or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Gov't seeks more information from Apple on options mess
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Gov't seeks more information from Apple on options mess

post #1 of 36
Thread Starter 
Apple said Thursday it has received an informal requests from the U.S. government to turn over documents and additional information related to its past stock options practices.

The request followed the company's own review of the matter, which turned up more than 6,400 option grants with inaccurate dates between the years of 1997 and 2002.

"The Company intends to continue full cooperation," Apple said in a regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. "The resolution of these matters will be time consuming, expensive, and will distract management from the conduct of the Companys business."

In December, Apple announced that it would incur an $84 million charge for the bulk of the fortuitously granted options. However, it maintained that a special committee of outside directors "found no misconduct by current management."

In its filing Thursday, the Cupertino-based company warned that adverse findings by authorities could result in additional damages or penalties, which could harm its business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

According to news reports earlier this month, chief executive Steve Jobs was questioned on the matter in San Francisco by officials from both the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The issue surrounding Jobs, which has been a focal point of investors, revolves around a misdated grant for 7.5 million options that was issued to him in 2001.

Apple has admitted that over the years Jobs was aware or recommended the selection of some favorable grant dates, but said he did not receive or financially benefit from any of those grants or appreciate the accounting implications.
post #2 of 36
Quote:
Apple said Thursday it has received an informal requests from the U.S. government to turn over documents and additional information related to its past stock options practices.

To start off, what do you mean? A single informal request, or more than one :S

-tj
post #3 of 36
What does informal mean? If the government requested it, isn't that formal?
I doubt that Apple posted this story yesterday, since the information all comes from their SEC filing at the end of December. This sounds more like some stock shorters are attempting to manipulate the price.
The quote about how the process will interfere with the running of the company is particularly suspicious, since Apple would never make a statement like this, knowing what it would do to its stock price.
post #4 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by willrob View Post

What does informal mean? If the government requested it, isn't that formal?
I doubt that Apple posted this story yesterday, since the information all comes from their SEC filing at the end of December. This sounds more like some stock shorters are attempting to manipulate the price.
The quote about how the process will interfere with the running of the company is particularly suspicious, since Apple would never make a statement like this, knowing what it would do to its stock price.

Agreed.
-ReCompile-
"No matter where you go, There you are"
- Buckaroo Bonzai
Reply
-ReCompile-
"No matter where you go, There you are"
- Buckaroo Bonzai
Reply
post #5 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by willrob View Post

What does informal mean? If the government requested it, isn't that formal?

I think it meeans that the government showed up on Apple's front door dressed in Levis and "wife-beaters", and said: "Howdy!, hey could you give us a few receipts pardn'er?"

post #6 of 36
If the source of this information was the SEC, provide a link to the document or statements attributed to them. No more bull.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #7 of 36
Just another case of "The Man" tryin' to keep a fruit company down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.
Date the ban will be lifted:...
Reply
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.
Date the ban will be lifted:...
Reply
post #8 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecking View Post

Just another case of "The Man" tryin' to keep a fruit company down.

When life's a drag, wear a dress.
post #9 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by willrob View Post

What does informal mean? If the government requested it, isn't that formal?

An informal request is just that, the guys doing the investigating saying "Hey, we'd like some more info, mind providing it?" A 'black-tie' request would be an official document coming from the investigators indicating what they need and when they want it. A 'white-tie' request is called a subphoena (however you spell it).
post #10 of 36
"Apple has admitted that over the years Jobs was aware or recommended the selection of some favorable grant dates, but said he did not receive or financially benefit from any of those grants or appreciate the accounting implications"

So why would you even want a favorable grant, if you're not going to make a profit. Sounds like bullshit to me.
post #11 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackSummerNight View Post

"Apple has admitted that over the years Jobs was aware or recommended the selection of some favorable grant dates, but said he did not receive or financially benefit from any of those grants or appreciate the accounting implications"

So why would you even want a favorable grant, if you're not going to make a profit. Sounds like bullshit to me.

as has been stated in the past, receiving backdated stock options is not illegal in and of itself. it's not reporting the those options correctly that is illegal. it's possible that once they realized that the options were not recorded properly that he just gave them back so as not to benefit from the profit.
post #12 of 36
So I guess they will look to see when the options were given back. I'm not saying he did anything illegal, nor do I care, but the entire ordeal stinks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by admactanium View Post

as has been stated in the past, receiving backdated stock options is not illegal in and of itself. it's not reporting the those options correctly that is illegal. it's possible that once they realized that the options were not recorded properly that he just gave them back so as not to benefit from the profit.
post #13 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by willrob View Post

What does informal mean? If the government requested it, isn't that formal?
I doubt that Apple posted this story yesterday, since the information all comes from their SEC filing at the end of December. This sounds more like some stock shorters are attempting to manipulate the price.
The quote about how the process will interfere with the running of the company is particularly suspicious, since Apple would never make a statement like this, knowing what it would do to its stock price.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReCompile View Post

Agreed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

If the source of this information was the SEC, provide a link to the document or statements attributed to them. No more bull.

It appears in Page 38 of Apple's 10Q filing with the SEC on 2/2/2007 (i.e., today). See http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/3...-2749_110q.htm

Ai is right on -- there is no short-seller conspiracy here!
post #14 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

It appears in Page 38 of Apple's 10Q filing with the SEC on 2/2/2007 (i.e., today). See http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/3...-2749_110q.htm

Ai is right on -- there is no short-seller conspiracy here!

I should have added: This sort of listing of "risk factors" in SEC filings is (usually) boiler-plate nonsense from all companies, and they rarely amount to much. Just a CYA-type of thing to cover even VERY low probability events (to get a flavor, read the others -- e.g., "terrorism" risk, "global economic" risk etc etc).

That said, Jobs' options stuff is still potentially problematic -- I side with Ai's judgment on this one, in terms of it being newsworthy.
post #15 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackSummerNight View Post

"Apple has admitted that over the years Jobs was aware or recommended the selection of some favorable grant dates, but said he did not receive or financially benefit from any of those grants or appreciate the accounting implications"

So why would you even want a favorable grant, if you're not going to make a profit. Sounds like bullshit to me.

It's not that simple.

He could have recommended grants to people OTHER than to himself.

Backdating is not, in and of itself, illegal. How the company reports, and accounts for it, is important. They must make it publicly reportable to stockholders. They must account for it properly, paying taxes and having it correctly reflect the companies bottom line, etc.

If that isn't done, the company, and executives who were involved, will be in trouble.

If a company says, publically, that they are giving options to an employee whom they very much want to stay, and are backdating them for favorable profitability for that employee, and account for it correctly, then there is no problem.

But, if they lie about it, and don't say what they did, and it doesn't show on the books, there is a problem. If the employee then hides the profits, and doesn't pay all the taxes due, or the company pays it for him (or her), then they will have problems as well.

S-O changes several reporting requirements.
post #16 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Appleinsider

In its filing Thursday, the Cupertino-based company warned that adverse findings by authorities could result in additional damages or penalties, which could harm its business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Also known as the standard legal cover-your-ass clause. 8) ...Anyone wondering why Apple is releasing all this, it has to keep the SEC well in-da-loop about goings on, and through such means, cover Apple's ass in case profits, revenues, product launches, Leopard, board directors, management, or whatever start heading South.
post #17 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

"The resolution of these matters will be time consuming, expensive, and will distract management from the conduct of the Companys business."...

Indeed. Once iPhone kicks in towards the end of the year and the SEC/FED slug ("the investigation) oozes along a bit, late-2007 will be more back-in-the-swing of things. Pity about the dampening of the stock price this Jan-March quarter. \ <---Which could be due to various factors, yeah.

2ND HALF 2007 !!!
1. iPhone
2. Leopard
3. Adobe CS3 Universal
4. Pro Creative purchases
5. Back to School
6. Christmas Frenzy
post #18 of 36
Quote:
The issue surrounding Jobs, which has been a focal point of investors, revolves around a misdated grant for 7.5 million options that was issued to him in 2001.

[...] Jobs was aware or recommended the selection of some favorable grant dates, but said he did not [...] appreciate the accounting implications.


A CEO that dumb doesn't deserve his position, nor his fat stock options plan.
post #19 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunilraman View Post

Indeed. Once iPhone kicks in towards the end of the year and the SEC/FED slug ("the investigation) oozes along a bit, late-2007 will be more back-in-the-swing of things. Pity about the dampening of the stock price this Jan-March quarter. \ <---Which could be due to various factors, yeah.

2ND HALF 2007 !!!
1. iPhone
2. Leopard
3. Adobe CS3 Universal
4. Pro Creative purchases
5. Back to School
6. Christmas Frenzy

For the first time in years I'm going to watch the Superbowl (not very closely). I don't watch because if the Giants or Jets aren't in it, I'm, frankly, not interested.

But, Apple will be advertising this year. At least that's what we've been reading.

Three hours in front of the telly for one ad.

It had better be good!
post #20 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by ouragan View Post

A CEO that dumb doesn't deserve his position, nor his fat stock options plan.

And, I suppose you could do better?

Here's an interesting article. It's not about Jobs, but he is mentioned in it.

http://www.thestreet.com/_mktwrm/new.../10336587.html
post #21 of 36
Simply means: not in the form of a subpoena.
post #22 of 36
Quote:
The request followed the company's own review of the matter, which turned up more than 6,400 option grants with inaccurate dates between the years of 1997 and 2002. [...]

Apple has admitted that over the years Jobs was aware or recommended the selection of some favorable grant dates, but said he did not receive or financially benefit from any of those grants or appreciate the accounting implications.


If the SEC believed for a moment that Steve Jobs casually selected favorable grant dates more than 6,400 times, but failed to appreciate that he was cheating both the company and its stockholders in a 'get rich' scheme, the SEC would have closed its investigation for a long time.

I guess that the SEC is not that dumb after all, nor about to believe that a cunning Steve Jobs is so dumb as to be unable to appreciate what he is doing.

And yes, Steve Jobs got caught.
post #23 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by ouragan View Post

A CEO that dumb doesn't deserve his position, nor his fat stock options plan.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

And, I suppose you could do better?

While ouragan's comment is somewhat in the extreme, I think that Jobs as the CEO and intended beneficiary of the options grant must take responsibility. It pains me that Jobs has adopted a "no comment; either talk to my lawyer or I'll let Al Gore do the talking" stance on this.

Steve Jobs has founded at least three major publicly traded companies (Apple, Pixar, NeXT -- well, I forget whether NeXT was public or not); he is the largest shareholder of yet another large publicly traded company; he sits on boards of publicly traded companies; and, there is an accomplished board and a bunch of professional managers both of whom should have been providing oversight. (My reading of the situation, from proxy filings, is that there could be some shaky board-related issues here, not quite rising to the level of self-dealing, but a tad smelly in today's hyper-sensitive governance environment).

All told, he is not a naif.

I still believe that: (1) Jobs will need to get in front of this at some point -- he should have done so already; (2) He will need to do a mea culpa -- it is inevitable, so the sooner the better; (3) He needs a good PR person as much as (if not more than) he needs a lawyer; (4) This will be like a continuous low-grade fever that will regularly flare up for the next few months; (5) It will add to AAPL's stock price volatility; (6) For all his brilliance and his achievements, any evaluation of Jobs and his legacy will always have the phrase "options backdating" attached (e.g., similar to Clinton and Lewinski); (7) Sanity will prevail, and he will donate the value of his backdated grants to charity.
post #24 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by ouragan View Post

If the SEC believed for a moment that Steve Jobs casually selected favorable grant dates more than 6,400 times, but failed to appreciate that he was cheating both the company and its stockholders in a 'get rich' scheme, the SEC would have closed its investigation for a long time.

I guess that the SEC is not that dumb after all, nor about to believe that a cunning Steve Jobs is so dumb as to be unable to appreciate what he is doing.

And yes, Steve Jobs got caught.

If anyone is so dumb to think that Jiobs has the time, or the interest to to personally pick 6,400 grants, then I suppost to that person, he must seem guilty of all that.

Most likely, he picked grants for a dozen or so high executives.
post #25 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

While ouragan's comment is somewhat in the extreme, I think that Jobs as the CEO and intended beneficiary of the options grant must take responsibility. It pains me that Jobs has adopted a "no comment; either talk to my lawyer or I'll let Al Gore do the talking" stance on this.

Steve Jobs has founded at least three major publicly traded companies (Apple, Pixar, NeXT -- well, I forget whether NeXT was public or not); he is the largest shareholder of yet another large publicly traded company; he sits on boards of publicly traded companies; and, there is an accomplished board and a bunch of professional managers both of whom should have been providing oversight. (My reading of the situation, from proxy filings, is that there could be some shaky board-related issues here, not quite rising to the level of self-dealing, but a tad smelly in today's hyper-sensitive governance environment).

All told, he is not a naif.

I still believe that: (1) Jobs will need to get in front of this at some point -- he should have done so already; (2) He will need to do a mea culpa -- it is inevitable, so the sooner the better; (3) He needs a good PR person as much as (if not more than) he needs a lawyer; (4) This will be like a continuous low-grade fever that will regularly flare up for the next few months; (5) It will add to AAPL's stock price volatility; (6) For all his brilliance and his achievements, any evaluation of Jobs and his legacy will always have the phrase "options backdating" attached (e.g., similar to Clinton and Lewinski); (7) Sanity will prevail, and he will donate the value of his backdated grants to charity.

But, it all depends on what he did, or did not do.

From my seat, I can't see that.

The SEC has seen many documents already. this late request could be for a clarification of what they have already seen. The fact that it is informal means that they are not too concerned, at this time, that there may be documentation that is relevant, and incriminating.

That may change. But the fact that they have not seen a requirement for subphoenas, shows that they believe that Apple is cooperating to their satisfaction.

These investigations take a long time. There are thousands of documents to go over, and many questions to ask.

If anything substansive had been found so far, it would have already moved to a higher level.
post #26 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

But, it all depends on what he did, or did not do.

From my seat, I can't see that.

The SEC has seen many documents already. this late request could be for a clarification of what they have already seen. The fact that it is informal means that they are not too concerned, at this time, that there may be documentation that is relevant, and incriminating.

That may change. But the fact that they have not seen a requirement for subphoenas, shows that they believe that Apple is cooperating to their satisfaction.

These investigations take a long time. There are thousands of documents to go over, and many questions to ask.

If anything substansive had been found so far, it would have already moved to a higher level.

We'll have to see, won't we. One of us will be right, and it could well be you -- in fact, I hope it's you. (Who was it who said, something to the effect of "forecasting is difficult, especially if it's about the future"?)
post #27 of 36
It has been said many time on the news wire that some types of backdating is legal therefore gray area exists.

If anyone is to blame here it would be the SEC for not making clear what is and is not legal. If so many companies have this problem then it obviously is not clear enough as no one in their right mind would want to go through this bullshit.

OK... now it's clear and legal firms will HAVE to be aware and notify their clients properly.

This whole thing should disappear like a bad dream in a month or two for Apple. In the mean time we should gobble up AAPL like there is no tomorrow while the girlie investors run scarred.

G
Reply
G
Reply
post #28 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

We'll have to see, won't we. One of us will be right, and it could well be you -- in fact, I hope it's you. (Who was it who said, something to the effect of "forecasting is difficult, especially if it's about the future"?)

I'm hoping I'm right as well, of course.

I might not be.

But, this is a complex process. I also feel that the SEC might be treading carefully on this one.

My friend is in charge of the NYC audits department. According to him, and I quite agree, they are careful when the situation is not clear.

I also believe that they are moving carefully, because, as has been pointed out in many articles in the business press, Jobs is so much more tied to Apple's fortune, than any of the others in his position in other companies have been, that indicting him for anything less than clear, conclusive, evidence of wrongdoing that has damaged the company's abilities to compete, and overall legal standing, would be unlikely. (run-on sentence!)

They may yet find something that will unravel that, but, Apple might have to pay more, rather than Jobs going.
post #29 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timeline View Post

It has been said many time on the news wire that some types of backdating is legal therefore gray area exists.

If anyone is to blame here it would be the SEC for not making clear what is and is not legal. If so many companies have this problem then it obviously is not clear enough as no one in their right mind would want to go through this bullshit.

OK... now it's clear and legal firms will HAVE to be aware and notify their clients properly.

This whole thing should disappear like a bad dream in a month or two for Apple. In the mean time we should gobble up AAPL like there is no tomorrow while the girlie investors run scarred.


It's not just the SEC. It's Congress, responsible for making the laws, and the President, for signing them. The leadership of the SEC, as is true in all other government agencies, are political positions. They follow the leader.
post #30 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by ouragan View Post

If the SEC believed for a moment that Steve Jobs casually selected favorable grant dates more than 6,400 times, but failed to appreciate that he was cheating both the company and its stockholders in a 'get rich' scheme, the SEC would have closed its investigation for a long time.

I guess that the SEC is not that dumb after all, nor about to believe that a cunning Steve Jobs is so dumb as to be unable to appreciate what he is doing.

And yes, Steve Jobs got caught.

Can we pull our collective heads out of our asses and come to grips that there is no law against backdating?

The backdating related problems have to do with how they are reported to shareholders and how the taxes are reported. The tax issue is the CFO's bailiwick -- Anderson has already been fired. The only remaining issues seem to be if the reporting was within accepted accounting practices. Hardly CEO daily responsibility stuff.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #31 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

Can we pull our collective heads out of our asses and come to grips that there is no law against backdating?

The backdating related problems have to do with how they are reported to shareholders and how the taxes are reported. The tax issue is the CFO's bailiwick -- Anderson has already been fired. The only remaining issues seem to be if the reporting was within accepted accounting practices. Hardly CEO daily responsibility stuff.

Speak for your own body parts!

The issue is not one of legality of backdating (some people perhaps use it as a short-form to refer to the possible illegality surrounding, as you suggest, disclosure and taxes). Notwithstanding the legal issues, there is the issue of ethicality and whether it is in the interests of shareholders: Actions such as backdating sever the link between performance and share-based pay, thereby obliterating the rationale for the use of options in the first place!

Apart from the screw-up on dates, there is another possible lie: The apparent claim in the filings that the board met to decide this, when no meeting actually took place. Since Jobs is a member of the six-person board, and it is difficult to claim he could not have known about this assertion that a meeting took place. (Granted, he probably recused himself from the meetings that talked about this, but the fact that Apple had got rid of its compensation committee in the previous year also raises eyebrows).

PS: All of this info is from their 2001 and 2002 proxy filings.
post #32 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Speak for your own body parts!

The issue is not one of legality of backdating (some people perhaps use it as a short-form to refer to the possible illegality surrounding, as you suggest, disclosure and taxes). Notwithstanding the legal issues, there is the issue of ethicality and whether it is in the interests of shareholders: Actions such as backdating sever the link between performance and share-based pay, thereby obliterating the rationale for the use of options in the first place!

Apart from the screw-up on dates, there is another possible lie: The apparent claim in the filings that the board met to decide this, when no meeting actually took place. Since Jobs is a member of the six-person board, and it is difficult to claim he could not have known about this assertion that a meeting took place. (Granted, he probably recused himself from the meetings that talked about this, but the fact that Apple had got rid of its compensation committee in the previous year also raises eyebrows).

PS: All of this info is from their 2001 and 2002 proxy filings.

There is a mistaken idea that executive performance directly relates to stock price. This isn't true.

Many executives within a company may be deserving of bonuses best granted with stock options. That doesn't mean their work can be directly accounted for in stock price accretion.

Apple went through several years of transition where their stock was not moving upwards through little fault of their own. The 1999-2001 stock marker drop, and subsequent paralysis, had a good deal to do with it. It can be difficult to award options in an industry where options are expected, when the stocks of most of those companies are in a doldrum.

You'll notice that the backdating problems ended as Apple's price began to rise again.
post #33 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Speak for your own body parts!

The issue is not one of legality of backdating (some people perhaps use it as a short-form to refer to the possible illegality surrounding, as you suggest, disclosure and taxes). Notwithstanding the legal issues, there is the issue of ethicality and whether it is in the interests of shareholders: Actions such as backdating sever the link between performance and share-based pay, thereby obliterating the rationale for the use of options in the first place!

Actually it is the legality that is the question. If something is legal it doesn't matter if the government likes it or not, they don't bother. Here there are all kinds of little niggling dot the i's and cross the t's questions that might or might not turn into a legal issue. But none of those equate to: put the CEO in jail!

Quote:
Apart from the screw-up on dates, there is another possible lie: The apparent claim in the filings that the board met to decide this, when no meeting actually took place. Since Jobs is a member of the six-person board, and it is difficult to claim he could not have known about this assertion that a meeting took place. (Granted, he probably recused himself from the meetings that talked about this, but the fact that Apple had got rid of its compensation committee in the previous year also raises eyebrows).

PS: All of this info is from their 2001 and 2002 proxy filings.

The approval date is a problem, there seems to be a second side to that story that generally garners little press though. That the updated grant was discussed and approved at a board meeting and that when the option was recorded someone got sloppy and put down the wrong date, one several weeks after the original board meeting. I don't know what the real case is because the full board meeting minutes are not released, but those could clear that up in a hurry. I kind of think the full minutes do reflect something along those lines though otherwise there would be a different tone to Apples responses, one of actual worry and false bravado that everything will be all right.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #34 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

There is a mistaken idea that executive performance directly relates to stock price. This isn't true.

I don't follow: Are you suggesting that the quality of executive teams (let alone individuals) does not matter for stock prices? (I'll await your clarification before responding further).

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Many executives within a company may be deserving of bonuses best granted with stock options.

Actually, it turns out that there is nary a shred of empirical evidence that stock options are an incentive-coompatible way to compensate managers in the first place (indeed, there is mounting evidence to the contrary). But that is an "elephant in the room" issue that is off-topic (and probably uninteresting) to this forum. (I'd be happy to give you references if you send an offlist message).
post #35 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

But none of those equate to: put the CEO in jail!

Oh, I don't think anybody is going to jail on this one, least of all, Steve Jobs.
post #36 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

I don't follow: Are you suggesting that the quality of executive teams (let alone individuals) does not matter for stock prices? (I'll await your clarification before responding further).

My comments were clear. But, I'll explain further.

6,400 grants were rarely for top managers. The vast majority were for those in middle management, and below, as is true for all major corporations. Their work, no matter how exemplary, doesn't show in the stock price.

Quote:
Actually, it turns out that there is nary a shred of empirical evidence that stock options are an incentive-coompatible way to compensate managers in the first place (indeed, there is mounting evidence to the contrary). But that is an "elephant in the room" issue that is off-topic (and probably uninteresting) to this forum. (I'd be happy to give you references if you send an offlist message).

I'll grant that this is a complex problem. But, Silicon Valley companies, and other high tech companies have been using this for compensation since the early nineties. Right or wrong, they have substituted salery, and other compensation with stock options, with the ubderstanding that the stock increases would be worth more than any other "traditional" compensation.

This began with start-ups, wich were cash short, but moved to larger companies as well. It was very successful during the rapid growth in stock prices during the mid-late '90's, when my investments soared.

After the downturn, it soured, and companies used to working this way seem to have gotten caught. The new reporting requirements of S-O didn't help them any.

The success of a procedure has nothing to do with its legality, or the legality of the way it is carried out. I'm aware of the questions that have been brought up about its effectiveness.

I've been concerned for a long time about the damage to US competitiveness by managers who are concerned about the stock price for the next few quarters, who gain lusty compensation packages based upon it, and then leave to another company based upon that supposed performance record, only to have their formed company go belly up because of the long term damage caused by the short term performance decisions.

We can look to any number of campanies to see that. Two that come to mind are Sunbeam, and even Kodak. Sunbeams problems were due soley to poor internal decisions by a manager who collected vast sums for a brief bit of glory before being forced out with a huge package.

Koda'ks have been due to external factors, such as financial "authorities who advised them to divest themselves of slow growth divisions, advice that new management followed, and then received large packages for havinf carried it out. That made the company appear to be healthier, but came just in time to see their situation erode, as they no longer had the muscle to back up their needed move to digital, as Fuji and others have. Kodak is now in a much weaker situation than their rivals.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Gov't seeks more information from Apple on options mess