next BOLD, FLASHING FLORESCENT RED 120 FONT---opps see that 7's the limit?

thanks

OR...

You could simply put them on your "Ignore" list.

Done, and done.
Pity the agnostic dyslectic. They spend all their time contemplating the existence of dog.
Reply
Pity the agnostic dyslectic. They spend all their time contemplating the existence of dog.
Reply
post #46 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Good question. The only correct answer is: It is not clear under current law. The SEC offers no guidance either, and experts go both ways.

True, but the laws do require that public companies provide stockholders with information that may be material to the value of their investments. Other companies have handled serious illness of top executives in a much more transparent fashion than Apple did. You find the view expressed that Apple should have done more stated far more often among people who are familiar with the spirit of the law, than you see the view that they had no disclosure obligations whatsoever.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Legally, his health records are private (read up on HIPAA). He had no obligation to release his health issues.

There is a weak argument that if the information is material that it should be disclosed but that's purely a judgment call - and since Apple did just fine under Cook, it would not be easy to make the case that Jobs' absence was material, anyway.

For some reason someone always brings HIPAA into these discussions. Why is a mystery to me, since nobody has ever seriously suggested that medical records must be disclosed.

A judgement call it may be, but not a weak argument. As we know now, Steve Jobs nearly died, but nobody knew that until much later. Publicly, Apple was always minimizing his medical condition, which today looks to have been possible prevarication. The weak argument is that his death would not have had a material impact on shareholders. We all know full well that it would. This is what Jerry York is trying to tell us, from beyond the grave so to speak.

Last I heard, the SEC was investigating Apple's handling of the Steve Jobs medical condition disclosures.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #47 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by g3pro View Post

York is dead? Good riddance. We don't need people of his ilk on the board of directors. He was a traitor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleRulez View Post

If he disagrees with Steve's vision, he had no place on the BOD.

You guys need to make some use of the various 'smile' icons... Without them people might think you actually THOUGHT that way!?!?!

A BoD filled with nothing but yes men gets you a rubber stamp on anything and everything your little heart desires but it also lets you make some REALLY BAD decisions that could cause the downfall of the company.. With NOBODY on the BoD having the testicular fortitude (thats BALLS to the uninitiated) for the men and/or intestinal fortitude (thats GUTS for the uninitiated) for the women directors, who's gonna stand up and scream 'THIS IS WRONG' at a potential illegal and/or potential violation of the SEC or other government (local, state, national or international) law.

I'm NOT saying you want people that will disagree with you on EVERY concept, idea and vision however, having a diverse BoD who might hold differing opinions certainly makes for a more USEFUL body, since the simple act of 'defending/presenting' ones idea to a 'devils advocate' who isn't surgically altered to only smile and nod in the affirmative when looked at, is a great way to spot possibly issues that weren't previously known or considered. Now where/when would you rather have the previously unconsidered 'issues' become known? At a BoD product discussion OR as the units are already rolling off the assembly line?

Also remember that the BoD are usually built with people with vastly different business sectors. Look at Apple, they have now or had in the past, BoDs with extensive knowledge of the retail store sector (for obvious reasons), genetics/medical (again a no brainer), multilevel marketting (Avon), hardware & software (of course), internet sector (now vacant), communications, government officials - aka: the inventor of the Internet - oh and seem to remember him a frequent visitor to the White House in a previous life...

Oh yea... I forgot one... hmmm he was a 'soda jerk' in his previous life right?!?!

Anyway... this 'we need everyone to agree without thinking' is not a good environment to wish on Apple... Steve gets away with too much crap as it is.. he doesn't need ANY MORE yes men enabling or condoning bad and/or questionable behavior.
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #48 of 119
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.
post #49 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

Can you have some of the posters change their signature lines--it is a bit distracting and is really getting out of hand--kind of like pop ups when you are on the Internet. What next BOLD, FLASHING FLORESCENT RED 120 FONT---opps see that 7's the limit?

thanks

Why? We don't even have avatars. Not even graphical sigs. Does the internet in general hurt your eyes or something?
post #50 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

It was the opinion of Jobs (and, presumably, the Board - since no one resigned from the board over the issue) that the risk was minimal, so there was no reason for disclosure. In retrospect, the fact that Apple did just fine under Cook confirms that they were correct.

Furthermore, there's no consensus that Jobs would have been required to disclose the information even if he HADN'T believe that Cook could do the job.

You are probably correct in stating that there was no consensus.

However, the final result (Cook doing a good job) does not reveal the actual risk. It could have been a 30-1 longshot and Cook succeeded. Or Tim could have been a 3-2 favorite.

Again, if Steve caught a cold, we wouldn't be discussing it. It's the perceived risk of a liver transplant and the chances of complications of that procedure. Remember that the SEC requires that the company divulge material risks to its operations.

Many folks think that cancer in the CEO's pancreas is serious. How would you like it if your mom had pancreatic cancer and had to get a new liver? Would you like it if people said, "Not a big deal", dismissed the whole thing and returned to talking about the NCAA Sweet Sixteen matchups?

York got outvoted by the rest of a largely Jobs-controlled board.
post #51 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by akhomerun View Post

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.

Not so, and someone far more familiar with these matters (Jerry York) is telling you that it isn't so.

Throughout this episode, Apple was minimizing Steve's health issues. Later, it turns out, he was in fact very close to death. This kind of thing gets the SEC's attention.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #52 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post

You are probably correct in stating that there was no consensus.

However, the final result (Cook doing a good job) does not reveal the actual risk. It could have been a 30-1 longshot and Cook succeeded. Or Tim could have been a 3-2 favorite.

Again, if Steve caught a cold, we wouldn't be discussing it. It's the perceived risk of a liver transplant and the chances of complications of that procedure. Remember that the SEC requires that the company divulge material risks to its operations.

Many folks think that cancer in the CEO's pancreas is serious. How would you like it if your mom had pancreatic cancer and had to get a new liver? Would you like it if people said, "Not a big deal", dismissed the whole thing and returned to talking about the NCAA Sweet Sixteen matchups?

York got outvoted by the rest of a largely Jobs-controlled board.

Precisely. The public statements made by Apple and Steve also come into question, given what we learned later about the seriousness of his condition.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #53 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Not so, and someone far more familiar with these matters (Jerry York) is telling you that it isn't so.

Not quite - we have the WSJ TELLING US that Jerry York was concerned. Yet Jerry York never resigned over the issue, nor did he publish his own health history, so it's not clear that he agreed with you.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #54 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh View Post

As a shareholder myself, I am glad they didn't issue a press release on the matter, as it would have destroyed the stock. The risk-reward balance was not there.

Yeah, the idea that it would have been good for the shareholders doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I think Steve was actually doing his best to look out for the shareholders, and if anyone was hurt by his lack of disclosure, it was the people who bought shares after Steve knew but before the news came out. I suspect Steve was hoping it wasn't as serious as it turned out to be, and he didn't want to make people (and the market) panic unnecessarily. Whether the shareholders find out now or a week later doesn't make much difference, unless they can sell before everybody else finds out, which would basically be insider trading.

You could argue that he should have disclosed the information to protect potential buyers of the stock, but in that case there's also lots of other relevant info that they could disclose in real time, like sales figures, that they only announce periodically.

The only argument I can think of that holds some water is that he's setting a precedent, and in the future there will be less general certainty about his well-being on a minute-to-minute basis, because he won't be trusted. Still, what matters to the company, and in the end to the shareholders as well, is that he is there doing what he does best, and no amount of disclosure is really going to change that.
post #55 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Not quite - we have the WSJ TELLING US that Jerry York was concerned. Yet Jerry York never resigned over the issue, nor did he publish his own health history, so it's not clear that he agreed with you.

So you assume that the Wall Street Journal is making this up? If not, then what?

Jerry York's "health history" is of course completely irrelevant.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #56 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by justflybob View Post

OR...

You could simply put them on your "Ignore" list.

Done, and done.

Would like to but I only place trolls on mine. There should be some limit what you can put on a signature line--what next a full page ad?
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #57 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

Would like to but I only place trolls on mine. There should be some limit what you can put on a signature line--what next a full page ad?

Get out track #9 on the Rolling Stones "Let It Bleed" album.

I believe it contains the answer you seek.
Pity the agnostic dyslectic. They spend all their time contemplating the existence of dog.
Reply
Pity the agnostic dyslectic. They spend all their time contemplating the existence of dog.
Reply
post #58 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

So you assume that the Wall Street Journal is making this up? If not, then what?

Jerry York's "health history" is of course completely irrelevant.

I'm not saying WSJ made it up. I'm saying they COULD HAVE. Or they're taking his comments out of context. And they're being hypocritical because they never published their CEO's medical records on the front page of the WSJ. Why is York's health irrelevant? York was CEO of a company and didn't publicize his medical record. Furthermore, he was a board member for Apple - an important position that, if he's doing his job correctly, affects the future of the company. He may have had danger signals that could have presaged a stroke. What gives him the right to demand that Steve publish HIS?

Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post

You are probably correct in stating that there was no consensus.

However, the final result (Cook doing a good job) does not reveal the actual risk. It could have been a 30-1 longshot and Cook succeeded. Or Tim could have been a 3-2 favorite.

Again, if Steve caught a cold, we wouldn't be discussing it. It's the perceived risk of a liver transplant and the chances of complications of that procedure. Remember that the SEC requires that the company divulge material risks to its operations.

Many folks think that cancer in the CEO's pancreas is serious. How would you like it if your mom had pancreatic cancer and had to get a new liver? Would you like it if people said, "Not a big deal", dismissed the whole thing and returned to talking about the NCAA Sweet Sixteen matchups?

York got outvoted by the rest of a largely Jobs-controlled board.

How do you know that? Were you there?

All we know is that the Board was notified.
No one on the board resigned. No one on the board raised any kind of public fuss (they could not have legally released Jobs' health, but they could have said they had concerns about his ability to continue in his role). Yet, as board members, they have a legal obligation to do so.

The fact that no one spoke up and no one said anything suggests that the board was in complete agreement with Jobs. Unless you have information proving something different, you're just blowing smoke.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #59 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


While people argue that Jobs is uniquely responsible for Apple's success, that's bull. A very large part of Apple's success is the powerful, talented management team that Jobs has put into place. The fact that Apple did so well while Cook was in charge is evidence of that.

Was Steve's vision important? Absolutely. But there's no reason to believe that there aren't others there today who share that vision - and could continue it if Jobs died tomorrow.

Agreed, what has been Apple's problem in the past, is that they picked the wrong person to lead the company (Michael Spindler, Gil Amelio). Alot has been fixed at Apple since those days, and Jobs has picked the right people to be is right hand men.
post #60 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by TECHSTUD View Post

How exactly would you know dying from a brain aneurysm that you had failing health?

Well the chances of dying suddenly are much greater at age 71 than someone who is 55. So no one should be surprised by York's death. If dying is detrimental to a companies existence maybe we should impose forced retirement.
post #61 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

Why? We don't even have avatars. Not even graphical sigs. Does the internet in general hurt your eyes or something?

no, but annoying signature lines that make it harder to read post is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:m ad:
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #62 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

no, but annoying signature lines that make it harder to read post is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:m ad:

I guess my signature line did not come in. Have changed it back to normal.
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #63 of 119
(this from NewsFeed researcher - a quote from Steve Jobs about Jerry York)

"Jerry joined Apple's Board in 1997 when most doubted the company's future. He has been a pillar of financial and business expertise and insight on our Board for over a dozen years," said Steve Jobs, Apple's CEO. "It's been a privilege to know and work with Jerry, and I'm going to miss him a lot." As we noted yesterday, York was hand-picked for his director's position by Jobs in 1997 when Jobs took on the "interim" CEO position after the ousting of Gil Amelio. In addition to his director's position, York was also serving as Chair of the board's Audit and Finance Committee."

and

"York made a name for himself by turning around International Business Machines ( IBM ) and Chrysler, and later helped lead Kirk Kerkorian's attempt to take over Chrysler and General Motors. He joined Apple's board in 1997 after founder Steve Jobs returned to the then troubled company. During his professional career, York worked at Ford ( F ), GM and Chrysler in various positions. He also served on the board of Tyco Inc. ( TYC ) and as Kerkorian's designate on the board of GM. [21] York helped lead turnarounds at Chrysler and IBM, and provided counsel to Steve Jobs during Apple's renaissance as a consumer-electronics giant. As an adviser to billionaire Kerkorian, he served as a frontman in takeover battles and fought for management changes. "Jerry had the guts and brains to identify the needed changes at many of America's greatest companies, including Chrysler, IBM, General Motors and Apple, helping them to reach their greater potential," said Steve Miller, a director of UAL Corp., who worked with York at Chrysler."

So York in general has huge amounts of credibility from the corporate side of things and was personally approached by Steve Jobs to join the Apple BOD. Whether he actually said those things we can't know as it is only alleged in the article, and it would appear, deliberately so.

Now the question is, given Yukari Iwatani Kane's previous coverage of Apple, and as a source of Apple "leaks" from time to time, is she deliberately generating churn to keep Apple's media mindshare high leading up to the release of the iPad, is this merely an attempt by the WSJ to garner hits from something allegedly said by the deceased that is controversial and related to Apple, or is there something else going on? As a "profile of Apple's BOD" the article comes up remarkably short on coverage of any of the other directors, choosing to focus solely on York and that previously undocumented commentary. This thing throws up all kinds of flags.
post #64 of 119
AAPL is around $230 right now - 3/25/10 12PM, EST
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=AAPL

York was on Apple's Home Page for 2 Days!!! And we are talking about this? Must be a slow news day?

With all the Reality TV, Blogs, Facebook etc..., I can see how/why Jobs would want PRIVACY, particularly when it comes to his Health, Patient Rights... I also see the other side of that argument! So, maybe Steve Jobs is not a your every day guy, maybe that earned him a special consideration... But let's not re-ignite that debate...

Apple, AAPL are doing great, and the future is really bright! So they are doing something right. right!?! So... let them handle things their own way, while we live our own lives...

LOVE this Forum, even when I sometimes see people get a bit disrespectful... And the software that runs it is the best - Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4

Happy Spring to all!

Go  Apple!!!

Reply

Go  Apple!!!

Reply
post #65 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

I'm not saying WSJ made it up. I'm saying they COULD HAVE. Or they're taking his comments out of context. And they're being hypocritical because they never published their CEO's medical records on the front page of the WSJ. Why is York's health irrelevant? York was CEO of a company and didn't publicize his medical record. Furthermore, he was a board member for Apple - an important position that, if he's doing his job correctly, affects the future of the company. He may have had danger signals that could have presaged a stroke. What gives him the right to demand that Steve publish HIS?

They "could have" made it all up? What a flimsy argument.

York's health is irrelevant if for no other reason than he's not the CEO. And again, nobody is suggesting that anybody's "medical records" should be "published," so that's a total straw man argument.

The main issue is and, always has been, about whether what Apple did disclose was accurate.

Good summary of the issues here:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=ammDViTHaP0U
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #66 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by justflybob View Post

Get out track #9 on the Rolling Stones "Let It Bleed" album.

I believe it contains the answer you seek.

In your signature line, it should be dyslexic as afflicted with dyslexia.
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #67 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

In your signature line, it should be dyslexic as afflicted with dyslexia.

Since it annoys you, I believe I will keep it as is...
Pity the agnostic dyslectic. They spend all their time contemplating the existence of dog.
Reply
Pity the agnostic dyslectic. They spend all their time contemplating the existence of dog.
Reply
post #68 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post

SEC regulations require publicly-held corporations to reveal risks to the companies' success so that shareholders and potential shareholders realize the potential for failure.

In almost every SEC filing, there's standard boilerplate text saying that loss of senior management and other key employees due to injury/death/resignation/etc. can materially effect the company's ability to execute its business plan in a timely manner in a competitive environment, blah blah blah. Changes in the risk factors must be reported in these filings. The onset of cancer in the CEO is a change in the risk factors. If Steve caught a cold, not so much.

So it is arguable that Steve withheld information (his serious medical condition) that caused Apple to fail at revealing an important risk that could potentially jeopardize Apple's ability to execute its business plans.

Considering Jobs' centrality to Apple's success, concealment of his true state of health kept Apple's stock from plummeting. Anyone who knew the truth might have sold their shares. Everyone else was denied that information.
post #69 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdcat View Post

Considering Jobs' centrality to Apple's success, concealment of his true state of health kept Apple's stock from plummeting. Anyone who knew the truth might have sold their shares. Everyone else was denied that information.

Steve's intent is less important that the SEC regulations that state that material risks must be divulged to shareholders. They're the ones who own Apple Inc., not Steve Jobs. Steve isn't even an significant insider.

The SEC requires that publicly-trade corporations divulged these business risks. The market should decide if its too risky to maintain ownership, not Steve Jobs. That's the whole purpose of these SEC filings and earning results. Steve can't just tell the shareholders, "Yeah, everything's great" and walk back to this desk.

You must provide enough financial documentation (balance sheet, cash flow, sales, etc.) so the shareholders have a good-enough understanding of the company's fiscal performance and standing. The shareholders also need to know of the risks that might materially damage that fiscal performance and standing.

That's the whole gist of the matter.

In this particular situation, it worked out in the end, but the shareholders were in the dark the whole time about the risks. Apple is lucky that Steve didn't suffer from major complications from his procedure. So are the shareholders. Did Steve bet the farm on one number an the roulette table? Maybe he did, maybe he didn't, but due to the severity of his ailment, it was a much higher risk scenario and the SEC has regulations that require divulging these risks to the people who hold the money: the shareholders.
post #70 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post

Steve's intent is less important that the SEC regulations that state that material risks must be divulged to shareholders. They're the ones who own Apple Inc., not Steve Jobs. Steve isn't even an significant insider.

The SEC requires that publicly-trade corporations divulged these business risks. The market should decide if its too risky to maintain ownership, not Steve Jobs. That's the whole purpose of these SEC filings and earning results. Steve can't just tell the shareholders, "Yeah, everything's great" and walk back to this desk.

You must provide enough financial documentation (balance sheet, cash flow, sales, etc.) so the shareholders have a good-enough understanding of the company's fiscal performance and standing. The shareholders also need to know of the risks that might materially damage that fiscal performance and standing.

That's the whole gist of the matter.

In this particular situation, it worked out in the end, but the shareholders were in the dark the whole time about the risks. Apple is lucky that Steve didn't suffer from major complications from his procedure. So are the shareholders. Did Steve bet the farm on one number an the roulette table? Maybe he did, maybe he didn't, but due to the severity of his ailment, it was a much higher risk scenario and the SEC has regulations that require divulging these risks to the people who hold the money: the shareholders.

As usual, you're oversimplifying a complicated issue in order to attack Jobs.

The key issue is: What is material? The way SEC rules work is that it's up to the CEO to determine that with oversight from the board. The Board members have a legal obligation to speak up if they think a material issue is being hidden - as do other corporate officers. If they felt that a material fact was being hidden, it would be a felony for them to keep quiet.

Jobs clearly felt that his staff could keep things going in his absence and no harm would come to Apple even if something happened to him. The fact that no one on the board and no other corporate officer spoke up indicates that the board and officers agreed.

So they made a judgment call - and they were clearly in much better position to do so than you are.

AND, it turned out that they were right.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #71 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by akhomerun View Post

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 ).
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #72 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

As usual, you're oversimplifying a complicated issue in order to attack Jobs.

The key issue is: What is material? The way SEC rules work is that it's up to the CEO to determine that with oversight from the board. The Board members have a legal obligation to speak up if they think a material issue is being hidden - as do other corporate officers. If they felt that a material fact was being hidden, it would be a felony for them to keep quiet.

Jobs clearly felt that his staff could keep things going in his absence and no harm would come to Apple even if something happened to him. The fact that no one on the board and no other corporate officer spoke up indicates that the board and officers agreed.

So they made a judgment call - and they were clearly in much better position to do so than you are.

AND, it turned out that they were right.

No, there isn't clear indication that the board was given sufficient information to come to an educated and reasonable decision about the material risks.

It's a Jobs-controlled board and there's a strong chance that they were either incapable or not given the chance to make a dispassionate analysis of the risks.

In the end, they may have been more lucky than right. You can bet on the longshot and win. Again, it comes down to the risk factor of gambling with $209 billion of market capitalization. That's $209 billion of other people's money.

Trust me, I'm relived by the outcome. I'm a longtime shareholder myself and I'm pleased to see the stock trading about $230 today, but I do not agree with the way the board of directors handled this particular situation. Had the outcome been different, the conversation would be different. While I'm sure no one would be happy to be holding that conversation, the point is that it is questionable if the shareholders were alerted of material risks.

Going to get a new liver is not a run-of-the-mill procedure. Even if you survive the surgical procedure, there are significant post-op complications that can crop up that could prevent the patient from making a full and speedy recovery.

If Steve took a day or two off to get a root canal, or even a week to get a knee replacement, I wouldn't think of it as a big deal. Getting a new liver is a big deal.
post #73 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveGee View Post

et 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 FTC and or other agencies/bodies.... when it comes to many different circumstances that CAN, WILL or COULD negatively impact the company.

I guess it's hard to take you seriously when you apparently don't know the difference between the FTC and SEC.

Regardless, why do you think that endlessly repeating the same nonsense will suddenly make it come true?

The facts are simple:

Apple has a legal obligation (under the SEC) to report MATERIAL issues. It is up to Apple to decide what is material (although a court could certainly challenge that at some time). There are checks and balances. There is an independent Board of Directors which oversees the CEO's actions. There are also other officers. Both the Board and the other Officers have the same legal obligation to disclose material issues - or to disclose it if they are concerned about Apple's formal disclosures.

The Board did nothing.
The Officers did nothing.
All of these people were experienced executives who were well aware of their legal obligations.
No one (neither Board member nor Officer) made any public announcement or resigned.


How do you, as an outsider without access to the information the Board received, believe that you know better than these executives what should have been done? They made a judgment call and were apparently all in agreement (other than one guy who allegedly had some concerns but he never did anything about it, nor did he apply the same standards to himself when he was CEO of several companies).

They made a judgment call which was well within their prerogative - and no one objected.

Granted, a court could go back today and consider whether that was reasonable, but it is extremely unlikely that a court would overrule the entire BOD and Officer group after the fact - especially when no one suffered any harm. Heck, you could argue that if Jobs had made an announcement and someone sold their shares that they would have been harmed by doing so - since they would have missed out on their shares doubling in the last 18 months. The case would never get past the summary judgment stage.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #74 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post

No, there isn't clear indication that the board was given sufficient information to come to an educated and reasonable decision about the material risks.

It's a Jobs-controlled board and there's a strong chance that they were either incapable or not given the chance to make a dispassionate analysis of the risks.

Nonsense. Jobs said a long time ago that he had discussed his health issues with the board - and no one objected to that statement.

Even this after the fact hearsay from York says that the Board was informed.

There is absolutely ZERO reason to believe that Jobs didn't tell the board.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #75 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by justflybob View Post

since it annoys you, i believe i will keep it as is...

doesn't bother me in the very least, but if you want to keep it your choice not mine
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #76 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Nonsense. Jobs said a long time ago that he had discussed his health issues with the board - and no one objected to that statement.

Even this after the fact hearsay from York says that the Board was informed.

There is absolutely ZERO reason to believe that Jobs didn't tell the board.

This entire line of reasoning seems rather bizarre to me. You seem to be saying that if the board was complicit in withholding material issues, then the issues by definition are not material to the stockholders. I don't think the SEC would agree with this interpretation of the disclosure requirements. In fact they seem designed to prevent this very sort of complicity to avoid disclosure.

Again, the main issue here is whether what Apple disclosed was accurate. Based on what we know today, legitimate questions can be raised about whether it was. To my knowledge, the SEC is still looking into this.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #77 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by phasornc View Post

So this guy says once he found out about the illness he didn't disclose it "because of the uproar it would cause." Isn't that the same reason Steve Jobs didn't disclose it?

Either they are both guilty or neither are guilty.

Either you didn't read carefully, or AI changed the article. York was concerned of the fanboy uproar towards YORK resigning over Jobs failure to disclose his poor health. He was not concerned about the uproar over Jobs health that would have occurred, which he believed needed to happen.

Seriously, Mactards go ape-*#&$ every time some Apple employee quits or goes somewhere else under less than friendly terms.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta

There is absolutely ZERO reason to believe that Jobs didn't tell the board.

Well, there is the Wall Street Journal story saying that Jerry York said that is exactly what happened. I think that is a lot more than zero.
post #78 of 119
Well, York couldn't have been all that disgusted since he didn't resign AFTER Jobs' medical issues were resolved.

A non-story.
post #79 of 119
When reading Mr. York's "disgust" and his supposed looking out for the interests of shareholders, I immediately thought of my disgust of Mr. York (and the rest of the board) for not doing anything to weed out Mr. Mole (Eric Schmidt) and boot him off the board.
post #80 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElmCityWeb View Post

Not knowing much about these types of business situations, was Jobs under any moral, ethical or legal obligation to disclose his personal health issues?

one might argue on the moral and ethical and that's really a matter of personal opinion.

But legally no. Jobs didn't have to say anything up until the point where the issue prohibited him from doing his job. Which was when he needed the liver transplant and the time to recover. And he did tell. Perhaps not the same day he found out. It would seem that he might have waited a few days to a couple of weeks while he hashed out who was going to run the show. Which in light of the effect that rumors had on dropping stock values was a wise move.

Other than that, the only laws are basically regarding truthfulness. IF you choose to say something you have to speak the truth. You can't say that you are in perfect health if you know you are not. This is something that came up several times because some folks believe that Jobs flat out lied and knew the issue wasn't a mere hormone problem etc but that he knew from day one that his liver was failing. While others more expert in medicine have gone on record saying that yes it is possible that he was giving out information as he found it out and at first they thought it was just a hormone imbalance but then further testing showed that the imbalance was due to problems with his liver. and so on

Quote:
Originally Posted by alandail View Post

the company did just fine while he was away for the transplant. From a day to day running of the company perspective, they'd be just fine without him.

yep. Jobs has likely handpicked and groomed the folks that work with him. they know his vision etc. and thus could answer the whole 'what would steve do' question just fine. Not to mention that he was just a phone call, email, ichat away.

Quote:
It's the new product development that there could be a problem.

and yet not as much as some think. New products are not springing fully formed out of Jobs head (or any other part). They take years. The stuff they are releasing right now started as much as 10 years ago. And the things they are thinking up right now will carry them another 10 years.

Quote:
Apple is very good at identifying large markets and having their initial release be best in class while solving the reasons others failed,

yep and will continue to see what others are doing or talking about doing and one up them. As well as seeing beyond right now and jumping to the next big thing. Even guiding that thing into place. Like the whole blu-ray v downloads issue.

Quote:
which includes knowing when to take their own projects back to the drawing board as many times as it takes to get them right. They've done that with MP3 players, smart phones and now tablet computers. This is largely because of Steve. He's the best in the world at this, that's difficult to replace.

yes but he's really just the idea guy. He's not the singular designer, engineer etc. It is that false notion that created the price drop. Folks assuming that Steve does everything and the rest of the folks are just puppet morons. But they are not.

Quote:
In 85 he was forced out by people who thought he failed

More like he was forced out by people that thought his ideas were total crap. When in fact they were the ones with the wrong plans. imagine what the world might have been like if Steve had been the one to stay. We could have had OSX a lot sooner, the ipod etc a lot sooner. by now we might have a real Apple TV (like the rumors are claiming is in the works to come out in the next couple of years), Blu-ray might have never happened at all if better compression had been created for true high def downloads (something I suspect Apple and others are working on as we speak) and so on.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Late Apple director was 'disgusted' Jobs didn't reveal health issues