Great in an existential sort of way. I type therefore I am.
Couldn't it be equally true that I typed therefore I was or even I'll type therefore I will be and how does that it fit in with the well accepted notion that all we are is dust in the wind?!? Damn you Kansas! Way to screw up the whole zen thing I had going...
The SEC is investigating, last any of us heard, so that's not a theory. Steve and Apple did end up explaining more, but mainly as a result of the murky initial disclosures which raised more questions then they provided answers. As many have pointed out over the last few years, he probably would have been better off making matters clearer in the beginning.
"Bloomberg says the SEC has not decided whether to upgrade the probe to a formal investigation."
So we have hearsay that the SEC might be looking into it, but has not launched any kind of investigation. Yet, in the 14 months since that article was printed, there has been no formal SEC investigation.
So, the facts as they stand are.
1. The Board and Officers knew that they were obligated to disclose material matters.
2. The Board and Officers were informed (as verified by Jobs' statements, Board minutes, and even York's statement that started all this nonsense).
3. None of the Board or Officers felt compelled to notify the SEC or anyone else.
4. None of the Board members or Officers resigned over the matter.
5. The SEC has not launched an investigation even though the incident happened nearly 2 years ago.
6. Apple felt that they had a management team in place that could handle the business in Jobs' absence. This turned out to be true.
So other than wild delusions and "Apple is always wrong" which seems to be the mantra of so many around here, what evidence is there of wrong doing? Keep in mind that any 'evidence' you come up with must explain all of the facts. York's statement (even if accurate) doesn't explain away the facts - at best, it says that he considered it a close call, but in the end decided that it was not material and did not need to be reported.
I'll be happy to hear FACTS, not delusional rants, that explain what Apple did wrong.
Yeah Oh gee, I really wish Apple weren't run by Mean Mister Jobs.
A committee or a focus group would clearly do a great job running Apple.
And Apple should have increased divident payouts. That way, investors could pay 30%-50% of that dividend in taxes, rather than keeping that value within their net worth. Steve is a fool for making his investors wealthy.
Bad Steve!
Better yet, a bunch of lawyers should run Apple! Maybe a donkey made of rubber could be CEO, and the lawyers could report the health records of the donkey with extreme accuracy. Then the John Hodgman types will be satisfied everything is legit!
"Bloomberg says the SEC has not decided whether to upgrade the probe to a formal investigation."
So we have hearsay that the SEC might be looking into it, but has not launched any kind of investigation. Yet, in the 14 months since that article was printed, there has been no formal SEC investigation.
So, the facts as they stand are.
1. The Board and Officers knew that they were obligated to disclose material matters.
2. The Board and Officers were informed (as verified by Jobs' statements, Board minutes, and even York's statement that started all this nonsense).
3. None of the Board or Officers felt compelled to notify the SEC or anyone else.
4. None of the Board members or Officers resigned over the matter.
5. The SEC has not launched an investigation even though the incident happened nearly 2 years ago.
6. Apple felt that they had a management team in place that could handle the business in Jobs' absence. This turned out to be true.
So other than wild delusions and "Apple is always wrong" which seems to be the mantra of so many around here, what evidence is there of wrong doing? Keep in mind that any 'evidence' you come up with must explain all of the facts. York's statement (even if accurate) doesn't explain away the facts - at best, it says that he considered it a close call, but in the end decided that it was not material and did not need to be reported.
I'll be happy to hear FACTS, not delusional rants, that explain what Apple did wrong.
As of the middle of last year, they were still investigating. The fact that we've heard nothing to date is typical of SEC investigations -- but you could find that out just as easily as I have, if ever you wanted to know. Of course that will all be written off as delusional rants, so don't bother, as I'm confident that you will not.
BTW, all of your "facts" are completely immaterial to whether Apple violated disclosure rules.
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.
And they've have missed out on the massive gains in Apple's shares over the past year. So what damages would they sue for? The fact that Apple made lots of money for them and now they have to pay more in taxes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
As of the middle of last year, they were still investigating. The fact that we've heard nothing to date is typical of SEC investigations -- but you could find that out just as easily as I have, if ever you wanted to know. Of course that will all be written off as delusional rants, so don't bother, as I'm confident that you will not.
BTW, all of your "facts" are completely immaterial to whether Apple violated disclosure rules.
Only because you don't have a clue how business works. The BOD and officers are obligated BY LAW to disclose material information. NONE of them did so. Presumably, they are in a better position to know what is material than you are. That is completely relevant to the discussion.
As for the SEC, SEC looks into lots of things. Do you have any evidence AT ALL that they have any plans to turn this into an investigation? If not, you're just blowing smoke - as usual.
Only because you don't have a clue how business works. The BOD and officers are obligated BY LAW to disclose material information. NONE of them did so. Presumably, they are in a better position to know what is material than you are. That is completely relevant to the discussion.
As for the SEC, SEC looks into lots of things. Do you have any evidence AT ALL that they have any plans to turn this into an investigation? If not, you're just blowing smoke - as usual.
Sigh. Look, all of this has been explained numerous times by myself and others. I'm not sure why you aren't getting it. All that really matters is whether the company accurately disclosed what it did disclose. If the board deliberately misled investors, then it's no excuse by any means if the members collectively agreed to mislead investors. Just the opposite, in fact.
Do we know if this happened? No, we don't. We know only that questions were raised, the SEC began looking into them around the start of last year, and even more questions were raised around the middle of last year when Steve's "hormonal imbalance" turned into a near-death situation.
We don't get evidence from the SEC, the SEC collects evidence. This can take a long time during which the public typically hears nothing. The investigation into the options backdating situation stretched into many months, well over a year, before the SEC declared themselves satisfied.
Can you have some of the posters change their signature lines--it is a bit distracting and is really getting out of hand--kind of like pop ups when you are on the Internet. What next BOLD, FLASHING FLORESCENT RED 120 FONT---opps see that 7's the limit?
thanks
If you have an issue then report, but stop posting your requirements in this discussion, it is not on topic and to be frank very boring.
I admired York and since he was long standing Director, I think, he is allowed his opinion, since he helped steer Apple to success as board member.
I guess my signature line did not come in. Have changed it back to normal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes
no, but annoying signature lines that make it harder to read post is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:m ad:
Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes
Would like to but I only place trolls on mine. There should be some limit what you can put on a signature line--what next a full page ad?
Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes
Can you have some of the posters change their signature lines--it is a bit distracting and is really getting out of hand--kind of like pop ups when you are on the Internet. What next BOLD, FLASHING FLORESCENT RED 120 FONT---opps see that 7's the limit?
thanks
Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes
In your signature line, it should be dyslexic as afflicted with dyslexia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes
doesn't bother me in the very least, but if you want to keep it your choice not mine
You call other people annoying, this above is annoying, hijacking a discussion thread with crap that could be managed by sending a report to moderators, if you feel so strongly. Stop trying to be Jesus (there was only one) and preaching what YOU want.
[QUOTE]Warren Buffett: Apple Withheld "Material Fact" On Steve Jobs Health
Published: Wednesday, 24 Jun 2009 | 1:24 PM ET Text Size
By: Alex Crippen
Executive Producer
AP
Steve Jobs
Warren Buffett says Apple has been too secretive about the health problems facing CEO Steve Jobs.
In a live interview today on CNBC, Buffett backed recent criticism of the company for not immediately disclosing that Jobs received a liver transplant several months ago.
"If I have any serious illness, or something coming up of an important nature, an operation or anything like that, I think the thing to do is just tell the American, the Berkshire shareholders about it. I work for 'em. Some people might think I'm important to the company. Certainly Steve Jobs is important to Apple. So it's a material fact. Whether he is facing serious surgery or not is a material fact. Whether I'm facing serious surgery is a material fact. Whether (General Electric CEO) Jeff Immelt is, I mean, so I think that's important to get out. They're going to find out about it anyway so I don't see a big privacy issue or anything of the sort."
READ THE FULL CNBC INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT
Buffett's repeated use of the phrase "material fact" indicates he may believe Apple violated the law by not disclosing that Jobs would be having the surgery.
The government defines a material fact as something that a reasonable investor would want to know when making an investment decision, and companies are required to disclose "material" information in a timely way.
While I find Mr. York's opinion disgustingly pathetic, I find it worse (yet, typical) that the rag also known as the WSJ waited all of one day to take his unpublished off the record comments and make them public.
Scum. Of. The. Earth. I'm looking at you, Murdoch.
A cerebral hemorrhage doesn't sound like something that he would have known about it. Then again, I'm not a doctor.
You are right and previous comment was quite distasteful.
While there are factors that can increase the chance of getting cerebral haemorrhage, like high blood pressure, some genetic disorders, smoking, alcohol... etc., to a large amount it is matter of chance.
My best mate died last year of cerebral haemorrhage, age 43, and real irony there was that he actually was a doctor. Went to sleep one night and never woke up...
Comments
Great in an existential sort of way. I type therefore I am.
Couldn't it be equally true that I typed therefore I was or even I'll type therefore I will be and how does that it fit in with the well accepted notion that all we are is dust in the wind?!? Damn you Kansas! Way to screw up the whole zen thing I had going...
The SEC is investigating, last any of us heard, so that's not a theory. Steve and Apple did end up explaining more, but mainly as a result of the murky initial disclosures which raised more questions then they provided answers. As many have pointed out over the last few years, he probably would have been better off making matters clearer in the beginning.
http://www.businessweek.com/technolo...e_of_the_apple
First, the article said that:
"Bloomberg says the SEC has not decided whether to upgrade the probe to a formal investigation."
So we have hearsay that the SEC might be looking into it, but has not launched any kind of investigation. Yet, in the 14 months since that article was printed, there has been no formal SEC investigation.
So, the facts as they stand are.
1. The Board and Officers knew that they were obligated to disclose material matters.
2. The Board and Officers were informed (as verified by Jobs' statements, Board minutes, and even York's statement that started all this nonsense).
3. None of the Board or Officers felt compelled to notify the SEC or anyone else.
4. None of the Board members or Officers resigned over the matter.
5. The SEC has not launched an investigation even though the incident happened nearly 2 years ago.
6. Apple felt that they had a management team in place that could handle the business in Jobs' absence. This turned out to be true.
So other than wild delusions and "Apple is always wrong" which seems to be the mantra of so many around here, what evidence is there of wrong doing? Keep in mind that any 'evidence' you come up with must explain all of the facts. York's statement (even if accurate) doesn't explain away the facts - at best, it says that he considered it a close call, but in the end decided that it was not material and did not need to be reported.
I'll be happy to hear FACTS, not delusional rants, that explain what Apple did wrong.
A committee or a focus group would clearly do a great job running Apple.
And Apple should have increased divident payouts. That way, investors could pay 30%-50% of that dividend in taxes, rather than keeping that value within their net worth. Steve is a fool for making his investors wealthy.
Bad Steve!
Better yet, a bunch of lawyers should run Apple! Maybe a donkey made of rubber could be CEO, and the lawyers could report the health records of the donkey with extreme accuracy. Then the John Hodgman types will be satisfied everything is legit!
Better yet, a bunch of lawyers should run Apple! Maybe a donkey made of rubber could be CEO
Sorry, he's already running Microsoft.
I agree with everything else, though.
First, the article said that:
"Bloomberg says the SEC has not decided whether to upgrade the probe to a formal investigation."
So we have hearsay that the SEC might be looking into it, but has not launched any kind of investigation. Yet, in the 14 months since that article was printed, there has been no formal SEC investigation.
So, the facts as they stand are.
1. The Board and Officers knew that they were obligated to disclose material matters.
2. The Board and Officers were informed (as verified by Jobs' statements, Board minutes, and even York's statement that started all this nonsense).
3. None of the Board or Officers felt compelled to notify the SEC or anyone else.
4. None of the Board members or Officers resigned over the matter.
5. The SEC has not launched an investigation even though the incident happened nearly 2 years ago.
6. Apple felt that they had a management team in place that could handle the business in Jobs' absence. This turned out to be true.
So other than wild delusions and "Apple is always wrong" which seems to be the mantra of so many around here, what evidence is there of wrong doing? Keep in mind that any 'evidence' you come up with must explain all of the facts. York's statement (even if accurate) doesn't explain away the facts - at best, it says that he considered it a close call, but in the end decided that it was not material and did not need to be reported.
I'll be happy to hear FACTS, not delusional rants, that explain what Apple did wrong.
As of the middle of last year, they were still investigating. The fact that we've heard nothing to date is typical of SEC investigations -- but you could find that out just as easily as I have, if ever you wanted to know. Of course that will all be written off as delusional rants, so don't bother, as I'm confident that you will not.
BTW, all of your "facts" are completely immaterial to whether Apple violated disclosure rules.
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.
And they've have missed out on the massive gains in Apple's shares over the past year. So what damages would they sue for? The fact that Apple made lots of money for them and now they have to pay more in taxes?
As of the middle of last year, they were still investigating. The fact that we've heard nothing to date is typical of SEC investigations -- but you could find that out just as easily as I have, if ever you wanted to know. Of course that will all be written off as delusional rants, so don't bother, as I'm confident that you will not.
BTW, all of your "facts" are completely immaterial to whether Apple violated disclosure rules.
Only because you don't have a clue how business works. The BOD and officers are obligated BY LAW to disclose material information. NONE of them did so. Presumably, they are in a better position to know what is material than you are. That is completely relevant to the discussion.
As for the SEC, SEC looks into lots of things. Do you have any evidence AT ALL that they have any plans to turn this into an investigation? If not, you're just blowing smoke - as usual.
Only because you don't have a clue how business works. The BOD and officers are obligated BY LAW to disclose material information. NONE of them did so. Presumably, they are in a better position to know what is material than you are. That is completely relevant to the discussion.
As for the SEC, SEC looks into lots of things. Do you have any evidence AT ALL that they have any plans to turn this into an investigation? If not, you're just blowing smoke - as usual.
Sigh. Look, all of this has been explained numerous times by myself and others. I'm not sure why you aren't getting it. All that really matters is whether the company accurately disclosed what it did disclose. If the board deliberately misled investors, then it's no excuse by any means if the members collectively agreed to mislead investors. Just the opposite, in fact.
Do we know if this happened? No, we don't. We know only that questions were raised, the SEC began looking into them around the start of last year, and even more questions were raised around the middle of last year when Steve's "hormonal imbalance" turned into a near-death situation.
We don't get evidence from the SEC, the SEC collects evidence. This can take a long time during which the public typically hears nothing. The investigation into the options backdating situation stretched into many months, well over a year, before the SEC declared themselves satisfied.
What a puzzling comment. I can't even guess at its relevance.
I can live with that.
Can you have some of the posters change their signature lines--it is a bit distracting and is really getting out of hand--kind of like pop ups when you are on the Internet. What next BOLD, FLASHING FLORESCENT RED 120 FONT---opps see that 7's the limit?
thanks
If you have an issue then report, but stop posting your requirements in this discussion, it is not on topic and to be frank very boring.
I admired York and since he was long standing Director, I think, he is allowed his opinion, since he helped steer Apple to success as board member.
I guess my signature line did not come in. Have changed it back to normal.
no, but annoying signature lines that make it harder to read post is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Would like to but I only place trolls on mine. There should be some limit what you can put on a signature line--what next a full page ad?
Can you have some of the posters change their signature lines--it is a bit distracting and is really getting out of hand--kind of like pop ups when you are on the Internet. What next BOLD, FLASHING FLORESCENT RED 120 FONT---opps see that 7's the limit?
thanks
In your signature line, it should be dyslexic as afflicted with dyslexia.
doesn't bother me in the very least, but if you want to keep it your choice not mine
You call other people annoying, this above is annoying, hijacking a discussion thread with crap that could be managed by sending a report to moderators, if you feel so strongly. Stop trying to be Jesus (there was only one) and preaching what YOU want.
Published: Wednesday, 24 Jun 2009 | 1:24 PM ET Text Size
By: Alex Crippen
Executive Producer
AP
Steve Jobs
Warren Buffett says Apple has been too secretive about the health problems facing CEO Steve Jobs.
In a live interview today on CNBC, Buffett backed recent criticism of the company for not immediately disclosing that Jobs received a liver transplant several months ago.
"If I have any serious illness, or something coming up of an important nature, an operation or anything like that, I think the thing to do is just tell the American, the Berkshire shareholders about it. I work for 'em. Some people might think I'm important to the company. Certainly Steve Jobs is important to Apple. So it's a material fact. Whether he is facing serious surgery or not is a material fact. Whether I'm facing serious surgery is a material fact. Whether (General Electric CEO) Jeff Immelt is, I mean, so I think that's important to get out. They're going to find out about it anyway so I don't see a big privacy issue or anything of the sort."
READ THE FULL CNBC INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT
Buffett's repeated use of the phrase "material fact" indicates he may believe Apple violated the law by not disclosing that Jobs would be having the surgery.
The government defines a material fact as something that a reasonable investor would want to know when making an investment decision, and companies are required to disclose "material" information in a timely way.
/QUOTE]
Warren Buffett? We all know the man is delusional. He's just blowing smoke, as usual.
His brother Jimmy is still pretty cool tho...
Scum. Of. The. Earth. I'm looking at you, Murdoch.
Warren Buffett? We all know the man is delusional. He's just blowing smoke, as usual.
I wouldn't say delusional. He knows what he's doing. His financial contributions to culling the world population are very much intentional.
A cerebral hemorrhage doesn't sound like something that he would have known about it. Then again, I'm not a doctor.
You are right and previous comment was quite distasteful.
While there are factors that can increase the chance of getting cerebral haemorrhage, like high blood pressure, some genetic disorders, smoking, alcohol... etc., to a large amount it is matter of chance.
My best mate died last year of cerebral haemorrhage, age 43, and real irony there was that he actually was a doctor. Went to sleep one night and never woke up...