no, but annoying signature lines that make it harder to read post is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:m ad:
I guess my signature line did not come in. Have changed it back to normal.
(this from NewsFeed researcher - a quote from Steve Jobs about Jerry York)
"Jerry joined Apple's Board in 1997 when most doubted the company's future. He has been a pillar of financial and business expertise and insight on our Board for over a dozen years," said Steve Jobs, Apple's CEO. "It's been a privilege to know and work with Jerry, and I'm going to miss him a lot." As we noted yesterday, York was hand-picked for his director's position by Jobs in 1997 when Jobs took on the "interim" CEO position after the ousting of Gil Amelio. In addition to his director's position, York was also serving as Chair of the board's Audit and Finance Committee."
and
"York made a name for himself by turning around International Business Machines ( IBM ) and Chrysler, and later helped lead Kirk Kerkorian's attempt to take over Chrysler and General Motors. He joined Apple's board in 1997 after founder Steve Jobs returned to the then troubled company. During his professional career, York worked at Ford ( F ), GM and Chrysler in various positions. He also served on the board of Tyco Inc. ( TYC ) and as Kerkorian's designate on the board of GM. [21] York helped lead turnarounds at Chrysler and IBM, and provided counsel to Steve Jobs during Apple's renaissance as a consumer-electronics giant. As an adviser to billionaire Kerkorian, he served as a frontman in takeover battles and fought for management changes. "Jerry had the guts and brains to identify the needed changes at many of America's greatest companies, including Chrysler, IBM, General Motors and Apple, helping them to reach their greater potential," said Steve Miller, a director of UAL Corp., who worked with York at Chrysler."
So York in general has huge amounts of credibility from the corporate side of things and was personally approached by Steve Jobs to join the Apple BOD. Whether he actually said those things we can't know as it is only alleged in the article, and it would appear, deliberately so.
Now the question is, given Yukari Iwatani Kane's previous coverage of Apple, and as a source of Apple "leaks" from time to time, is she deliberately generating churn to keep Apple's media mindshare high leading up to the release of the iPad, is this merely an attempt by the WSJ to garner hits from something allegedly said by the deceased that is controversial and related to Apple, or is there something else going on? As a "profile of Apple's BOD" the article comes up remarkably short on coverage of any of the other directors, choosing to focus solely on York and that previously undocumented commentary. This thing throws up all kinds of flags.
York was on Apple's Home Page for 2 Days!!! And we are talking about this? Must be a slow news day?
With all the Reality TV, Blogs, Facebook etc..., I can see how/why Jobs would want PRIVACY, particularly when it comes to his Health, Patient Rights... I also see the other side of that argument! So, maybe Steve Jobs is not a your every day guy, maybe that earned him a special consideration... But let's not re-ignite that debate...
Apple, AAPL are doing great, and the future is really bright! So they are doing something right. right!?! So... let them handle things their own way, while we live our own lives...
LOVE this Forum, even when I sometimes see people get a bit disrespectful... And the software that runs it is the best - Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
I'm not saying WSJ made it up. I'm saying they COULD HAVE. Or they're taking his comments out of context. And they're being hypocritical because they never published their CEO's medical records on the front page of the WSJ. Why is York's health irrelevant? York was CEO of a company and didn't publicize his medical record. Furthermore, he was a board member for Apple - an important position that, if he's doing his job correctly, affects the future of the company. He may have had danger signals that could have presaged a stroke. What gives him the right to demand that Steve publish HIS?
They "could have" made it all up? What a flimsy argument.
York's health is irrelevant if for no other reason than he's not the CEO. And again, nobody is suggesting that anybody's "medical records" should be "published," so that's a total straw man argument.
The main issue is and, always has been, about whether what Apple did disclose was accurate.
SEC regulations require publicly-held corporations to reveal risks to the companies' success so that shareholders and potential shareholders realize the potential for failure.
In almost every SEC filing, there's standard boilerplate text saying that loss of senior management and other key employees due to injury/death/resignation/etc. can materially effect the company's ability to execute its business plan in a timely manner in a competitive environment, blah blah blah. Changes in the risk factors must be reported in these filings. The onset of cancer in the CEO is a change in the risk factors. If Steve caught a cold, not so much.
So it is arguable that Steve withheld information (his serious medical condition) that caused Apple to fail at revealing an important risk that could potentially jeopardize Apple's ability to execute its business plans.
Considering Jobs' centrality to Apple's success, concealment of his true state of health kept Apple's stock from plummeting. Anyone who knew the truth might have sold their shares. Everyone else was denied that information.
Considering Jobs' centrality to Apple's success, concealment of his true state of health kept Apple's stock from plummeting. Anyone who knew the truth might have sold their shares. Everyone else was denied that information.
Steve's intent is less important that the SEC regulations that state that material risks must be divulged to shareholders. They're the ones who own Apple Inc., not Steve Jobs. Steve isn't even an significant insider.
The SEC requires that publicly-trade corporations divulged these business risks. The market should decide if its too risky to maintain ownership, not Steve Jobs. That's the whole purpose of these SEC filings and earning results. Steve can't just tell the shareholders, "Yeah, everything's great" and walk back to this desk.
You must provide enough financial documentation (balance sheet, cash flow, sales, etc.) so the shareholders have a good-enough understanding of the company's fiscal performance and standing. The shareholders also need to know of the risks that might materially damage that fiscal performance and standing.
That's the whole gist of the matter.
In this particular situation, it worked out in the end, but the shareholders were in the dark the whole time about the risks. Apple is lucky that Steve didn't suffer from major complications from his procedure. So are the shareholders. Did Steve bet the farm on one number an the roulette table? Maybe he did, maybe he didn't, but due to the severity of his ailment, it was a much higher risk scenario and the SEC has regulations that require divulging these risks to the people who hold the money: the shareholders.
Steve's intent is less important that the SEC regulations that state that material risks must be divulged to shareholders. They're the ones who own Apple Inc., not Steve Jobs. Steve isn't even an significant insider.
The SEC requires that publicly-trade corporations divulged these business risks. The market should decide if its too risky to maintain ownership, not Steve Jobs. That's the whole purpose of these SEC filings and earning results. Steve can't just tell the shareholders, "Yeah, everything's great" and walk back to this desk.
You must provide enough financial documentation (balance sheet, cash flow, sales, etc.) so the shareholders have a good-enough understanding of the company's fiscal performance and standing. The shareholders also need to know of the risks that might materially damage that fiscal performance and standing.
That's the whole gist of the matter.
In this particular situation, it worked out in the end, but the shareholders were in the dark the whole time about the risks. Apple is lucky that Steve didn't suffer from major complications from his procedure. So are the shareholders. Did Steve bet the farm on one number an the roulette table? Maybe he did, maybe he didn't, but due to the severity of his ailment, it was a much higher risk scenario and the SEC has regulations that require divulging these risks to the people who hold the money: the shareholders.
As usual, you're oversimplifying a complicated issue in order to attack Jobs.
The key issue is: What is material? The way SEC rules work is that it's up to the CEO to determine that with oversight from the board. The Board members have a legal obligation to speak up if they think a material issue is being hidden - as do other corporate officers. If they felt that a material fact was being hidden, it would be a felony for them to keep quiet.
Jobs clearly felt that his staff could keep things going in his absence and no harm would come to Apple even if something happened to him. The fact that no one on the board and no other corporate officer spoke up indicates that the board and officers agreed.
So they made a judgment call - and they were clearly in much better position to do so than you are.
normally, maybe a CEO needs to disclose health issues. then again, are you obligated to disclose every health issue you have to your company? not at all, in fact, you don't have to disclose anything.
a CEO...maybe that's different. most CEOs would surely disclose something so serious right away. but i think steve jobs is in the unique situation of being a tech icon, and more than any other tech CEO there's a perception by customers and shareholders that he is directly responsible for the company even surviving.
word of steve jobs being seriously and potentially terminally ill would have impacted apple negatively more than any other tech company's CEO.
and like i said, your health is a private matter. even if you're a CEO.
It's funny how you talk as if Apple was a PRIVATELY HELD COMPANY...
Get back to me with your feelings on this subject once you find out Apple is in fact a PUBLICLY traded corporation on the NASDAQ and how all listed companies have obligations to the SHAREHOLDERS (aka INVESTED OWNERS) of the company as well as obligations to the SEC and or other agencies/bodies.... when it comes to many different circumstances that CAN, WILL or COULD negatively impact the company. It's VERY sad that the 'issue' brings the CEOs health into question but Steve accepted the position as CEO as with it goes a certain unpleasant things that an ordinary worker wouldn't be required to discuss. A corporate CEO of a publicly held company is no more a 'private citizen' then any other person of celebrity, notoriety, infamy, etc BUT unlike hollywood stars and such, a CEO of a public company has a federal agency AND stockholders to directly answer to.
The SEC tends to 'look poorly' on companies that have a market cap of BILLIONS one day and then a with a single news headline - BANG - the stock (and perhaps the entire market or sector) tanks so low you'll need to dig a 6' hole to find it again.
Yea they're funny that way... they really insist on known in advance as possible negative issues the company is facing so they can prepare the market (so to speak). Nobody wants an en-mass panic stock sale especially when its not necessarily warranted, sometimes the mad sell off is actually warranted and in cases like that the SEC might want to temporally suspend all trading on a certain stock to give the new a chance to 'sink in' and then resume trading - this 'controlled stop may also be helpful to the rest of the sector so the entire industry doesn't get panicked for no reason other than initial hysteria.
Perhaps the mad sell off will continue but the SEC did the best it could to defuse a potential disaster and at the very least may have saved the crashing of an entire sector.
Now some events that befall a company might simply be unavoidable, catastrophic natural disasters and such... HOWEVER, if the reason for such an unexpected fire-sale of company stock due as a result of a negative event that befell the company (untimely death of the CEO would certainly qualify) AND this possible eventuality was previously known (for any length of time) to individuals inside the company and it wasn't disclosed then an investigation by the SEC (at the very least) is all but a certainty.
Nondisclosure is taken really serious now a days (imagine that!) and it only took how many trillions of dollars lost from investors (of all types) before the officials said HEY! YA think we oughta do.... something?!? About this crazy stuff? Well thankfully they are. Public corporations have a laundry list of rules and regs they are required to follow. If serious health conditions suffered by a CEO is considered a 'required disclosable item' then Apple clearly did wrong... If the area is 'gray' Apple may not have done anything wrong (legally).
However with a CEO so tied to the financial success of a company I would certainly consider 'bad heath reports' on Steve a real concern to the stockholders as well as the company employees. Yes, yes, yes, Steve is a human being and has the right to deal with this in his own way without interference and we should respect the entire families privacy but not at the expense of keeping the Apple shareholders and unfortunately 'the general public' as a result informed on ALL issues that could have a dire/measurable/negative effects on the company.
A long long long time ago, Apple was forced to 'pre-annouce' some VERY bad news about the finances... This was quite ODD since Apple was in it's 'quiet period' leading up to a quarterly earnings report filing and was not permitted to speak about anything that might hint at what they were going to be reporting in the next week or so...
The market was expecting Apple to post an average but unspectacular profit when compared to the same period last year ( a C or C- on the report card )... and much to the shock of everyone, Apple was NOT on track to post an 'unspectacular profit' this quarter but instead are expecting/posting a SUBSTANTIAL LOSS ( bright red F on the report card ).
As usual, you're oversimplifying a complicated issue in order to attack Jobs.
The key issue is: What is material? The way SEC rules work is that it's up to the CEO to determine that with oversight from the board. The Board members have a legal obligation to speak up if they think a material issue is being hidden - as do other corporate officers. If they felt that a material fact was being hidden, it would be a felony for them to keep quiet.
Jobs clearly felt that his staff could keep things going in his absence and no harm would come to Apple even if something happened to him. The fact that no one on the board and no other corporate officer spoke up indicates that the board and officers agreed.
So they made a judgment call - and they were clearly in much better position to do so than you are.
AND, it turned out that they were right.
No, there isn't clear indication that the board was given sufficient information to come to an educated and reasonable decision about the material risks.
It's a Jobs-controlled board and there's a strong chance that they were either incapable or not given the chance to make a dispassionate analysis of the risks.
In the end, they may have been more lucky than right. You can bet on the longshot and win. Again, it comes down to the risk factor of gambling with $209 billion of market capitalization. That's $209 billion of other people's money.
Trust me, I'm relived by the outcome. I'm a longtime shareholder myself and I'm pleased to see the stock trading about $230 today, but I do not agree with the way the board of directors handled this particular situation. Had the outcome been different, the conversation would be different. While I'm sure no one would be happy to be holding that conversation, the point is that it is questionable if the shareholders were alerted of material risks.
Going to get a new liver is not a run-of-the-mill procedure. Even if you survive the surgical procedure, there are significant post-op complications that can crop up that could prevent the patient from making a full and speedy recovery.
If Steve took a day or two off to get a root canal, or even a week to get a knee replacement, I wouldn't think of it as a big deal. Getting a new liver is a big deal.
et back to me with your feelings on this subject once you find out Apple is in fact a PUBLICLY traded corporation on the NASDAQ and how all listed companies have obligations to the SHAREHOLDERS (aka INVESTED OWNERS) of the company as well as obligations to the FTC and or other agencies/bodies.... when it comes to many different circumstances that CAN, WILL or COULD negatively impact the company.
I guess it's hard to take you seriously when you apparently don't know the difference between the FTC and SEC.
Regardless, why do you think that endlessly repeating the same nonsense will suddenly make it come true?
The facts are simple:
Apple has a legal obligation (under the SEC) to report MATERIAL issues. It is up to Apple to decide what is material (although a court could certainly challenge that at some time). There are checks and balances. There is an independent Board of Directors which oversees the CEO's actions. There are also other officers. Both the Board and the other Officers have the same legal obligation to disclose material issues - or to disclose it if they are concerned about Apple's formal disclosures.
The Board did nothing.
The Officers did nothing.
All of these people were experienced executives who were well aware of their legal obligations.
No one (neither Board member nor Officer) made any public announcement or resigned.
How do you, as an outsider without access to the information the Board received, believe that you know better than these executives what should have been done? They made a judgment call and were apparently all in agreement (other than one guy who allegedly had some concerns but he never did anything about it, nor did he apply the same standards to himself when he was CEO of several companies).
They made a judgment call which was well within their prerogative - and no one objected.
Granted, a court could go back today and consider whether that was reasonable, but it is extremely unlikely that a court would overrule the entire BOD and Officer group after the fact - especially when no one suffered any harm. Heck, you could argue that if Jobs had made an announcement and someone sold their shares that they would have been harmed by doing so - since they would have missed out on their shares doubling in the last 18 months. The case would never get past the summary judgment stage.
No, there isn't clear indication that the board was given sufficient information to come to an educated and reasonable decision about the material risks.
It's a Jobs-controlled board and there's a strong chance that they were either incapable or not given the chance to make a dispassionate analysis of the risks.
Nonsense. Jobs said a long time ago that he had discussed his health issues with the board - and no one objected to that statement.
Even this after the fact hearsay from York says that the Board was informed.
There is absolutely ZERO reason to believe that Jobs didn't tell the board.
Nonsense. Jobs said a long time ago that he had discussed his health issues with the board - and no one objected to that statement.
Even this after the fact hearsay from York says that the Board was informed.
There is absolutely ZERO reason to believe that Jobs didn't tell the board.
This entire line of reasoning seems rather bizarre to me. You seem to be saying that if the board was complicit in withholding material issues, then the issues by definition are not material to the stockholders. I don't think the SEC would agree with this interpretation of the disclosure requirements. In fact they seem designed to prevent this very sort of complicity to avoid disclosure.
Again, the main issue here is whether what Apple disclosed was accurate. Based on what we know today, legitimate questions can be raised about whether it was. To my knowledge, the SEC is still looking into this.
So this guy says once he found out about the illness he didn't disclose it "because of the uproar it would cause." Isn't that the same reason Steve Jobs didn't disclose it?
Either they are both guilty or neither are guilty.
Either you didn't read carefully, or AI changed the article. York was concerned of the fanboy uproar towards YORK resigning over Jobs failure to disclose his poor health. He was not concerned about the uproar over Jobs health that would have occurred, which he believed needed to happen.
Seriously, Mactards go ape-*#&$ every time some Apple employee quits or goes somewhere else under less than friendly terms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
There is absolutely ZERO reason to believe that Jobs didn't tell the board.
Well, there is the Wall Street Journal story saying that Jerry York said that is exactly what happened. I think that is a lot more than zero.
When reading Mr. York's "disgust" and his supposed looking out for the interests of shareholders, I immediately thought of my disgust of Mr. York (and the rest of the board) for not doing anything to weed out Mr. Mole (Eric Schmidt) and boot him off the board.
Not knowing much about these types of business situations, was Jobs under any moral, ethical or legal obligation to disclose his personal health issues?
one might argue on the moral and ethical and that's really a matter of personal opinion.
But legally no. Jobs didn't have to say anything up until the point where the issue prohibited him from doing his job. Which was when he needed the liver transplant and the time to recover. And he did tell. Perhaps not the same day he found out. It would seem that he might have waited a few days to a couple of weeks while he hashed out who was going to run the show. Which in light of the effect that rumors had on dropping stock values was a wise move.
Other than that, the only laws are basically regarding truthfulness. IF you choose to say something you have to speak the truth. You can't say that you are in perfect health if you know you are not. This is something that came up several times because some folks believe that Jobs flat out lied and knew the issue wasn't a mere hormone problem etc but that he knew from day one that his liver was failing. While others more expert in medicine have gone on record saying that yes it is possible that he was giving out information as he found it out and at first they thought it was just a hormone imbalance but then further testing showed that the imbalance was due to problems with his liver. and so on
Quote:
Originally Posted by alandail
the company did just fine while he was away for the transplant. From a day to day running of the company perspective, they'd be just fine without him.
yep. Jobs has likely handpicked and groomed the folks that work with him. they know his vision etc. and thus could answer the whole 'what would steve do' question just fine. Not to mention that he was just a phone call, email, ichat away.
Quote:
It's the new product development that there could be a problem.
and yet not as much as some think. New products are not springing fully formed out of Jobs head (or any other part). They take years. The stuff they are releasing right now started as much as 10 years ago. And the things they are thinking up right now will carry them another 10 years.
Quote:
Apple is very good at identifying large markets and having their initial release be best in class while solving the reasons others failed,
yep and will continue to see what others are doing or talking about doing and one up them. As well as seeing beyond right now and jumping to the next big thing. Even guiding that thing into place. Like the whole blu-ray v downloads issue.
Quote:
which includes knowing when to take their own projects back to the drawing board as many times as it takes to get them right. They've done that with MP3 players, smart phones and now tablet computers. This is largely because of Steve. He's the best in the world at this, that's difficult to replace.
yes but he's really just the idea guy. He's not the singular designer, engineer etc. It is that false notion that created the price drop. Folks assuming that Steve does everything and the rest of the folks are just puppet morons. But they are not.
Quote:
In 85 he was forced out by people who thought he failed
More like he was forced out by people that thought his ideas were total crap. When in fact they were the ones with the wrong plans. imagine what the world might have been like if Steve had been the one to stay. We could have had OSX a lot sooner, the ipod etc a lot sooner. by now we might have a real Apple TV (like the rumors are claiming is in the works to come out in the next couple of years), Blu-ray might have never happened at all if better compression had been created for true high def downloads (something I suspect Apple and others are working on as we speak) and so on.
Yeah, the idea that it would have been good for the shareholders doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I think Steve was actually doing his best to look out for the shareholders, and if anyone was hurt by his lack of disclosure, it was the people who bought shares after Steve knew but before the news came out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh
As a shareholder myself, I am glad they didn't issue a press release on the matter, as it would have destroyed the stock. The risk-reward balance was not there.
Okay I see your line of thinking on the issue however, it is clouded by the fact that nothing BAD happened. In other words 'we dodged a possibly fatal bullet' /phew!
BUT
The need for disclosure is not based on something as 'squishy' as this mock response from Apple executives.
Quote:
"We just don't want to deal with a horrid eventuality of the issue and therefore choose to NOT say anything publicly, and just hope to GOD the problem simply goes away all by itself."
- This was not an actual quote from anyone. It was simply used to help make my point more clear...
The need for disclosure isn't hinged on the possible short term impact it may have on the stock... The need for disclosure is to slowly get the public accustom to a POSSIBLE outcome prior to and or hopefully long before its ACTUAL certainty. The more in advance a possibility is known the less impact its likely to have on a stock (under most conditions).
Lets face facts, in a perfect world Steve would simply live on forever... but that isn't going to happen... NOW we know Steve will die one day and provided he was still running Apple as well as he is today the impact on the stock would be MONUMENTAL.
Some say Steve's influence is HIGHLY exaggerated and maybe that's so... but I think Steve far more than a 'normal' CEO and most of the technological plugged in world perceives Steve as 'THE MAN' behind Apple it's driving force and at the end of the day... that's all that really matters... Public perception.
So on the tragic day of his death (without any forewarning/disclosure) what do YOU think the stock will do? If you said nosedive then you're probably right. In times of shock, people involved in the market (especially individual investors) don't simply react but they OVER-REACT.
Disclosure is all about 'defusing' or 'muffling' this public knee-jerk reaction.
Had news been put forth about health related issues when the issues weren't entirely bleak then the stock 'might' drop some but maybe not... It might also drop initially and recover over time, or drop and find a new 'price point'. I'm not arguing that the stock wouldn't drop to some degree. It will.
The different potential outcomes are based on how the market interprets/digests the information.
If the news is release at a time when a there is a fairly good chance Steve would come out of the condition and continue on at Apple business as usually, then the price will recover.
If the news is disclosed in a time when the condition has a more grim outlook and the chances of a return to Apple are slim, then the price will find a new 'low' but that new 'low' is still well above where the stock would be if the sudden news of Steve's death hits the front page of the WSJ late day edition.
The important part of BOTH of those scenarios is Steve is still Alive and has the ability to make any changes within the company the would kick in at certain possible events happening. The market feels that Steve could make his longest term 'visions' know (something he probably does already -- but the market can now come to the conclusion that if Steve wasn't doing before he certainly would be now). In short Steve is at the helm suffering from a potentially life threatening condition and is putting HIS plans into motion on how the company will continue if the worst comes to pass.
That is MUCH better than Steve dying suddenly and the market being caught totally unaware and thinking Apple is now at the mercy of the board of directors and Steve's visions for the future are likely to die with him.
It's all about managing the publics expectations....
If Steve is ALIVE and official press announcements (by the company) are made about possible health concerns then the pubic 'digests' that information and 'possibly' sells AAPL holdings or shorts Apple stock (dirty scum!) but the main point is Steve is NOT dead and now the public has been braced for potentially bad news that might or might not come and the vast majority of the stockholders aren't dumping everything the second they can. They MIGHT be calling their broker to trigger SELL orders a little higher than they had them at before but AAPL is doing amazingly well in the face of terrible financial conditions and people aren't going to be so quick to abandon ship because Steve might have some health issues.
Anyway THIS is why Apple was 100% wrong in not disclosing the information... They could have worded it as they wanted to (within good reason) and put as positive spin as they could on the news. Would it have a negative impact on the stock... like I said above.. sure it would but if you have to choose between:
Doing the right thing at the appropriate time and disclosing the information.
Hiding the information and preying to GOD that the problem just goes away!
Comments
no, but annoying signature lines that make it harder to read post is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I guess my signature line did not come in. Have changed it back to normal.
"Jerry joined Apple's Board in 1997 when most doubted the company's future. He has been a pillar of financial and business expertise and insight on our Board for over a dozen years," said Steve Jobs, Apple's CEO. "It's been a privilege to know and work with Jerry, and I'm going to miss him a lot." As we noted yesterday, York was hand-picked for his director's position by Jobs in 1997 when Jobs took on the "interim" CEO position after the ousting of Gil Amelio. In addition to his director's position, York was also serving as Chair of the board's Audit and Finance Committee."
and
"York made a name for himself by turning around International Business Machines ( IBM ) and Chrysler, and later helped lead Kirk Kerkorian's attempt to take over Chrysler and General Motors. He joined Apple's board in 1997 after founder Steve Jobs returned to the then troubled company. During his professional career, York worked at Ford ( F ), GM and Chrysler in various positions. He also served on the board of Tyco Inc. ( TYC ) and as Kerkorian's designate on the board of GM. [21] York helped lead turnarounds at Chrysler and IBM, and provided counsel to Steve Jobs during Apple's renaissance as a consumer-electronics giant. As an adviser to billionaire Kerkorian, he served as a frontman in takeover battles and fought for management changes. "Jerry had the guts and brains to identify the needed changes at many of America's greatest companies, including Chrysler, IBM, General Motors and Apple, helping them to reach their greater potential," said Steve Miller, a director of UAL Corp., who worked with York at Chrysler."
So York in general has huge amounts of credibility from the corporate side of things and was personally approached by Steve Jobs to join the Apple BOD. Whether he actually said those things we can't know as it is only alleged in the article, and it would appear, deliberately so.
Now the question is, given Yukari Iwatani Kane's previous coverage of Apple, and as a source of Apple "leaks" from time to time, is she deliberately generating churn to keep Apple's media mindshare high leading up to the release of the iPad, is this merely an attempt by the WSJ to garner hits from something allegedly said by the deceased that is controversial and related to Apple, or is there something else going on? As a "profile of Apple's BOD" the article comes up remarkably short on coverage of any of the other directors, choosing to focus solely on York and that previously undocumented commentary. This thing throws up all kinds of flags.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=AAPL
York was on Apple's Home Page for 2 Days!!! And we are talking about this? Must be a slow news day?
With all the Reality TV, Blogs, Facebook etc..., I can see how/why Jobs would want PRIVACY, particularly when it comes to his Health, Patient Rights... I also see the other side of that argument! So, maybe Steve Jobs is not a your every day guy, maybe that earned him a special consideration... But let's not re-ignite that debate...
Apple, AAPL are doing great, and the future is really bright! So they are doing something right. right
LOVE this Forum, even when I sometimes see people get a bit disrespectful... And the software that runs it is the best - Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Happy Spring to all
I'm not saying WSJ made it up. I'm saying they COULD HAVE. Or they're taking his comments out of context. And they're being hypocritical because they never published their CEO's medical records on the front page of the WSJ. Why is York's health irrelevant? York was CEO of a company and didn't publicize his medical record. Furthermore, he was a board member for Apple - an important position that, if he's doing his job correctly, affects the future of the company. He may have had danger signals that could have presaged a stroke. What gives him the right to demand that Steve publish HIS?
They "could have" made it all up? What a flimsy argument.
York's health is irrelevant if for no other reason than he's not the CEO. And again, nobody is suggesting that anybody's "medical records" should be "published," so that's a total straw man argument.
The main issue is and, always has been, about whether what Apple did disclose was accurate.
Good summary of the issues here:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=ammDViTHaP0U
Get out track #9 on the Rolling Stones "Let It Bleed" album.
I believe it contains the answer you seek.
In your signature line, it should be dyslexic as afflicted with dyslexia.
In your signature line, it should be dyslexic as afflicted with dyslexia.
Since it annoys you, I believe I will keep it as is...
SEC regulations require publicly-held corporations to reveal risks to the companies' success so that shareholders and potential shareholders realize the potential for failure.
In almost every SEC filing, there's standard boilerplate text saying that loss of senior management and other key employees due to injury/death/resignation/etc. can materially effect the company's ability to execute its business plan in a timely manner in a competitive environment, blah blah blah. Changes in the risk factors must be reported in these filings. The onset of cancer in the CEO is a change in the risk factors. If Steve caught a cold, not so much.
So it is arguable that Steve withheld information (his serious medical condition) that caused Apple to fail at revealing an important risk that could potentially jeopardize Apple's ability to execute its business plans.
Considering Jobs' centrality to Apple's success, concealment of his true state of health kept Apple's stock from plummeting. Anyone who knew the truth might have sold their shares. Everyone else was denied that information.
Considering Jobs' centrality to Apple's success, concealment of his true state of health kept Apple's stock from plummeting. Anyone who knew the truth might have sold their shares. Everyone else was denied that information.
Steve's intent is less important that the SEC regulations that state that material risks must be divulged to shareholders. They're the ones who own Apple Inc., not Steve Jobs. Steve isn't even an significant insider.
The SEC requires that publicly-trade corporations divulged these business risks. The market should decide if its too risky to maintain ownership, not Steve Jobs. That's the whole purpose of these SEC filings and earning results. Steve can't just tell the shareholders, "Yeah, everything's great" and walk back to this desk.
You must provide enough financial documentation (balance sheet, cash flow, sales, etc.) so the shareholders have a good-enough understanding of the company's fiscal performance and standing. The shareholders also need to know of the risks that might materially damage that fiscal performance and standing.
That's the whole gist of the matter.
In this particular situation, it worked out in the end, but the shareholders were in the dark the whole time about the risks. Apple is lucky that Steve didn't suffer from major complications from his procedure. So are the shareholders. Did Steve bet the farm on one number an the roulette table? Maybe he did, maybe he didn't, but due to the severity of his ailment, it was a much higher risk scenario and the SEC has regulations that require divulging these risks to the people who hold the money: the shareholders.
Steve's intent is less important that the SEC regulations that state that material risks must be divulged to shareholders. They're the ones who own Apple Inc., not Steve Jobs. Steve isn't even an significant insider.
The SEC requires that publicly-trade corporations divulged these business risks. The market should decide if its too risky to maintain ownership, not Steve Jobs. That's the whole purpose of these SEC filings and earning results. Steve can't just tell the shareholders, "Yeah, everything's great" and walk back to this desk.
You must provide enough financial documentation (balance sheet, cash flow, sales, etc.) so the shareholders have a good-enough understanding of the company's fiscal performance and standing. The shareholders also need to know of the risks that might materially damage that fiscal performance and standing.
That's the whole gist of the matter.
In this particular situation, it worked out in the end, but the shareholders were in the dark the whole time about the risks. Apple is lucky that Steve didn't suffer from major complications from his procedure. So are the shareholders. Did Steve bet the farm on one number an the roulette table? Maybe he did, maybe he didn't, but due to the severity of his ailment, it was a much higher risk scenario and the SEC has regulations that require divulging these risks to the people who hold the money: the shareholders.
As usual, you're oversimplifying a complicated issue in order to attack Jobs.
The key issue is: What is material? The way SEC rules work is that it's up to the CEO to determine that with oversight from the board. The Board members have a legal obligation to speak up if they think a material issue is being hidden - as do other corporate officers. If they felt that a material fact was being hidden, it would be a felony for them to keep quiet.
Jobs clearly felt that his staff could keep things going in his absence and no harm would come to Apple even if something happened to him. The fact that no one on the board and no other corporate officer spoke up indicates that the board and officers agreed.
So they made a judgment call - and they were clearly in much better position to do so than you are.
AND, it turned out that they were right.
normally, maybe a CEO needs to disclose health issues. then again, are you obligated to disclose every health issue you have to your company? not at all, in fact, you don't have to disclose anything.
a CEO...maybe that's different. most CEOs would surely disclose something so serious right away. but i think steve jobs is in the unique situation of being a tech icon, and more than any other tech CEO there's a perception by customers and shareholders that he is directly responsible for the company even surviving.
word of steve jobs being seriously and potentially terminally ill would have impacted apple negatively more than any other tech company's CEO.
and like i said, your health is a private matter. even if you're a CEO.
It's funny how you talk as if Apple was a PRIVATELY HELD COMPANY...
Get back to me with your feelings on this subject once you find out Apple is in fact a PUBLICLY traded corporation on the NASDAQ and how all listed companies have obligations to the SHAREHOLDERS (aka INVESTED OWNERS) of the company as well as obligations to the SEC and or other agencies/bodies.... when it comes to many different circumstances that CAN, WILL or COULD negatively impact the company. It's VERY sad that the 'issue' brings the CEOs health into question but Steve accepted the position as CEO as with it goes a certain unpleasant things that an ordinary worker wouldn't be required to discuss. A corporate CEO of a publicly held company is no more a 'private citizen' then any other person of celebrity, notoriety, infamy, etc BUT unlike hollywood stars and such, a CEO of a public company has a federal agency AND stockholders to directly answer to.
The SEC tends to 'look poorly' on companies that have a market cap of BILLIONS one day and then a with a single news headline - BANG - the stock (and perhaps the entire market or sector) tanks so low you'll need to dig a 6' hole to find it again.
Yea they're funny that way... they really insist on known in advance as possible negative issues the company is facing so they can prepare the market (so to speak). Nobody wants an en-mass panic stock sale especially when its not necessarily warranted, sometimes the mad sell off is actually warranted and in cases like that the SEC might want to temporally suspend all trading on a certain stock to give the new a chance to 'sink in' and then resume trading - this 'controlled stop may also be helpful to the rest of the sector so the entire industry doesn't get panicked for no reason other than initial hysteria.
Perhaps the mad sell off will continue but the SEC did the best it could to defuse a potential disaster and at the very least may have saved the crashing of an entire sector.
Now some events that befall a company might simply be unavoidable, catastrophic natural disasters and such... HOWEVER, if the reason for such an unexpected fire-sale of company stock due as a result of a negative event that befell the company (untimely death of the CEO would certainly qualify) AND this possible eventuality was previously known (for any length of time) to individuals inside the company and it wasn't disclosed then an investigation by the SEC (at the very least) is all but a certainty.
Nondisclosure is taken really serious now a days (imagine that!) and it only took how many trillions of dollars lost from investors (of all types) before the officials said HEY! YA think we oughta do.... something?!? About this crazy stuff? Well thankfully they are. Public corporations have a laundry list of rules and regs they are required to follow. If serious health conditions suffered by a CEO is considered a 'required disclosable item' then Apple clearly did wrong... If the area is 'gray' Apple may not have done anything wrong (legally).
However with a CEO so tied to the financial success of a company I would certainly consider 'bad heath reports' on Steve a real concern to the stockholders as well as the company employees. Yes, yes, yes, Steve is a human being and has the right to deal with this in his own way without interference and we should respect the entire families privacy but not at the expense of keeping the Apple shareholders and unfortunately 'the general public' as a result informed on ALL issues that could have a dire/measurable/negative effects on the company.
A long long long time ago, Apple was forced to 'pre-annouce' some VERY bad news about the finances... This was quite ODD since Apple was in it's 'quiet period' leading up to a quarterly earnings report filing and was not permitted to speak about anything that might hint at what they were going to be reporting in the next week or so...
The market was expecting Apple to post an average but unspectacular profit when compared to the same period last year ( a C or C- on the report card )... and much to the shock of everyone, Apple was NOT on track to post an 'unspectacular profit' this quarter but instead are expecting/posting a SUBSTANTIAL LOSS ( bright red F on the report card ).
As usual, you're oversimplifying a complicated issue in order to attack Jobs.
The key issue is: What is material? The way SEC rules work is that it's up to the CEO to determine that with oversight from the board. The Board members have a legal obligation to speak up if they think a material issue is being hidden - as do other corporate officers. If they felt that a material fact was being hidden, it would be a felony for them to keep quiet.
Jobs clearly felt that his staff could keep things going in his absence and no harm would come to Apple even if something happened to him. The fact that no one on the board and no other corporate officer spoke up indicates that the board and officers agreed.
So they made a judgment call - and they were clearly in much better position to do so than you are.
AND, it turned out that they were right.
No, there isn't clear indication that the board was given sufficient information to come to an educated and reasonable decision about the material risks.
It's a Jobs-controlled board and there's a strong chance that they were either incapable or not given the chance to make a dispassionate analysis of the risks.
In the end, they may have been more lucky than right. You can bet on the longshot and win. Again, it comes down to the risk factor of gambling with $209 billion of market capitalization. That's $209 billion of other people's money.
Trust me, I'm relived by the outcome. I'm a longtime shareholder myself and I'm pleased to see the stock trading about $230 today, but I do not agree with the way the board of directors handled this particular situation. Had the outcome been different, the conversation would be different. While I'm sure no one would be happy to be holding that conversation, the point is that it is questionable if the shareholders were alerted of material risks.
Going to get a new liver is not a run-of-the-mill procedure. Even if you survive the surgical procedure, there are significant post-op complications that can crop up that could prevent the patient from making a full and speedy recovery.
If Steve took a day or two off to get a root canal, or even a week to get a knee replacement, I wouldn't think of it as a big deal. Getting a new liver is a big deal.
et back to me with your feelings on this subject once you find out Apple is in fact a PUBLICLY traded corporation on the NASDAQ and how all listed companies have obligations to the SHAREHOLDERS (aka INVESTED OWNERS) of the company as well as obligations to the FTC and or other agencies/bodies.... when it comes to many different circumstances that CAN, WILL or COULD negatively impact the company.
I guess it's hard to take you seriously when you apparently don't know the difference between the FTC and SEC.
Regardless, why do you think that endlessly repeating the same nonsense will suddenly make it come true?
The facts are simple:
Apple has a legal obligation (under the SEC) to report MATERIAL issues. It is up to Apple to decide what is material (although a court could certainly challenge that at some time). There are checks and balances. There is an independent Board of Directors which oversees the CEO's actions. There are also other officers. Both the Board and the other Officers have the same legal obligation to disclose material issues - or to disclose it if they are concerned about Apple's formal disclosures.
The Board did nothing.
The Officers did nothing.
All of these people were experienced executives who were well aware of their legal obligations.
No one (neither Board member nor Officer) made any public announcement or resigned.
How do you, as an outsider without access to the information the Board received, believe that you know better than these executives what should have been done? They made a judgment call and were apparently all in agreement (other than one guy who allegedly had some concerns but he never did anything about it, nor did he apply the same standards to himself when he was CEO of several companies).
They made a judgment call which was well within their prerogative - and no one objected.
Granted, a court could go back today and consider whether that was reasonable, but it is extremely unlikely that a court would overrule the entire BOD and Officer group after the fact - especially when no one suffered any harm. Heck, you could argue that if Jobs had made an announcement and someone sold their shares that they would have been harmed by doing so - since they would have missed out on their shares doubling in the last 18 months. The case would never get past the summary judgment stage.
No, there isn't clear indication that the board was given sufficient information to come to an educated and reasonable decision about the material risks.
It's a Jobs-controlled board and there's a strong chance that they were either incapable or not given the chance to make a dispassionate analysis of the risks.
Nonsense. Jobs said a long time ago that he had discussed his health issues with the board - and no one objected to that statement.
Even this after the fact hearsay from York says that the Board was informed.
There is absolutely ZERO reason to believe that Jobs didn't tell the board.
since it annoys you, i believe i will keep it as is...
doesn't bother me in the very least, but if you want to keep it your choice not mine
Nonsense. Jobs said a long time ago that he had discussed his health issues with the board - and no one objected to that statement.
Even this after the fact hearsay from York says that the Board was informed.
There is absolutely ZERO reason to believe that Jobs didn't tell the board.
This entire line of reasoning seems rather bizarre to me. You seem to be saying that if the board was complicit in withholding material issues, then the issues by definition are not material to the stockholders. I don't think the SEC would agree with this interpretation of the disclosure requirements. In fact they seem designed to prevent this very sort of complicity to avoid disclosure.
Again, the main issue here is whether what Apple disclosed was accurate. Based on what we know today, legitimate questions can be raised about whether it was. To my knowledge, the SEC is still looking into this.
So this guy says once he found out about the illness he didn't disclose it "because of the uproar it would cause." Isn't that the same reason Steve Jobs didn't disclose it?
Either they are both guilty or neither are guilty.
Either you didn't read carefully, or AI changed the article. York was concerned of the fanboy uproar towards YORK resigning over Jobs failure to disclose his poor health. He was not concerned about the uproar over Jobs health that would have occurred, which he believed needed to happen.
Seriously, Mactards go ape-*#&$ every time some Apple employee quits or goes somewhere else under less than friendly terms.
There is absolutely ZERO reason to believe that Jobs didn't tell the board.
Well, there is the Wall Street Journal story saying that Jerry York said that is exactly what happened. I think that is a lot more than zero.
A non-story.
Not knowing much about these types of business situations, was Jobs under any moral, ethical or legal obligation to disclose his personal health issues?
one might argue on the moral and ethical and that's really a matter of personal opinion.
But legally no. Jobs didn't have to say anything up until the point where the issue prohibited him from doing his job. Which was when he needed the liver transplant and the time to recover. And he did tell. Perhaps not the same day he found out. It would seem that he might have waited a few days to a couple of weeks while he hashed out who was going to run the show. Which in light of the effect that rumors had on dropping stock values was a wise move.
Other than that, the only laws are basically regarding truthfulness. IF you choose to say something you have to speak the truth. You can't say that you are in perfect health if you know you are not. This is something that came up several times because some folks believe that Jobs flat out lied and knew the issue wasn't a mere hormone problem etc but that he knew from day one that his liver was failing. While others more expert in medicine have gone on record saying that yes it is possible that he was giving out information as he found it out and at first they thought it was just a hormone imbalance but then further testing showed that the imbalance was due to problems with his liver. and so on
the company did just fine while he was away for the transplant. From a day to day running of the company perspective, they'd be just fine without him.
yep. Jobs has likely handpicked and groomed the folks that work with him. they know his vision etc. and thus could answer the whole 'what would steve do' question just fine. Not to mention that he was just a phone call, email, ichat away.
It's the new product development that there could be a problem.
and yet not as much as some think. New products are not springing fully formed out of Jobs head (or any other part). They take years. The stuff they are releasing right now started as much as 10 years ago. And the things they are thinking up right now will carry them another 10 years.
Apple is very good at identifying large markets and having their initial release be best in class while solving the reasons others failed,
yep and will continue to see what others are doing or talking about doing and one up them. As well as seeing beyond right now and jumping to the next big thing. Even guiding that thing into place. Like the whole blu-ray v downloads issue.
which includes knowing when to take their own projects back to the drawing board as many times as it takes to get them right. They've done that with MP3 players, smart phones and now tablet computers. This is largely because of Steve. He's the best in the world at this, that's difficult to replace.
yes but he's really just the idea guy. He's not the singular designer, engineer etc. It is that false notion that created the price drop. Folks assuming that Steve does everything and the rest of the folks are just puppet morons. But they are not.
In 85 he was forced out by people who thought he failed
More like he was forced out by people that thought his ideas were total crap. When in fact they were the ones with the wrong plans. imagine what the world might have been like if Steve had been the one to stay. We could have had OSX a lot sooner, the ipod etc a lot sooner. by now we might have a real Apple TV (like the rumors are claiming is in the works to come out in the next couple of years), Blu-ray might have never happened at all if better compression had been created for true high def downloads (something I suspect Apple and others are working on as we speak) and so on.
Yeah, the idea that it would have been good for the shareholders doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I think Steve was actually doing his best to look out for the shareholders, and if anyone was hurt by his lack of disclosure, it was the people who bought shares after Steve knew but before the news came out.
As a shareholder myself, I am glad they didn't issue a press release on the matter, as it would have destroyed the stock. The risk-reward balance was not there.
Okay I see your line of thinking on the issue however, it is clouded by the fact that nothing BAD happened. In other words 'we dodged a possibly fatal bullet' /phew!
BUT
The need for disclosure is not based on something as 'squishy' as this mock response from Apple executives.
"We just don't want to deal with a horrid eventuality of the issue and therefore choose to NOT say anything publicly, and just hope to GOD the problem simply goes away all by itself."
- This was not an actual quote from anyone. It was simply used to help make my point more clear...
The need for disclosure isn't hinged on the possible short term impact it may have on the stock... The need for disclosure is to slowly get the public accustom to a POSSIBLE outcome prior to and or hopefully long before its ACTUAL certainty. The more in advance a possibility is known the less impact its likely to have on a stock (under most conditions).
Lets face facts, in a perfect world Steve would simply live on forever... but that isn't going to happen... NOW we know Steve will die one day and provided he was still running Apple as well as he is today the impact on the stock would be MONUMENTAL.
Some say Steve's influence is HIGHLY exaggerated and maybe that's so... but I think Steve far more than a 'normal' CEO and most of the technological plugged in world perceives Steve as 'THE MAN' behind Apple it's driving force and at the end of the day... that's all that really matters... Public perception.
So on the tragic day of his death (without any forewarning/disclosure) what do YOU think the stock will do? If you said nosedive then you're probably right. In times of shock, people involved in the market (especially individual investors) don't simply react but they OVER-REACT.
Disclosure is all about 'defusing' or 'muffling' this public knee-jerk reaction.
Had news been put forth about health related issues when the issues weren't entirely bleak then the stock 'might' drop some but maybe not... It might also drop initially and recover over time, or drop and find a new 'price point'. I'm not arguing that the stock wouldn't drop to some degree. It will.
The different potential outcomes are based on how the market interprets/digests the information.
- If the news is release at a time when a there is a fairly good chance Steve would come out of the condition and continue on at Apple business as usually, then the price will recover.
- If the news is disclosed in a time when the condition has a more grim outlook and the chances of a return to Apple are slim, then the price will find a new 'low' but that new 'low' is still well above where the stock would be if the sudden news of Steve's death hits the front page of the WSJ late day edition.
The important part of BOTH of those scenarios is Steve is still Alive and has the ability to make any changes within the company the would kick in at certain possible events happening. The market feels that Steve could make his longest term 'visions' know (something he probably does already -- but the market can now come to the conclusion that if Steve wasn't doing before he certainly would be now). In short Steve is at the helm suffering from a potentially life threatening condition and is putting HIS plans into motion on how the company will continue if the worst comes to pass.That is MUCH better than Steve dying suddenly and the market being caught totally unaware and thinking Apple is now at the mercy of the board of directors and Steve's visions for the future are likely to die with him.
It's all about managing the publics expectations....
If Steve is ALIVE and official press announcements (by the company) are made about possible health concerns then the pubic 'digests' that information and 'possibly' sells AAPL holdings or shorts Apple stock (dirty scum!) but the main point is Steve is NOT dead and now the public has been braced for potentially bad news that might or might not come and the vast majority of the stockholders aren't dumping everything the second they can. They MIGHT be calling their broker to trigger SELL orders a little higher than they had them at before but AAPL is doing amazingly well in the face of terrible financial conditions and people aren't going to be so quick to abandon ship because Steve might have some health issues.
Anyway THIS is why Apple was 100% wrong in not disclosing the information... They could have worded it as they wanted to (within good reason) and put as positive spin as they could on the news. Would it have a negative impact on the stock... like I said above.. sure it would but if you have to choose between:
- Doing the right thing at the appropriate time and disclosing the information.
- Hiding the information and preying to GOD that the problem just goes away!
I think you know which one I'd choose.