Steve Jobs to take medical leave of absence but remain Apple CEO - Page 4

The US stock marked is still trading, as we speak? If not, I stand corrected.

Agreed about the "snide comments about the man himself"... ...and feel for your own living hell... ...nonetheless....

...if Apple were a privately held company, the owners would have every right to be as private about the matter as they wished, but it is not and only the two posters below seem to have any idea how the real world of public corporations works and why...



Maybe an analogy will help some of you get that this is more than a matter effecting only the man and his family: If the style, involvement and vision of the men at the top didn't matter, NFL, NBA and MBL coaches would never get fired - and while no coach can make a silk purse out of the wrong team or org, an ineffective coach can quickly bring a talented group down to mediocrity - or help it rise to the heights by the players buying into the vision and being willing to run through walls for the team.

And the value of publicly held stocks wouldn't vacillate so much around board room news, whether leaves of absence, hirings or firings of CEO's and Presidents. Because leadership does matter.

For example, if the White House were to announce that President Obama had taken a leave of absence from his job for undisclosed health reasons and that Joe Biden was in charge of the country for the interim, would you still all say it was a private matter between he and his family, and that's all we need to be told? Public lives have public as well as private responsibilities.

The CEO of Apple's ability to function and likelihood to return to work is a matter directly effecting the lives and welfare literally tens of millions of people and thousands of other companies to one degree or another, and Apple, if not SJ personally, faces tremendous pressure to disclose what they know about the seriousness of the health concern and some kind of best projected timeline for when or if it might be resolved to all of these stakeholders, even if not every gory detail.

That said, like virtually everyone else here, this is sad news and he is wished all the best.

deleted

Nobody said "all the details." That's just a made-up standard on your part. The real standard is information which is material to a prudent investor, and I think it's impossible to argue with a straight face that Steve's ability to run Apple is immaterial to investors. The issue raised previously was that his condition was far more serious than investors were told, leaving the impression that Apple was deliberately prevaricating. They've consistently made the situation worse by giving out virtually no information and refusing to answer any and all questions. This is why corporate governance experts have repeatedly criticized Apple's handing of Steve's health issues.


They can get away with an awful lot "talk to the hand" if they aren't investigated by the SEC or sued by investors. Sadly Apple's investor relations have always stunk. Why they've chosen that path, I don't know. It's apparently a deliberate choice.

@bigpics

Ok wtf should he disclose then anyway? Do you want daily announcements by his physicians? Weekly? Bi-weekly? Do you want blood exams, urine exams, mris? Do you want them mailed to you or posted online?

And do you maybe want to have your doctors examine him too? Which doctors opinion on SJ's would you consider reliable?

This whole discussion is ridiculous and nonsensical. A medical leave of absence is just that. End of story. We know about Steve's cancer in the past, an his liver transplant, the rest is for his family, close friends and doctors to know.

That's what you get if you aren't an adobe evangelist.

Wouldn't we like to believe that? But since when have his health issues been less serious than what was disclosed? Fundamentally this is the problem with Apple's approach to this issue. Investors will have to assume the worst because Apple and Steve refuse to say anything more. No oil on the water whatsoever.

Let them criticize. It's none of their business. Investors have all the information they need to know. That's the bottom line. Apple will give out the information as it sees fit in due time. Until then you are just going to have to wait. Apple couldn't disclose Steve's medical information even if it wanted to without the possible threat of legal action.

Ok assume the worst. There is nothing wrong with planning for the worst. LOL!@ you people who are more concerned about their stock portfolio than the man's health.

Exactly, and what's more, as I said before, what medical information? Don't people realize that there might be some issues even the doctors are perplexed about and they are trying to find methods to address them? We know his medical history, it's not as if he's broken his leg or something and apple can come up and say it, it's more complex.

Moreover, what about his recovery? Aren't people considering that increased publicity on this might hinder his recovery. If the patient (Steve) considers it might, and asks for privacy to face his issues out of the public spotlight, wouldn't it be basic human decency to grant him that?

While I agree that people will scream for more details, I think they're doing so only because it's Apple and because of the current perception that the websphere is entitled to know absolutely everything about every public figure's life.

Any CEO is at risk of death anytime, especially the older ones. Rupert Murdoch is almost 80 and Sumner Redstone is 87. Either one of them could drop dead tomorrow. One could make the case that that's obvious, but ever since Jobs' cancer was announced, it's obvious that his health is compromised and at risk. So I don't know what more information is needed. If you think that Jobs not returning to Apple in an active role will hurt Apple, then you sell the stock. If you have more faith in Apple as a company and its ability to continue to succeed with or without Jobs, you don't. It's as simple as that.

+1

You'd have to be a half-wit if you thought Steve was 100% healthy and was going to run Apple for the next 100 years.

Investors have seen how the company runs without Steve.

Forward p/e of 14 tells the story.

I know what I need to know... I felt leery going forward with Apple because I was wondering about Steve's next step (this was mentioned at least two weeks ago in one of my posts... I also said 12 days ago (or so) that AAPL would be $350 by Jan. 14th) and have been cautious with the stock (ie. not holding).

Tell me what more I need to know... please.

I thought I was quite familiar with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and its latest iteration, i.e., "AS AMENDED THROUGH P.L. 111-257, APPROVED OCTOBER 5, 2010".*

Unless there have been amendments that have not been published in the last few days, there is no guidance as such.

* http://www.sec.gov/about/laws/sea34.pdf

Here's hoping for better health in your fight against cancer Steve. God Bless.

There is a difference between 'disclosure of the facts' and 'the Jobs' privacy'. Apple can disclose what ails their CEO without breaching his privacy imo. When you are so closely linked to the fortunes of Apple there is no wonder the world want's to know and and to some extent has the right to know. But that doesn't mean SJ is not entitled to full privacy. I don't really see why disclosing what ails you infringes on your privacy. Its possible that if Apple were more open and briefed the press regularly re SJ's medical condition, his privacy would be better respected. That's just speculation, however. Apple and SJ will do what they think best. They always do. When you are a maverick like Apple the paradox is that everybody who loves you for being what you are always want to tell you how to behave. If Apple listened to its critics it would no longer be Apple.

You're wrong. That's the bottom line.


Always beware of arguments that begin with "you people." You might want to notice that I said nothing about my portfolio. I am speaking only of the disclosure requirements, and the questions about whether Apple has met them. Many experts believe they have not previously, and are starting to say so again today.


No, it's not as simple as that. The question is whether Apple has provided accurate and timely information to investors about material events, as they are required to do. The facts are, they've always skated on the edge, which raises questions that don't have to be raised. I realize that I can cite corporate governance experts left and right to document this and you will never believe it. So it's not a function of what is true, only of your willingness to accept it.

Did you actually read my posts buddy? One issue is that he and his doctors might not know what exactly ails him, or they might be trying out a few things to help him, another is that it might be too complicated to explain. Yet another might be that his doctors consider it would put undue stress on their client for his recovery to be public with any information.

We know about the cancer history and the liver transplant, we know his doctors made an excellent prognosis on recovery after the liver transplant. One can easily assume his ailment is related to his medical history. What's more to know? As I said it's not as clear an ailment as breaking a leg, that is announce-able, but as his issues might be more complicate or unclear, what is apple to say? And where should they stop? What would suffice, blood tests? MRIs? Even if they did make an announcement, people would require even more yet, because that might not shed any light. So, in view of his medical history being a matter of public knowledge, as well for all the reasons mentioned, I think a medical leave of absence suffices as an announcement. Anything other than that could cause unwarranted panic, speculation, requests for even more information, invasion of privacy etc, etc.

Well said, he is the visionary at Apple and actually had the power to implement his vision...

I wish him and his family well.....

Disclosure of material events. I believe that language has been in the regulations for a long time. There's no bright line to follow, but during the last two health-related episodes, experts were lining up virtually unanimously with the opinion that Apple was pushing the limits, skating on the edge of the disclosure rules. My point is, there's no good reason for them to handle these situations in such an opaque way.

Please cite!

Some of the comments on here and on the net disgust me.

Apple doesn't do ex-Pepsi employees anymore -- SJ learned a lesson the hard way by bringing in Sculley. To suggest that Apple will decline and start to disappear is a monumental insult to all the hand-picked-by-Steve execs, one of whom just earned over $50million last year.

The people running Apple weren't born yesterday, they know what they're doing. A lot of people have worked on every product Apple has ever brought to market and all those that didn't.

Basically, individuals or groups work up an idea, present to SJ to gauge his reaction and enthusiasm for the idea/product and things take off from there.

The thing Apple will miss the most after SJ retires are his negotiating skills (demands) with 3rd parties.

Yeah, people are quick to drop the masks on the net and not even maintain a semblance of civility when they should, sad, but we have to make do with that, such a large part of our lives is virtual...

Already done. Follow posted links. You could also read some of the multiple stories appearing today on this subject. Many of them include comments from corporate governance experts, and refer back to the previous history of disclosures. I have yet to hear from any of them that Apple has handled disclosure issues well in the past or that they're doing it any better now.

Might be some confused investors out there if Apple really blows away estimates when they report. If Apple gets down to 18 times trailing earnings in the next few weeks I'd buy it hand over fist (that is if I had the money to do that). However, I probably blow my load at 19 or 20 times earnings out of fear that it would rebound.

I wouldn't be too worried. A big reason reason Apple's been so successful is all the talented executives and engineers they have hired since Steve has come back. Those people are going to be with the company whether Steve's their or not. Slowly but surely they will likely lose their direction, but it take at least a decade for that to happen. Steve is very important and I hope he is able to work for a long time, but he has done a good enough job that Apple no longer needs him.

Deity? Let's not get ahead of ourselves.

Never mind he was a myth, the Man is not a Deity. Get over yourselves. This Son of God thing sure keeps hanging around though hundreds of years after his purported death they write a book about him.

And people continue to buy into it. Classic.

No one ever seems to chastise Mel Brooks for his blaspheming of YWVH [Jehovah! Jehovah! Jehovah!] in his films, but people blow a gasket about Jesus Christ.

Ironically, it wouldn't even be his own name. Could someone call the Aramaic police. We need a proof read!

You are making an assumption here that investors are always interested in what is best for company. In many cases that is very much an incorrect assumption as overrode often are only interested in making money for themselves. Then you have the investors that are as flaky as a mad bat and want to misdirect the company or focus them on social issues or whatever. In this forum such investors are few and far between because everybody has a personal interest in Apples and their success. Out in the wild it is a far different situation, there are many "bad" investors with lots of money and poor business sense.

From personal experience I saw what happened to my firm when to many of the wrong types of investors got involved. They put pressure on management for impossible results. Suggest breaking up the company to maximize their returns; mergers or whatever. In other words if to many of your investors feel they can use your corporation for their personal gain you end in a lot of trouble due to poor decision making and mis direction. Our problems where solved via a buy out through a private equity firm.

Solved might not be the right word there but management can no focus on a rational restructuring. People aren't being asked to do totally stupid things though and that actually has a positive impact on all levels of employees.

In a nut shell what I'm saying is this being a publicly traded corporation isn't always a good thing. You can attract the wrong types of investors. Apple seems to want to keep investors at arms length and frankly I believe they have reasonable cause to do so. It simply isn't reasonable to placate every one especially consider how at odds there concerns may be to running a corporation. The simple fact is if you allow one investor and audience all will expect to have their input taken seriously. In the end I really don't think Apple has much of a choice, the number of investors is huge and there is no way to listen to them all.

Yeah - I did and I should have edited what I commented on. Mine was a comment on the distinction between disclosure and privacy, only. I tend to agree with the people that argue that when a person is so closely linked to a company's success there is a responsibility to disclose what is going on if it could change the fortunes of that company. I am not passing a judgement on the effects of such disclosure would have on the company. Were I an investor I would like to know, is what I am saying.
It would be up to Apple to decide what to disclose. I don't really think it can be too complicated for them to explain. We are not asking for a biology lesson here. We don't know if this is serious or not. A return of the cancer with a grim outlook, or as a previous poster noted, it could be a matter of organ rejection which is not that unusual and fairly controllable. It could be that the man is just not that strong any more and need some time to recharge his batteries. I agree that partial disclosure is difficult but by no means beyond what Apple can do.
But my main point was that partial disclosure does not need to mean invasion of privacy in the sense that it would impede SJ's recovery.

You are free to believe what you want, however Steve said he will remain CEO. If you have faith in Steve's ability to run the company you should trust that he will step down if his health was going to affect his ability to continue performing his duties. Personally I trust him to do the right thing.

You do have a point, that could be a possibility. But I feel after a point discussing this it's really a matter of preference and opinion on how apple proceeds with this.

Never saw the film but more accurately it would be YHWH [ Yahweh ]

First I have to dismiss that phrase "corporate governance experts" out of hand. It is nothing but fluffier and BS. There is no one right and true path for running a corporation. Frankly these guys often come off as the teacher that teaches because he can't do.

Of course not, how can they profit indeed thrive if they are not critical of one of the biggest corporations going. I'm actually surprised you are this gullible. Think for a minute about the people demanding public succession plans. How can anyone with business experience see the release of such info as a good thing? Seriously? The same applies to releasing info on the CEOs health. You assume that such info would be used wisely by the investment community but I'd argue that would not be the case. There are wolves out there only interested in their own hunger.

I think the transition to making Cook temporary CEO last time was designed to smooth the transition - none would have been needed, in fact - had something gone wrong at the operating theatre. However unlikely. Otherwise the company would have been without a CEO.

The fact that Jobs has not relenquished his role for good this time indicates that it may not be that serious this time.

But I dont know.

To work at Apple is the goal of some of the finest talent in the world.

Steve is impatient with life and intolerant of anyone not as focused and motivated as himself.

deleted

I have friends who have worked there for a decade or more. The people who came from Next are still there, and some have worked for Jobs for 2-3 decades. The attrition rate is minimal.

Really, people like it.

Interesting, but I don't think companies get to distinguish between the investors they like and don't like. They're traded publicly, and this is a choice the owners made consciously years ago. They could have remained private, like Facebook for example. The benefits of public trading are huge but come with certain obligations. I don't think this is about placating any given investor or group of investors. The rules for public companies require that all material information must be disclosed.

The point I'm making here is that Apple exacerbates the problem by being so stingy on details. Rumors and fears fill the gap. Who benefits from that? Not ordinary investors, you can be sure.


We don't know what "remain as CEO" means for someone who isn't able to attend to executive duties on a day-to-day basis. If his role gets reduced to something less than ceremonial, then what's the point of the title? If he can't function as CEO, then perhaps it would be cleaner for him to step in the Chairman role and have the board appoint Cook as CEO.

All knowledge must be rejected. Perfect.

We don't know what "attend to executive duties on a day-to-day basis" means either. For some CEOs it means playing golf with some other CEO. Steve never did stuff like that anyway. He has a phone and people who he trusts and depends on. He can delegate tasks. What do you want? Does he have to punch a time clock?

I, personally, had frequent contact with many members of the original Mac team during the 1983 development of the original Mac. They would drop by our Sunnyvale store to see what was going on in the "outside" world and drop a few hints of what was going on at Apple.

The team members often wore T-Shirts that said "Working 100 hours [a week] and loving it!". They were totally high on life!

Ten of our top employees left us to work at Apple -- a thing of pride to the individuals, Apple and our company.

"You can't buy that!"