or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Investors › AAPL Investors › Ex-SEC chief says Apple has disclosed enough about health of Steve Jobs
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ex-SEC chief says Apple has disclosed enough about health of Steve Jobs

post #1 of 53
Thread Starter 
The former chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has said he believes that Apple has publicly disclosed enough information about the health of its chief executive, Steve Jobs.

Arthur Leavitt told Bloomberg on Monday that he believes Apple's board of directors has acted appropriately when revealing information about its company's CEO. He also revealed that after leaving the SEC, he was approached about joining Apple's board, but the offer was rescinded because of differences about governance.

"It's easy to criticize the board, but I think the reality is that someone who owns Apple stock has got to be deaf, dumb and blind not to know that Jobs has an illness that can reoccur at any time," Leavitt reportedly said.

He said the announcement on Monday that Jobs will take a medical leave of absence from Apple is sufficient information for investors.

"For the board to opine on what the extent of the illness is right now I don't think is really necessary," he said.

Jobs issued a letter to Apple employees on Monday to reveal that he has taken a medical leave of absence, though he will retain his title as CEO and will be involved in major strategic decisions for the company. He also requested that the privacy of himself and his family be respected.

Jobs has long held the belief that his health is a private matter, though some investors, critics and pundits have argued otherwise. With a company such as Apple, where the success has been so closely attributed to Jobs, some hold the belief that details about Jobs' condition should be made public.

The current leave of absence marks the third for Jobs, who had surgery in 2004 to address pancreatic cancer. He also left the company in January of 2009 to receive a liver transplant, and returned in June of that year.

This week it was also revealed that Jobs allegedly traveled to Switzerland during his leave in 2009 for cancer treatment. With all those details of Jobs' history with cancer out in the open, Levitt said he believes investors know the risks.
post #2 of 53
In the Bloomberg article, but omitted from this one:

Quote:
If there is a legitimate criticism of that board, it could be only for a lack of succession plan, Levitt said in a separate interview on Bloomberg Radio with Tom Keene. There I think the investors have to understand that the company should be held accountable.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #3 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post

Yes they have disclosed just enough to cause uncertainty in the market. Doesn't matter how many Macs, iPhones or iPads Apple sells as long as Jobs health remains uncertain the stock will continue to take a beating.

Anyone that doubts that take a look at the stock the last three days in spite of record earnings.

Let go of the hate and you'll be a happier person.
post #4 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post

Yes they have disclosed just enough to cause uncertainty in the market. Doesn't matter how many Macs, iPhones or iPads Apple sells as long as Jobs health remains uncertain the stock will continue to take a beating.

Anyone that doubts that take a look at the stock the last three days in spite of record earnings.

You might even want to "take a look" at the Nasdaq and the S&P as well. Are you suggesting that Apple is to blame for their "downfall" as well ??? Give me a break.
Apple is not Appl ...... Please learn the difference!    
Reply
Apple is not Appl ...... Please learn the difference!    
Reply
post #5 of 53
I feel very sad for Steve when I read these articles.

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply
post #6 of 53
I agree. I think Steve has disclosed enough. All investors need to know is that they have a temporary CEO while Steve is on sick leave. They have plenty of CEO-ready executives that any other company in the industry would love to have as their CEO. As sad as it would be, there is nothing that investors need to worry about if the worst happened.

Medical history is a personal matter. All investors need to know is how it effects the company. Apple has a great succession plan. Because investors tend to act irrationally and over react, it is only short term investors that will suffer. Long term investors would actually benefit because they could take advantage of the short term share price drop.
post #7 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

In the Bloomberg article, but omitted from this one:
Quote:
[succession plan nonsense]

1. Just because they haven't published a succession plan doesn't mean they don't have one, in some form or other.

2. Making public a definitive, rigid succession plan would just be a completely stupid move by the board. How often would they update it? Whenever circumstances change? So, daily, right?

Or, what if they publish one next week and don't update it constantly. Hypothetically, it becomes necessary to act on it 6 months from then, but, given circumstances, it's no longer the best plan. Do they blindly follow it, or risk shareholder lawsuits and do something else?


This whole succession plan thing is just a bunch of nonsense. If and when the time comes to make succession decisions, the board will make the best decision for the time and circumstances, that's what they get paid to do. Exactly how many companies in the past have published succession plans? To my knowledge, it's not like this is at all a common practice.
post #8 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

This whole succession plan thing is just a bunch of nonsense. If and when the time comes to make succession decisions, the board will make the best decision for the time and circumstances, that's what they get paid to do. Exactly how many companies in the past have published succession plans? To my knowledge, it's not like this is at all a common practice.

Apple's succession plan is the product pipeline that is probably at least a 2 years timeframe with a precise execution road map personally approved by Steve.

What ever happens with regard to Steve, the stock probably won't be affected anymore by those circumstances, it is throughly baked in now.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #9 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

1. Just because they haven't published a succession plan doesn't mean they don't have one, in some form or other.

2. Making public a definitive, rigid succession plan would just be a completely stupid move by the board. How often would they update it? Whenever circumstances change? So, daily, right?

Or, what if they publish one next week and don't update it constantly. Hypothetically, it becomes necessary to act on it 6 months from then, but, given circumstances, it's no longer the best plan. Do they blindly follow it, or risk shareholder lawsuits and do something else?


This whole succession plan thing is just a bunch of nonsense. If and when the time comes to make succession decisions, the board will make the best decision for the time and circumstances, that's what they get paid to do. Exactly how many companies in the past have published succession plans? To my knowledge, it's not like this is at all a common practice.

I agree publishing a plan could only serve to get high level employees upset if they weren't on the list and they felt that they should be.
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."
Reply
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."
Reply
post #10 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by esummers View Post

I agree. I think Steve has disclosed enough. All investors need to know is that they have a temporary CEO while Steve is on sick leave. They have plenty of CEO-ready executives that any other company in the industry would love to have as their CEO. As sad as it would be, there is nothing that investors need to worry about if the worst happened.

Medical history is a personal matter. All investors need to know is how it effects the company. Apple has a great succession plan. Because investors tend to act irrationally and over react, it is only short term investors that will suffer. Long term investors would actually benefit because they could take advantage of the short term share price drop.

You're saying investors but actually talking about traders. Only traders benefit from volatility. Investors just have to sweat it out, and hope the fears subside.

The article creates a straw-man argument when it refers to "the belief that details about Jobs' condition should be made public." I haven't seen anyone make that argument. The concerns are (1) about his fitness to fulfill his duties as CEO during his absence, (2) succession plans, and (3) the accuracy of the public information which is provided. As far as we know, the SEC is still looking into the accuracy issues from the last leave of absence.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #11 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

1. Just because they haven't published a succession plan doesn't mean they don't have one, in some form or other.

Quite possible, and I agree. I really don't want the competition getting a leg up on who the most respected executive team members are in the company.

However, the board should formally state that there is an active succession plan, and they are prepared for the eventuality of critical executives.

Going into a mode of searching for a new CEO with Cook (or someone else) acting as interim CEO might be their strategy. Hopefully, they think they have the talent within to make it work. I would want them to ideally state one position or another.
post #12 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh View Post

... However, the board should formally state that there is an active succession plan, and they are prepared for the eventuality of critical executives. ...

So they should say they have a secret succession plan?

Sort of reminds me of the time on the West Wing when Josh told the press that the President had a secret plan to fight inflation.
post #13 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh View Post

Quite possible, and I agree. I really don't want the competition getting a leg up on who the most respected executive team members are in the company.

However, the board should formally state that there is an active succession plan, and they are prepared for the eventuality of critical executives.

Going into a mode of searching for a new CEO with Cook (or someone else) acting as interim CEO might be their strategy. Hopefully, they think they have the talent within to make it work. I would want them to ideally state one position or another.

This article explains the succession issues well I think.

http://management.fortune.cnn.com/20...%99s-next-ceo/

In part,

Quote:
But Apple may well have to bow to the Illinois union's wishes. The reason: Recent changes in SEC regulations have broadened legal definitions of risk, redefining CEO succession planning as fair game for shareholders demanding answers.

Not so long ago, a company under pressure to reveal its CEO succession plan "could blow off a request like Proposition 5 by claiming that executive succession was a routine business matter best handled by management, not something the board or the shareholders should be involved in," says Dave Heine, an executive vice president in charge of the directors and C-suite practice at Minneapolis-based leadership consultants PDI Ninth House.

Then, in 2009 and again in late 2010, the SEC issued rule changes that no longer allow companies to dodge the succession question.

"That opened the door to these Proposition 5-type actions from shareholders," Heine notes. "So more and more boards of directors are trying to get out in front of this, and they're often at a loss as to what to say and how much detail to disclose," Heine says.

Although Heine declines to say which of his Fortune 500 clients have sought his advice on this issue, he does allow that "our business in this area has gone up 200%" in the 14 months since the SEC began rewriting the script.

So what does he tell beleaguered boards?

"If you say nothing at all about CEO succession, investors get skittish," he says. "Apple could have avoided this whole controversy if they had shared some general information -- not necessarily naming names of potential successors to Steve Jobs, but outlining their criteria for selection and what they're doing to develop internal candidates."

With annual report season almost upon us, look for more of them to include a page or two about succession.

"Describing the process reassures shareholders, analysts, and employees that you do have one, even if you don't go into the kind of specific detail that could do you competitive harm," Heine says.

One important element of succession planning is "spelling out the challenges the current CEO has faced and comparing them with what the next one will have to deal with," says Heine. "Doing this shows that you have your eye on how your industry is evolving and how the marketplace is changing, and what that implies about the qualifications you'll need in your next CEO."
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #14 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post

If thats the case why would the stock have been effected at all? So I don't see that as the case. Any bad news about Steve Jobs in any form will cause panic.

The market even more so in the tech sector is rarely based on logic. This week is a perfect example on how perception trumps logic any day of the week.

If people truly believed there were a two year approved plan in place by SJ then the AAPL woud have spiked on earnings, instead they have declined daily.

Unless you feel the stock was over inflated based on either Verizon news or iPad 2 news. Which that I could buy.

No I am suggesting that it takes two or three sick leaves before the investors get the message that Steve is not going to be as involved as he once was, however since the planning is in place, it no longer is a significant factor in Apples earnings forecast, consequently Steve's departure is already figured into the stock price. Not saying that buy on rumor sell on news is not still an obvious trader technique but it will be much less of a factor now that there is no surprise.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #15 of 53
Wanted: CEO with ability to think different and skate to where the puck is going to be.
post #16 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor David View Post

Wanted: CEO with ability to think different and skate to where the puck is going to be.

And who cares deeply and personally about the products the company produces
post #17 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman View Post

And who cares deeply and personally about the products the company produces

Applicant must supply own RDF.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #18 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post

Funny when I say Apple is following the market trends then people want to dispute that. Make up your mind. Give me a break.

My mind is made up ... so why do you have a different opinion this time? just askin' ... nothing personal.
Apple is not Appl ...... Please learn the difference!    
Reply
Apple is not Appl ...... Please learn the difference!    
Reply
post #19 of 53
Those who keep thinking that AAPL is tanking, speak with your wallet and short AAPL. From the ranting going on, you have a sure-fire bet right in front of you.

I for one am just waiting for the right time to purchase more AAPL.

Apple's stock ALWAYS takes a beating after quarterly reports. The market in general right now is also on a downswing.

Lots of tinfoil hats being worn from what I can tell.
post #20 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post

Those who keep thinking that AAPL is tanking, speak with your wallet and short AAPL. From the ranting going on, you have a sure-fire bet right in front of you.

I for one am just waiting for the right time to purchase more AAPL.

Apple's stock ALWAYS takes a beating after quarterly reports. The market in general right now is also on a downswing.

Lots of tinfoil hats being worn from what I can tell.

AAPL is doing exactly what was expected right now... all the technicals were pointing towards a downswing... Jobs medical leave or not. Without the med leave announcement AAPL may have had a quick bounce up but we'd be right back to where we are now... the only difference is that it may have taken an extra day or two.

mo
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #21 of 53
Even Steve Jobs has HIPAA privacy rights:

http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa...ing/index.html

  Google Maps: ("Directions may be inaccurate, incomplete, dangerous, or prohibited.")

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply

  Google Maps: ("Directions may be inaccurate, incomplete, dangerous, or prohibited.")

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply
post #22 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post

Those who keep thinking that AAPL is tanking, speak with your wallet and short AAPL. From the ranting going on, you have a sure-fire bet right in front of you.

I for one am just waiting for the right time to purchase more AAPL.

Apple's stock ALWAYS takes a beating after quarterly reports. The market in general right now is also on a downswing.

Lots of tinfoil hats being worn from what I can tell.

I have to disagree. No, it doesn't always take a beating after quarterly reports. It normally depends on what's in the report. In fact AAPL held up well yesterday in the face of a market selloff. Today is another story, and in fact AAPL's performance over the last three months is nothing to write home about. In fact, it has kind of sucked.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #23 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B View Post

Even Steve Jobs has HIPAA privacy rights:

http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa...ing/index.html

You beat me to it.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #24 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

You beat me to it.

It's completely irrelevant.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #25 of 53
Quote:
The former chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has said he believes that Apple has publicly disclosed enough information about the health of its chief executive, Steve Jobs.

Arthur Leavitt told Bloomberg on Monday that he believes Apple's board of directors has acted appropriately when revealing information about its company's CEO. He also revealed that after leaving the SEC, he was approached about joining Apple's board, but the offer was rescinded because of differences about governance.

"It's easy to criticize the board, but I think the reality is that someone who owns Apple stock has got to be deaf, dumb and blind not to know that Jobs has an illness that can reoccur at any time," Leavitt reportedly said.

He said the announcement on Monday that Jobs will take a medical leave of absence from Apple is sufficient information for investors.

"For the board to opine on what the extent of the illness is right now I don't think is really necessary," he said.


You have been warned! Don't you complain later if Steve Jobs never comes back to Apple or if his cancer treatments prove unsuccessful.

Apple is not for the faint of heart, but hedge funds. Prudent family investors have left this speculative stock moved by constant rumors and speculation to investment professionnals.

You can't put it any better than the former Chief of the SEC:

Quote:
"[...] I think the reality is that someone who owns Apple stock has got to be deaf, dumb and blind not to know that Jobs has an illness that can reoccur at any time," Leavitt reportedly said.


Buyer beware! AppleInsider summarizes what is known for Steve Jobs' condition:

Quote:
The current leave of absence marks the third for Jobs, who had surgery in 2004 to address pancreatic cancer. He also left the company in January of 2009 to receive a liver transplant, and returned in June of that year.

This week it was also revealed that Jobs allegedly traveled to Switzerland during his leave in 2009 for cancer treatment. With all those details of Jobs' history with cancer out in the open, Levitt said he believes investors know the risks.


post #26 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

It's completely irrelevant.

How so?
post #27 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Applicant must supply own RDF.

... I'd also like him to be completely invulnerable to cancer; immortal!
post #28 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

In the Bloomberg article, but omitted from this one:

How do we know that Apple does not have a succession plan?

I would venture a guess that, with high probability, Apple does. For a range of very practical reasons, Apple's board may want to keep that information -- or even its existence -- confidential.

Also, at this point, it seems fairly obvious who the new CEO will be.

Add: I see that anonymouse beat me to it.

More add: According to pp. 41-42 of Apple's recent proxy filing (http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External...xUeXBlPTM=&t=1), "....[Apple's] Board .... maintains a comprehensive succession plan throughout the organization."
post #29 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post


I have no real issue with the stock being down right now, I have over 20 years until I plan to retire. However I am feel certain the recent drop has nothing to do with anything else but the SJ news.

That news hit just about every media outlet in the US that day. Being a long time investor I can tell you I don't have anywhere neare the confidence in Cook that I do in Jobs if this situation was to become worse over the next year. There are several even on this forum that have raised the same issue

Quite apart from the fact that you're contradicted yourself three times in the two paras above, here's a thought: If Tim Cook is creating confidence issues for you, act like an adult: sell the darn thing, shut up, and move on.
post #30 of 53
The stock market has little to do with investing. Brokers make money when you sell or buy. It doesn't want people just sitting on the money. So creating market instability is in their best interests. That is why some analysts really hyped up Jobs absence as being a real issue, well others said any sell off would be a great buying opportunity.

Bad news creates panic because people who either have shorted the stock or benefit from the sale of the stock have created the perception that this is an issue. The fear is not based on logic, but is appealing to people's emotion to make quick decisions. Investing shouldn't be about making quick decisions. If you are buying in a sound company, you have to be strong enough to weather temporary ups and downs of the market and take advantage of those situations.

Moreover, stocks like Apple tend to go in trends. After the holiday earnings, there is generally a sell off. People taking profit hoping the stock goes lower to buy in lower. That approach doesn't always work because Apple doesn't always follow that pattern, but it does more times then not.

Further, the general market is weak. When the general market is weak, Apple follows that trend, but might not suffer as great as losses.

As for the two year timeline goes, I can tell you this. Apple plans some product releases many years in advance. I used to know an Apple Intern. He told me about some of Apple's things it was working on. The Mac Mini was one such thing. After six months or so, those things didn't come to market so I doubted him. Over a year later these things did.

Apple doesn't release things to the public like product launch cycles or executive succession plans because that would give competitors an advantage. If the public knew what people Apple wanted to promote, other companies would try to steal those people away. If competitors knew what Apple's product launch cycle was, it would try to beat Apple to market. Apple is too smart not to be well organized in that regard.



Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post

If thats the case why would the stock have been effected at all? So I don't see that as the case. Any bad news about Steve Jobs in any form will cause panic.

The market even more so in the tech sector is rarely based on logic. This week is a perfect example on how perception trumps logic any day of the week.

If people truly believed there were a two year approved plan in place by SJ then the AAPL woud have spiked on earnings, instead they have declined daily.

Unless you feel the stock was over inflated based on either Verizon news or iPad 2 news. Which that I could buy.
post #31 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post

If thats the case why would the stock have been effected at all? So I don't see that as the case. Any bad news about Steve Jobs in any form will cause panic.

The market even more so in the tech sector is rarely based on logic. This week is a perfect example on how perception trumps logic any day of the week.

If people truly believed there were a two year approved plan in place by SJ then the AAPL woud have spiked on earnings, instead they have declined daily.

Unless you feel the stock was over inflated based on either Verizon news or iPad 2 news. Which that I could buy.

The market doesn't behave rationally. Traders who should know better think Jobs is personally designing all of the components in each computer. In their heads, the company can't succeed without Jobs. While I personally think that Jobs may be the greatest American CEO of all time, should he not return to Apple, some things may actually get better without him because there is a streak of stubbornness and arrogance that sometimes hurts Apple.

As for the stock, sure it's dropped because of the Steve announcement. It's down about 5% from its peak, but NASDAQ is down 46% from its peak and down 2.23% from its 52 week high.

The stock closed today at 332.68, so that's down about 16 points (5%) from its peak, but its 52 week low is 190.25 and Steve Jobs was there and presumably relatively healthy when it was at 190. So how can anyone complain? It's up 75% from its 52 week low. If it stabilizes or goes up, fine. If it drops another 5%, that's a good buying opportunity and I for one, will be buying more stock. If it drops 25%, I'll be buying tons of Apple stock.

The only way Apple fails is if Jobs decides not to return, the Board goes outside for a CEO and they bring in some corporate-type ass or someone who has Steve's arrogance and ego, but not his vision and smarts.
post #32 of 53
The stock only lost less then two percent on the news. On great earnings Apple made all that back and then some the following day. The general market, however, went sour and Apple is going down with it.

Bottom line: investing is about picking good companies and holding. Trading is something different. If you are not comfortable about the stock, the solution is to sell. The reality is Steve Jobs had a very serious type of cancer. One's average survival rate after treatment is just a few years (less then five). Let us hope Jobs beats the odds whether or not he stays with Apple. However, anybody who has followed Apple at all knows the day is coming soon when he will have to step down permanently. That day might already be here.

QUOTE=extremeskater;1790543]That news hit just about every media outlet in the US that day. Being a long time investor I can tell you I don't have anywhere neare the confidence in Cook that I do in Jobs if this situation was to become worse over the next year. There are several even on this forum that have raised the same issue.

Not like we have any control in the situation other then to decide if we want to hold on for the ride or not.[/QUOTE]
post #33 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor David View Post

How so?

The law protects patients from having their medical records disclosed by medical professionals to others without their permission. How in the world could it be relevant, if only because NOBODY is arguing that ANY medical records must be disclosed. The phony HIPAA argument comes up all the time, as though it answers the question about how much information should be volunteered by Steve and the board. It's not relevant to the question, not in the least.

Quote:
Originally Posted by delreyjones View Post

... I'd also like him to be completely invulnerable to cancer; immortal!

That might be asking for too much. I'd settle for super powers. I mean, that is what we're used to already.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

How do we know that Apple does not have a succession plan?

I would venture a guess that, with high probability, Apple does. For a range of very practical reasons, Apple's board may want to keep that information -- or even its existence -- confidential.

Also, at this point, it seems fairly obvious who the new CEO will be.

Add: I see that anonymouse beat me to it.

More add: According to pp. 41-42 of Apple's recent proxy filing (http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External...xUeXBlPTM=&t=1), "....[Apple's] Board .... maintains a comprehensive succession plan throughout the organization."

We don't know either way. Probably something is going on, and I think the posted article does a good job of describing how much Apple would need to disclose about it to settle the question. Apple's argument that they can't say a single word more than nothing without competitive consequences doesn't seem to hold water, and probably won't stand up.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #34 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

The stock only lost less then two percent on the news. On great earnings Apple made all that back and then some the following day. The general market, however, went sour and Apple is going down with it.

AAPL is down 4.5% since the news. The NASDAQ is down about 1.7% during the same period.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #35 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

The law protects patients from having their medical records disclosed by medical professionals to others without their permission. How in the world could it be relevant, if only because NOBODY is arguing that ANY medical records must be disclosed. The phony HIPAA argument comes up all the time, as though it answers the question about how much information should be volunteered by Steve and the board. It's not relevant to the question, not in the least.

If NOBODY is arguing ANY medical information needs to be revealed why is there a question about how much information should be revealed by Steve and the board?
HIPPA doesn't provide legal guidance in this situation but it can certainly help inform the discussion on providing medical information in this type of a situation.
It is relevant.
post #36 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post

Any bad news about Steve Jobs in any form will cause panic.

At this point I think most people are assuming Steve won't be back (but hoping they're wrong!). And there has been no panic.

As Horace Dediu at asymco.com has pointed out, Apple's P/E premium dropped in half, back to the average for the stock market, around when Steve Jobs looked sick at his January keynote in 2008, and it remains at that level. The lack of panic on Tuesday is additional evidence that the expectation that AAPL can't count on having Steve much longer has been baked into the stock price for the past three years.
post #37 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor David View Post

If NOBODY is arguing ANY medical information needs to be revealed why is there a question about how much information should be revealed by Steve and the board?
HIPPA doesn't provide legal guidance in this situation but it can certainly help inform the discussion on providing medical information in this type of a situation.
It is relevant.

It doesn't inform anything. In fact bringing it up misinforms, since it sounds so official, but doesn't apply to this situation in any imaginable way. Show me who is demanding access to any medical records, for instance. Nobody, right? So forget HIPAA, it's nothing more than a red herring argument.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #38 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by NormM View Post

At this point I think most people are assuming Steve won't be back (but hoping they're wrong!). And there has been no panic.

As Horace Dediu at asymco.com has pointed out, Apple's P/E premium dropped in half, back to the average for the stock market, around when Steve Jobs looked sick at his January keynote in 2008, and it remains at that level. The lack of panic on Tuesday is additional evidence that the expectation that AAPL can't count on having Steve much longer has been baked into the stock price for the past three years.

Thanks for posting this link. Most interesting. The summation:

Quote:
Having led you this far in the story, Im afraid Im going to let you down at the end: The cause for the loss of faith is a mystery to me.

There is only one noteworthy event that took place on that date: Macworld 2008 (January 14-18). During the keynote, Steve Jobs introduced the Macbook Air (and Time Capsule and Leopard and pre-announced the iPhone SDK which, six months later led to the app supernova). I remember that day and I remember that the stock began selling off exactly at the point when the Air was mentioned. It has never been the same since.

Obviously, correlation is not causation. The Macbook Air need not be the cause for the loss of faith in Apple as an investment. Or can it? Im hoping someone can explain this because to me it makes no sense. The product was not a home run but it did not do badly either and its current incarnation seems to be a hit. Whatever sins the original Air may have had have surely been expurgated by now.

Regardless the cause, the bottom line is that, in the eyes of investors, Apple stopped being special that day. Its valuation dropped to in-line the S&P and, given its growth, well below what a large growth company should be worth. The companys shares went into the bargain bin and are still there today.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #39 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

It doesn't inform anything. In fact bringing it up misinforms, since it sounds so official, but doesn't apply to this situation in any imaginable way. Show me who is demanding access to any medical records, for instance. Nobody, right? So forget HIPAA, it's nothing more than a red herring argument.

I never said anyone is demanding medical records. In fact I said HIPAA doesn't offer legal guidance in this situation.
What it does offer is a baseline for who can have access to a persons medical information and underscores a persons right to privacy.
The article is about how much information should be given out by apple about Steve. I believe people in a position of power should give out more information but the question of how much doesn't seem to be clear. Or if it is I would have expected the former head of the SEC to indicate that instead of saying "enough information is already known" or "you'd have to be blind". It seems to be an area with few guidlines.
post #40 of 53
Apple does have a succession plan, and only the deaf, dumb and blind are missing it.

Every time that Jobs has taken medical leave, Cook has stepped up into the CEO role. If Jobs never comes back, I'm sure that Cook will just have the acting bit removed from his job title or have joint added to it.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AAPL Investors
AppleInsider › Forums › Investors › AAPL Investors › Ex-SEC chief says Apple has disclosed enough about health of Steve Jobs