All the comparisons about SJ compared to the Lazard guy are totally irrelevant.
As customers and enthusiasts we like Steve's work, but the law doesn't distinguish between them and neither should professional investors and the regulators at the SEC.
If you take the public's money to help fund your company you are bound to follow the rules. In short, timely disclosure is required where a matter might be material to shareholders.
Apple, have been a bit too cute with this and shareholders are right to beat the stock around if Apple PR tell them nothing.
I'd accept the earlier point that creative geniuses don't like too much scrutiny, and the micro-managed PR process of Apple news reflects the company's preference for firmly controlling the opportunities for real discussion.
If you don't want scrutiny SJ then the appropriate thing to do is to take the company private.
That is simply your shrill set of views. There is nothing that tells you (or the SEC) as to how to trade-off materiality against privacy. Heck, even against a sense of decency (which you obviously seem to lack because you may own some shares in Apple). If there were, the SEC would have ruled long ago.
Nothing about materiality gives a shareholder the right to peek up a CEO's innards. You may know that there is also a right to privacy of health-related information in this country.
The appropriate thing to do is not for SJ to take the company private, but for you to dump the shares if you have trouble with Apple's disclosure quality. If you can't take the risk, don't invest in the shares; buy something else. Last I looked, there are thousands of shares in which to invest.
I think it shows poorly on a company when stock is so highly tied to a single person. In this case, even more so! The tables of the Apple/MS fight could have been flipped today if it weren't for Steve Jobs.
Apple Corporate Communications is run by a bunch of liars.
Quote:
If you have ever worked in Silicon Valley, you have met these types before. "Steve has a virus." "Steve is taking antibiotics." (which have no affect on viruses...)
Outright lying.
You are assuming that the people who come out with these statements know exactly what is wrong with Steve. I doubt they know much more than you or I and are only given a very small tidbit of info such as "Steve is feeling ill. He went to the Dr. and they put him on antibiotics".
How is it lying if they tell no more/no less than they actually know?
This issue is transparency in a publicly owned company, period, end of story.
It has nothing to do with Apple's cult following or Steve Jobs or how they are different than some other company. Apple did a disservice to the people who own the company (I'm one of them) by not being more forthcoming with details about Steve Jobs health.
Hypothetically, imagine the extreme end of the spectrum. Had Apple's CEO died on the operating table without saying anything prior to shareholders (especially since the issue had been known for so long), imagine what would have happened. There would have been lawsuits and a big mess which would have been a distraction for years.
There is a balance of course in how much information is provided, but Apple clearly was not as forthcoming as they should have been.
I think it shows poorly on a company when stock is so highly tied to a single person. In this case, even more so! The tables of the Apple/MS fight could have been flipped today if it weren't for Steve Jobs.
In checking the performance of both companies today I think I'll invest in Apple, in spite of your flawed "logic".
I'm not quite sure of the timeline of Mr. Wasserstein's illness, however, a cursory look at historical stock prices for both Lazar and Apple over the last year (Nov '08 - Oct '09) tell a different story than the one presented in this article. Lazar underperformed when compared to others in its industry, while Apple has out performed its industry. (Stock prices were checked on fidelity.com) Similar comparisons to the Dow, the S&P and NASDAQ show similar trends.
Given the above, and the generally stale economic climate, I'm not sure I'm buying what the author has to say in this article.
I'd prefer to live in a world where one's own health was seen as a personal issue. Apple employees certainly deserve fair warning. After all, they can't easily switch jobs. However, investors are a different situation. They can easily choose to move their money elsewhere if the culture of personal privacy is seen as too risky.
The above sentiment is probably "unamerican" because it doesn't hold business interests as paramount. That's ok. I'd prefer to change the definition of what it means to be "american". As with anything, moderation is needed. Corporations shouldn't be _only_ about profit. They should balance profit with the well-being of humans.
True, but the illness wasn't a small detail, it was possibly of life or death concern. That's why there is this kind of disagreement.
Exactly. It's odd (to me) that each instance of this debate is always accompanied by several or many posters claiming that stockholders are demanding an entitlement to know "every detail" of Steve's health situation. Since I have never heard a single person make that demand, I wonder where this argument comes from. Thin air, it seems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler
I'd prefer to live in a world where one's own health was seen as a personal issue. Apple employees certainly deserve fair warning. After all, they can't easily switch jobs. However, investors are a different situation. They can easily choose to move their money elsewhere if the culture of personal privacy is seen as too risky.
This is precisely the inverse of the situation as it is and should be. As a publicly traded company, Apple is bound to follow SEC disclosure rules. The rules are designed to require that companies disclose material information to the public that a reasonably informed investor would want to know. This is part of the deal. The idea that a prudent investor would not feel they should know whether a public company's CEO is deathly ill, is plainly ludicrous.
This story illustrates that companies can take different approaches to the same issue, and that a little openness can go a long way. Investors appreciate it, and if they aren't being kept in the dark, they are less likely to pry. Companies don't have to play the "talk to the hand game" to protect a CEO's privacy.
Jobs' executive staff took the reigns and kept Apple going without skipping a beat. That says a lot about how affective Jobs' leadership is. The company was shown to survive without him and Wall Street should know that Apple will be good after Jobs' leave for real and for good.
Jobs' health issue are not a public issue. He is only human.
First of all, learn the difference between affective and effective. Second, when you are the CEO of a publicly owned company through shareholders, your health is a public issue, and important to shareholders on their investment. A CEO has an obligation to shareholders if his health becomes a serious issue, like pancreatic cancer and liver transplants.
This is precisely the inverse of the situation as it is and should be. As a publicly traded company, Apple is bound to follow SEC disclosure rules. The rules are designed to require that companies disclose material information to the public that a reasonably informed investor would want to know. This is part of the deal. The idea that a prudent investor would not feel they should know whether a public company's CEO is deathly ill, is plainly ludicrous.
This story illustrates that companies can take different approaches to the same issue, and that a little openness can go a long way. Investors appreciate it, and if they aren't being kept in the dark, they are less likely to pry. Companies don't have to play the "talk to the hand game" to protect a CEO's privacy.
Well said. Most of the people here are clueless when it comes to investments, and SEC disclosure rules. A publicly owned company is obligated to disclose life threatening illnesses of their CEO, especially pancreatic cancer which has a 5% survival rate, and a follow up liver transplant.
This issue is transparency in a publicly owned company, period, end of story.
It has nothing to do with Apple's cult following or Steve Jobs or how they are different than some other company. Apple did a disservice to the people who own the company (I'm one of them) by not being more forthcoming with details about Steve Jobs health.
Hypothetically, imagine the extreme end of the spectrum. Had Apple's CEO died on the operating table without saying anything prior to shareholders (especially since the issue had been known for so long), imagine what would have happened. There would have been lawsuits and a big mess which would have been a distraction for years.
There is a balance of course in how much information is provided, but Apple clearly was not as forthcoming as they should have been.
Correct and well said. If a company withholds the serious illness of their CEO, and the CEO later dies because of that illness, and the stock plummets as a result, the company would be in big trouble with the Securities and Exchange Commission for failing to disclose vital information that would affect the value of the investment and the stability of the company. That is one of the basic SEC disclosure rules that a company must follow.
That is simply your shrill set of views. There is nothing that tells you (or the SEC) as to how to trade-off materiality against privacy. Heck, even against a sense of decency (which you obviously seem to lack because you may own some shares in Apple). If there were, the SEC would have ruled long ago.
Nothing about materiality gives a shareholder the right to peek up a CEO's innards. You may know that there is also a right to privacy of health-related information in this country.
The appropriate thing to do is not for SJ to take the company private, but for you to dump the shares if you have trouble with Apple's disclosure quality. If you can't take the risk, don't invest in the shares; buy something else. Last I looked, there are thousands of shares in which to invest.
You obviously know nothing about the SEC disclosure rules for a publicly owned company. A company is obligated to disclose life threatening illnesses of their CEO.
Well said. Most of the people here are clueless when it comes to investments, and SEC disclosure rules. A publicly owned company is obligated to disclose life threatening illnesses of their CEO, especially pancreatic cancer which has a 5% survival rate, and a follow up liver transplant.
My best understanding from what I've been reading is that it's arguable both ways, in terms of whether the company is obligated to make disclosures about their CEO's health. But to not do so opens them up to SEC investigation and investor lawsuits, especially if it appears that what they have disclosed is something short of the truth, or if insiders knew something material about the company that outside investors did not. So the point I'd make is that when someone says "it's absolutely nobody's business but his own," that's not necessarily the case. A wise company doesn't treat their investors like mushrooms.
My best understanding from what I've been reading is that it's arguable both ways, in terms of whether the company is obligated to make disclosures about their CEO's health. But to not do so opens them up to SEC investigation and investor lawsuits, especially if it appears that what they have disclosed is something short of the truth, or if insiders knew something material about the company that outside investors did not. So the point I'd make is that when someone says "it's absolutely nobody's business but his own," that's not necessarily the case. A wise company doesn't treat their investors like mushrooms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hillstones
First of all, learn the difference between affective and effective. Second, when you are the CEO of a publicly owned company through shareholders, your health is a public issue, and important to shareholders on their investment. A CEO has an obligation to shareholders if his health becomes a serious issue, like pancreatic cancer and liver transplants.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
Exactly. It's odd (to me) that each instance of this debate is always accompanied by several or many posters claiming that stockholders are demanding an entitlement to know "every detail" of Steve's health situation. Since I have never heard a single person make that demand, I wonder where this argument comes from. Thin air, it seems.
This is precisely the inverse of the situation as it is and should be. As a publicly traded company, Apple is bound to follow SEC disclosure rules. The rules are designed to require that companies disclose material information to the public that a reasonably informed investor would want to know. This is part of the deal. The idea that a prudent investor would not feel they should know whether a public company's CEO is deathly ill, is plainly ludicrous.
This story illustrates that companies can take different approaches to the same issue, and that a little openness can go a long way. Investors appreciate it, and if they aren't being kept in the dark, they are less likely to pry. Companies don't have to play the "talk to the hand game" to protect a CEO's privacy.
AAPL and LAZ are publicly-traded companies, and the story was about transparency regarding health of the CEO. The fact that they are in different industries misses the point altogether. When you are dealing with a publicly-traded company, the health of a CEO is definitely the business of the shareholders, as is the succession plan to replace him or her. Sooner or later it will come out, and it is just a matter of how and when it will be disclosed. Berkshire Hathaway (BRKA) might face this in the near future with Warren Buffett advancing in age, and it will be interesting to see how it plays out.
Again well said and explain my point, better than me!
I too think the comparison of Jobs' and Wasserstein's cases is not exactly of the apples to apples variety.
Wasserstein's illness was a lot more straightforward to diagnose and treat than Jobs'. There is simply no comparison.
With a treatment path that had as many twists and turns as Jobs' did, including months of inconclusive tests to try to figure out why he couldn't put on weight, what exactly should Apple have disclosed, and how much would all the conflicting information have affected the price of AAPL? I wish Apple and Jobs could have been more forthcoming, but I understand fully why they weren't: better to keep your mouth shut until you have a definitive medical answer upon which you can make a public statement.
Especially when the US stock market these days seems to be composed less of reasoned rational investors and more neurotic kneejerk quick profit Chicken Littles who are prone to panic. Confirming that Jobs was having having any medical tests done would have resulted in even more speculation than you had. Let's face it, there are too many idiots in the stock market for calm rational response to be the rule.
That is simply your shrill set of views. There is nothing that tells you (or the SEC) as to how to trade-off materiality against privacy. Heck, even against a sense of decency (which you obviously seem to lack because you may own some shares in Apple). If there were, the SEC would have ruled long ago.
Nothing about materiality gives a shareholder the right to peek up a CEO's innards. You may know that there is also a right to privacy of health-related information in this country.
The appropriate thing to do is not for SJ to take the company private, but for you to dump the shares if you have trouble with Apple's disclosure quality. If you can't take the risk, don't invest in the shares; buy something else. Last I looked, there are thousands of shares in which to invest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hillstones
You obviously know nothing about the SEC disclosure rules for a publicly owned company. A company is obligated to disclose life threatening illnesses of their CEO.
Anyone who has read more than 5 posts by anantksundaram, is familiar with logic and has access to a search engine will deduce that he most likely knows a great deal about the SEC disclosure rules - much more than the average person, anyway. Even if he knew nothing, you have not given any evidence as to why he is wrong. If you have it, please include it in your next post.
Results have shown that Apple's handling of the situation was beneficial to shareholders: nobody panicked and the share price went up during a difficult period. I should think that a shareholder's primary concern should be the performance of his/her investment not whether the performance is achieved using cynical but apparently legal tactics to avoid panic (negative interpretation) - or prioritising a person's privacy over public disclosure (positive interpretation).
Regardless of the results, I side with those who have the opinion (and, of course, it is an opinion, not a fact) that privacy should be respected and that spending a few hundred bucks on shares should not buy you the right to be nosey for the sake of gossip (which appears to be the true motive behind some people's demands. To avoid any misunderstandings, I am not implying that hillstones is in the latter category - s/he has said nothing that suggests that).
Sometimes you don't even have to work to prove your point -- somebody does it for you. The above post contains all of the fallacies, exaggerations, and misinformed ideas I (and others) have previously described. Some sort of congratulations are in order.
Comments
All the comparisons about SJ compared to the Lazard guy are totally irrelevant.
As customers and enthusiasts we like Steve's work, but the law doesn't distinguish between them and neither should professional investors and the regulators at the SEC.
If you take the public's money to help fund your company you are bound to follow the rules. In short, timely disclosure is required where a matter might be material to shareholders.
Apple, have been a bit too cute with this and shareholders are right to beat the stock around if Apple PR tell them nothing.
I'd accept the earlier point that creative geniuses don't like too much scrutiny, and the micro-managed PR process of Apple news reflects the company's preference for firmly controlling the opportunities for real discussion.
If you don't want scrutiny SJ then the appropriate thing to do is to take the company private.
That is simply your shrill set of views. There is nothing that tells you (or the SEC) as to how to trade-off materiality against privacy. Heck, even against a sense of decency (which you obviously seem to lack because you may own some shares in Apple). If there were, the SEC would have ruled long ago.
Nothing about materiality gives a shareholder the right to peek up a CEO's innards. You may know that there is also a right to privacy of health-related information in this country.
The appropriate thing to do is not for SJ to take the company private, but for you to dump the shares if you have trouble with Apple's disclosure quality. If you can't take the risk, don't invest in the shares; buy something else. Last I looked, there are thousands of shares in which to invest.
I think people have been voting with their wallets.
Apple Corporate Communications is run by a bunch of liars.
If you have ever worked in Silicon Valley, you have met these types before. "Steve has a virus." "Steve is taking antibiotics." (which have no affect on viruses...)
Outright lying.
You are assuming that the people who come out with these statements know exactly what is wrong with Steve. I doubt they know much more than you or I and are only given a very small tidbit of info such as "Steve is feeling ill. He went to the Dr. and they put him on antibiotics".
How is it lying if they tell no more/no less than they actually know?
It has nothing to do with Apple's cult following or Steve Jobs or how they are different than some other company. Apple did a disservice to the people who own the company (I'm one of them) by not being more forthcoming with details about Steve Jobs health.
Hypothetically, imagine the extreme end of the spectrum. Had Apple's CEO died on the operating table without saying anything prior to shareholders (especially since the issue had been known for so long), imagine what would have happened. There would have been lawsuits and a big mess which would have been a distraction for years.
There is a balance of course in how much information is provided, but Apple clearly was not as forthcoming as they should have been.
I think it shows poorly on a company when stock is so highly tied to a single person. In this case, even more so! The tables of the Apple/MS fight could have been flipped today if it weren't for Steve Jobs.
In checking the performance of both companies today I think I'll invest in Apple, in spite of your flawed "logic".
Given the above, and the generally stale economic climate, I'm not sure I'm buying what the author has to say in this article.
No one is making you use Apple equipment nor read about Apple's founder and saviour.
He has a good OS which he wields as a club over our heads.
The above sentiment is probably "unamerican" because it doesn't hold business interests as paramount. That's ok. I'd prefer to change the definition of what it means to be "american". As with anything, moderation is needed. Corporations shouldn't be _only_ about profit. They should balance profit with the well-being of humans.
True, but the illness wasn't a small detail, it was possibly of life or death concern. That's why there is this kind of disagreement.
Exactly. It's odd (to me) that each instance of this debate is always accompanied by several or many posters claiming that stockholders are demanding an entitlement to know "every detail" of Steve's health situation. Since I have never heard a single person make that demand, I wonder where this argument comes from. Thin air, it seems.
I'd prefer to live in a world where one's own health was seen as a personal issue. Apple employees certainly deserve fair warning. After all, they can't easily switch jobs. However, investors are a different situation. They can easily choose to move their money elsewhere if the culture of personal privacy is seen as too risky.
This is precisely the inverse of the situation as it is and should be. As a publicly traded company, Apple is bound to follow SEC disclosure rules. The rules are designed to require that companies disclose material information to the public that a reasonably informed investor would want to know. This is part of the deal. The idea that a prudent investor would not feel they should know whether a public company's CEO is deathly ill, is plainly ludicrous.
This story illustrates that companies can take different approaches to the same issue, and that a little openness can go a long way. Investors appreciate it, and if they aren't being kept in the dark, they are less likely to pry. Companies don't have to play the "talk to the hand game" to protect a CEO's privacy.
Jobs' executive staff took the reigns and kept Apple going without skipping a beat. That says a lot about how affective Jobs' leadership is. The company was shown to survive without him and Wall Street should know that Apple will be good after Jobs' leave for real and for good.
Jobs' health issue are not a public issue. He is only human.
First of all, learn the difference between affective and effective. Second, when you are the CEO of a publicly owned company through shareholders, your health is a public issue, and important to shareholders on their investment. A CEO has an obligation to shareholders if his health becomes a serious issue, like pancreatic cancer and liver transplants.
This is precisely the inverse of the situation as it is and should be. As a publicly traded company, Apple is bound to follow SEC disclosure rules. The rules are designed to require that companies disclose material information to the public that a reasonably informed investor would want to know. This is part of the deal. The idea that a prudent investor would not feel they should know whether a public company's CEO is deathly ill, is plainly ludicrous.
This story illustrates that companies can take different approaches to the same issue, and that a little openness can go a long way. Investors appreciate it, and if they aren't being kept in the dark, they are less likely to pry. Companies don't have to play the "talk to the hand game" to protect a CEO's privacy.
Well said. Most of the people here are clueless when it comes to investments, and SEC disclosure rules. A publicly owned company is obligated to disclose life threatening illnesses of their CEO, especially pancreatic cancer which has a 5% survival rate, and a follow up liver transplant.
This issue is transparency in a publicly owned company, period, end of story.
It has nothing to do with Apple's cult following or Steve Jobs or how they are different than some other company. Apple did a disservice to the people who own the company (I'm one of them) by not being more forthcoming with details about Steve Jobs health.
Hypothetically, imagine the extreme end of the spectrum. Had Apple's CEO died on the operating table without saying anything prior to shareholders (especially since the issue had been known for so long), imagine what would have happened. There would have been lawsuits and a big mess which would have been a distraction for years.
There is a balance of course in how much information is provided, but Apple clearly was not as forthcoming as they should have been.
Correct and well said. If a company withholds the serious illness of their CEO, and the CEO later dies because of that illness, and the stock plummets as a result, the company would be in big trouble with the Securities and Exchange Commission for failing to disclose vital information that would affect the value of the investment and the stability of the company. That is one of the basic SEC disclosure rules that a company must follow.
That is simply your shrill set of views. There is nothing that tells you (or the SEC) as to how to trade-off materiality against privacy. Heck, even against a sense of decency (which you obviously seem to lack because you may own some shares in Apple). If there were, the SEC would have ruled long ago.
Nothing about materiality gives a shareholder the right to peek up a CEO's innards. You may know that there is also a right to privacy of health-related information in this country.
The appropriate thing to do is not for SJ to take the company private, but for you to dump the shares if you have trouble with Apple's disclosure quality. If you can't take the risk, don't invest in the shares; buy something else. Last I looked, there are thousands of shares in which to invest.
You obviously know nothing about the SEC disclosure rules for a publicly owned company. A company is obligated to disclose life threatening illnesses of their CEO.
Well said. Most of the people here are clueless when it comes to investments, and SEC disclosure rules. A publicly owned company is obligated to disclose life threatening illnesses of their CEO, especially pancreatic cancer which has a 5% survival rate, and a follow up liver transplant.
My best understanding from what I've been reading is that it's arguable both ways, in terms of whether the company is obligated to make disclosures about their CEO's health. But to not do so opens them up to SEC investigation and investor lawsuits, especially if it appears that what they have disclosed is something short of the truth, or if insiders knew something material about the company that outside investors did not. So the point I'd make is that when someone says "it's absolutely nobody's business but his own," that's not necessarily the case. A wise company doesn't treat their investors like mushrooms.
My best understanding from what I've been reading is that it's arguable both ways, in terms of whether the company is obligated to make disclosures about their CEO's health. But to not do so opens them up to SEC investigation and investor lawsuits, especially if it appears that what they have disclosed is something short of the truth, or if insiders knew something material about the company that outside investors did not. So the point I'd make is that when someone says "it's absolutely nobody's business but his own," that's not necessarily the case. A wise company doesn't treat their investors like mushrooms.
First of all, learn the difference between affective and effective. Second, when you are the CEO of a publicly owned company through shareholders, your health is a public issue, and important to shareholders on their investment. A CEO has an obligation to shareholders if his health becomes a serious issue, like pancreatic cancer and liver transplants.
Exactly. It's odd (to me) that each instance of this debate is always accompanied by several or many posters claiming that stockholders are demanding an entitlement to know "every detail" of Steve's health situation. Since I have never heard a single person make that demand, I wonder where this argument comes from. Thin air, it seems.
This is precisely the inverse of the situation as it is and should be. As a publicly traded company, Apple is bound to follow SEC disclosure rules. The rules are designed to require that companies disclose material information to the public that a reasonably informed investor would want to know. This is part of the deal. The idea that a prudent investor would not feel they should know whether a public company's CEO is deathly ill, is plainly ludicrous.
This story illustrates that companies can take different approaches to the same issue, and that a little openness can go a long way. Investors appreciate it, and if they aren't being kept in the dark, they are less likely to pry. Companies don't have to play the "talk to the hand game" to protect a CEO's privacy.
well said!
AAPL and LAZ are publicly-traded companies, and the story was about transparency regarding health of the CEO. The fact that they are in different industries misses the point altogether. When you are dealing with a publicly-traded company, the health of a CEO is definitely the business of the shareholders, as is the succession plan to replace him or her. Sooner or later it will come out, and it is just a matter of how and when it will be disclosed. Berkshire Hathaway (BRKA) might face this in the near future with Warren Buffett advancing in age, and it will be interesting to see how it plays out.
Again well said and explain my point, better than me!
I too think the comparison of Jobs' and Wasserstein's cases is not exactly of the apples to apples variety.
Wasserstein's illness was a lot more straightforward to diagnose and treat than Jobs'. There is simply no comparison.
With a treatment path that had as many twists and turns as Jobs' did, including months of inconclusive tests to try to figure out why he couldn't put on weight, what exactly should Apple have disclosed, and how much would all the conflicting information have affected the price of AAPL? I wish Apple and Jobs could have been more forthcoming, but I understand fully why they weren't: better to keep your mouth shut until you have a definitive medical answer upon which you can make a public statement.
Especially when the US stock market these days seems to be composed less of reasoned rational investors and more neurotic kneejerk quick profit Chicken Littles who are prone to panic. Confirming that Jobs was having having any medical tests done would have resulted in even more speculation than you had. Let's face it, there are too many idiots in the stock market for calm rational response to be the rule.
That is simply your shrill set of views. There is nothing that tells you (or the SEC) as to how to trade-off materiality against privacy. Heck, even against a sense of decency (which you obviously seem to lack because you may own some shares in Apple). If there were, the SEC would have ruled long ago.
Nothing about materiality gives a shareholder the right to peek up a CEO's innards. You may know that there is also a right to privacy of health-related information in this country.
The appropriate thing to do is not for SJ to take the company private, but for you to dump the shares if you have trouble with Apple's disclosure quality. If you can't take the risk, don't invest in the shares; buy something else. Last I looked, there are thousands of shares in which to invest.
You obviously know nothing about the SEC disclosure rules for a publicly owned company. A company is obligated to disclose life threatening illnesses of their CEO.
Anyone who has read more than 5 posts by anantksundaram, is familiar with logic and has access to a search engine will deduce that he most likely knows a great deal about the SEC disclosure rules - much more than the average person, anyway. Even if he knew nothing, you have not given any evidence as to why he is wrong. If you have it, please include it in your next post.
Results have shown that Apple's handling of the situation was beneficial to shareholders: nobody panicked and the share price went up during a difficult period. I should think that a shareholder's primary concern should be the performance of his/her investment not whether the performance is achieved using cynical but apparently legal tactics to avoid panic (negative interpretation) - or prioritising a person's privacy over public disclosure (positive interpretation).
Regardless of the results, I side with those who have the opinion (and, of course, it is an opinion, not a fact) that privacy should be respected and that spending a few hundred bucks on shares should not buy you the right to be nosey for the sake of gossip (which appears to be the true motive behind some people's demands. To avoid any misunderstandings, I am not implying that hillstones is in the latter category - s/he has said nothing that suggests that).