Steve Jobs to take medical leave of absence but remain Apple CEO

145791013

Comments

  • Reply 121 of 253
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by gctwnl View Post


    No it isn't. Look at a market where it is still trading (e.g. Germany). Roughly -8.5%



    Not a big panic yet, but given Apple's fundamentals, it is bound to be a temporary dip.



    I suspect this has been planned in combination with the financials tomorrow. Those might soften the blow.



    The US stock marked is still trading, as we speak? If not, I stand corrected.
  • Reply 122 of 253
    bigpicsbigpics Posts: 1,359member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by myapplelove View Post


    You are wrong, privacy is a right he's earned.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Curmudgeon View Post


    Privacy does not have to be earned. It's pretty much a birth rite. It's sad that our mass media can't seem to understand such a simple concept.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sip View Post


    Having been diagnosed with ESLD (end-stage liver disease) about five months ago, I have had to learn a hell of a lot more about the liver than I really wanted to. ...



    This disease literally turns your life upside down -- day becomes night and night becomes day. ... liver disease can come back even if you've had a transplant.



    This is the kind of disease that any decent human being wouldn't ever wish upon their worst enemy, so I just hope that whatever SJ's problem might be, that this discussion doesn't end up in the gutter with snide comments about the man himself or the impending demise of Apple Inc.



    Agreed about the "snide comments about the man himself"... ...and feel for your own living hell... ...nonetheless....



    ...if Apple were a privately held company, the owners would have every right to be as private about the matter as they wished, but it is not and only the two posters below seem to have any idea how the real world of public corporations works and why...



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dukemeiser View Post


    Not sure how you can run a company with the second largest market cap and expect your life to be "private".



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    Pretty much agreed with you until the last paragraph. The reasons you don't hear about the health of those other CEOs is because they don't have cancer and haven't needed organ transplants. If any health issues threatened to take them away from the company, then you might very well hear about them. The question of whether the health of a CEO is material information to investors is a matter of discussion, not ridiculous on the face of it, not by a long shot.



    During Steve's last leave of absence, people familiar with corporate governance rules and SEC regulations came down on the side of more complete disclosure than the extremely sketchy information which Apple deemed appropriate. I think they're going to have similar problems with this announcement, which is awfully vague on the details.



    Maybe an analogy will help some of you get that this is more than a matter effecting only the man and his family: If the style, involvement and vision of the men at the top didn't matter, NFL, NBA and MBL coaches would never get fired - and while no coach can make a silk purse out of the wrong team or org, an ineffective coach can quickly bring a talented group down to mediocrity - or help it rise to the heights by the players buying into the vision and being willing to run through walls for the team.



    And the value of publicly held stocks wouldn't vacillate so much around board room news, whether leaves of absence, hirings or firings of CEO's and Presidents. Because leadership does matter.



    For example, if the White House were to announce that President Obama had taken a leave of absence from his job for undisclosed health reasons and that Joe Biden was in charge of the country for the interim, would you still all say it was a private matter between he and his family, and that's all we need to be told? Public lives have public as well as private responsibilities.



    The CEO of Apple's ability to function and likelihood to return to work is a matter directly effecting the lives and welfare literally tens of millions of people and thousands of other companies to one degree or another, and Apple, if not SJ personally, faces tremendous pressure to disclose what they know about the seriousness of the health concern and some kind of best projected timeline for when or if it might be resolved to all of these stakeholders, even if not every gory detail.



    That said, like virtually everyone else here, this is sad news and he is wished all the best.
  • Reply 123 of 253
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member
    deleted
  • Reply 124 of 253
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post


    I read the article....(with my grandma slow verizon mifi card internet). That article didn't sway my opinion on this matter at all. They don't even present good logic behind knowing all the details. So what if they did give a date and then couldn't make that date? They are still in the same situation either way. It's none of their business what the man has or not. Just because he's CEO doesn't mean he's no longer entitled to his privacy. That's just ridiculous. Businesses need to be worried about their business and not the personal lives of employees. The unexpected can always happen. They have someone who can clearly run things day-to-day in SJ's absence. That's the second most important thing.



    Nobody said "all the details." That's just a made-up standard on your part. The real standard is information which is material to a prudent investor, and I think it's impossible to argue with a straight face that Steve's ability to run Apple is immaterial to investors. The issue raised previously was that his condition was far more serious than investors were told, leaving the impression that Apple was deliberately prevaricating. They've consistently made the situation worse by giving out virtually no information and refusing to answer any and all questions. This is why corporate governance experts have repeatedly criticized Apple's handing of Steve's health issues.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post


    I would argue that his personal life is indeed his personal life. But his professional life is as public as the company he serves.



    A couple weeks ago Apple refused a request from their shareholders to disclose the company's succession plan.



    Why are such critical plans allowed to be concealed from stockholders?



    They can get away with an awful lot "talk to the hand" if they aren't investigated by the SEC or sued by investors. Sadly Apple's investor relations have always stunk. Why they've chosen that path, I don't know. It's apparently a deliberate choice.
  • Reply 125 of 253
    @bigpics



    Ok wtf should he disclose then anyway? Do you want daily announcements by his physicians? Weekly? Bi-weekly? Do you want blood exams, urine exams, mris? Do you want them mailed to you or posted online?



    And do you maybe want to have your doctors examine him too? Which doctors opinion on SJ's would you consider reliable?



    This whole discussion is ridiculous and nonsensical. A medical leave of absence is just that. End of story. We know about Steve's cancer in the past, an his liver transplant, the rest is for his family, close friends and doctors to know.
  • Reply 126 of 253
    adonissmuadonissmu Posts: 1,772member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by island hermit View Post


    Like you'd actually know.



    All the assholes come out to kick the man when he's down.



    How classy.



    That's what you get if you aren't an adobe evangelist.
  • Reply 127 of 253
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    Maybe Steve is not actually sick but his health is not as good as it could be. He needs some more time off because he has been feeling run down due to working too many hours lately. He doesn't want his heath to worsen and he knows if he keeps coming into the office he'll end up working too hard. He may have decided to work from home to conserve his strength. Everyone knows he is fragile. Hopefully this is the beginning of a gradual retirement process. I would like to see him relax, build his house and retire within the next year or so. Live long Steve.



    Wouldn't we like to believe that? But since when have his health issues been less serious than what was disclosed? Fundamentally this is the problem with Apple's approach to this issue. Investors will have to assume the worst because Apple and Steve refuse to say anything more. No oil on the water whatsoever.
  • Reply 128 of 253
    adonissmuadonissmu Posts: 1,772member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    Nobody said "all the details." That's just a made-up standard on your part. The real standard is information which is material to a prudent investor, and I think it's impossible to argue with a straight face that Steve's ability to run Apple is immaterial to investors. The issue raised previously was that his condition was far more serious than investors were told, leaving the impression that Apple was deliberately prevaricating. They've consistently made the situation worse by giving out virtually no information and refusing to answer any and all questions. This is why corporate governance experts have repeatedly criticized Apple's handing of Steve's health issues.







    They can get away with an awful lot "talk to the hand" if they aren't investigated by the SEC or sued by investors. Sadly Apple's investor relations have always stunk. Why they've chosen that path, I don't know. It's apparently a deliberate choice.



    Let them criticize. It's none of their business. Investors have all the information they need to know. That's the bottom line. Apple will give out the information as it sees fit in due time. Until then you are just going to have to wait. Apple couldn't disclose Steve's medical information even if it wanted to without the possible threat of legal action.
  • Reply 129 of 253
    adonissmuadonissmu Posts: 1,772member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    Wouldn't we like to believe that? But since when have his health issues been less serious than what was disclosed? Fundamentally this is the problem with Apple's approach to this issue. Investors will have to assume the worst because Apple and Steve refuse to say anything more. No oil on the water whatsoever.



    Ok assume the worst. There is nothing wrong with planning for the worst. [email protected] you people who are more concerned about their stock portfolio than the man's health.
  • Reply 130 of 253
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post


    Let them criticize. It's none of their business. Investors have all the information they need to know. That's the bottom line. Apple will give out the information as it sees fit in due time. Until then you are just going to have to wait. Apple couldn't disclose Steve's medical information even if it wanted to.



    Exactly, and what's more, as I said before, what medical information? Don't people realize that there might be some issues even the doctors are perplexed about and they are trying to find methods to address them? We know his medical history, it's not as if he's broken his leg or something and apple can come up and say it, it's more complex.



    Moreover, what about his recovery? Aren't people considering that increased publicity on this might hinder his recovery. If the patient (Steve) considers it might, and asks for privacy to face his issues out of the public spotlight, wouldn't it be basic human decency to grant him that?
  • Reply 131 of 253
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,420member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    Pretty much agreed with you until the last paragraph. The reasons you don't hear about the health of those other CEOs is because they don't have cancer and haven't needed organ transplants. If any health issues threatened to take them away from the company, then you might very well hear about them. The question of whether the health of a CEO is material information to investors is a matter of discussion, not ridiculous on the face of it, not by a long shot. During Steve's last leave of absence, people familiar with corporate governance rules and SEC regulations came down on the side of more complete disclosure than the extremely sketchy information which Apple deemed appropriate. I think they're going to have similar problems with this announcement, which is awfully vague on the details.



    While I agree that people will scream for more details, I think they're doing so only because it's Apple and because of the current perception that the websphere is entitled to know absolutely everything about every public figure's life.



    Any CEO is at risk of death anytime, especially the older ones. Rupert Murdoch is almost 80 and Sumner Redstone is 87. Either one of them could drop dead tomorrow. One could make the case that that's obvious, but ever since Jobs' cancer was announced, it's obvious that his health is compromised and at risk. So I don't know what more information is needed. If you think that Jobs not returning to Apple in an active role will hurt Apple, then you sell the stock. If you have more faith in Apple as a company and its ability to continue to succeed with or without Jobs, you don't. It's as simple as that.
  • Reply 132 of 253
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post


    Let them criticize. It's none of their business. Investors have all the information they need to know. That's the bottom line. Apple will give out the information as it sees fit in due time. Until then you are just going to have to wait. Apple couldn't disclose Steve's medical information even if it wanted to.



    +1



    You'd have to be a half-wit if you thought Steve was 100% healthy and was going to run Apple for the next 100 years.



    Investors have seen how the company runs without Steve.



    Forward p/e of 14 tells the story.



    I know what I need to know... I felt leery going forward with Apple because I was wondering about Steve's next step (this was mentioned at least two weeks ago in one of my posts... I also said 12 days ago (or so) that AAPL would be $350 by Jan. 14th) and have been cautious with the stock (ie. not holding).



    Tell me what more I need to know... please.
  • Reply 133 of 253
    onhkaonhka Posts: 1,025member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    …SEC regulations came down on the side of more complete disclosure than the extremely sketchy information which Apple deemed appropriate.



    I thought I was quite familiar with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and its latest iteration, i.e., "AS AMENDED THROUGH P.L. 111-257, APPROVED OCTOBER 5, 2010".*



    Unless there have been amendments that have not been published in the last few days, there is no guidance as such.



    * http://www.sec.gov/about/laws/sea34.pdf
  • Reply 134 of 253
    bagmanbagman Posts: 349member
    Here's hoping for better health in your fight against cancer Steve. God Bless.
  • Reply 135 of 253
    paxmanpaxman Posts: 4,594member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by myapplelove View Post


    Exactly, and what's more, as I said before, what medical information? Don't people realize that there might be some issues even the doctors are perplexed about and they are trying to find methods to address them? We know his medical history, it's not as if he's broken his leg or something and apple can come up and say it, it's more complex.



    Moreover, what about his recovery? Aren't people considering that increased publicity on this might hinder his recovery. If the patient (Steve) considers it might, and asks for privacy to face his issues out of the public spotlight, wouldn't it be basic human decency to grant him that?



    There is a difference between 'disclosure of the facts' and 'the Jobs' privacy'. Apple can disclose what ails their CEO without breaching his privacy imo. When you are so closely linked to the fortunes of Apple there is no wonder the world want's to know and and to some extent has the right to know. But that doesn't mean SJ is not entitled to full privacy. I don't really see why disclosing what ails you infringes on your privacy. Its possible that if Apple were more open and briefed the press regularly re SJ's medical condition, his privacy would be better respected. That's just speculation, however. Apple and SJ will do what they think best. They always do. When you are a maverick like Apple the paradox is that everybody who loves you for being what you are always want to tell you how to behave. If Apple listened to its critics it would no longer be Apple.
  • Reply 136 of 253
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post


    Let them criticize. It's none of their business. Investors have all the information they need to know. That's the bottom line. Apple will give out the information as it sees fit in due time. Until then you are just going to have to wait. Apple couldn't disclose Steve's medical information even if it wanted to without the possible threat of legal action.



    You're wrong. That's the bottom line.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post


    Ok assume the worst. There is nothing wrong with planning for the worst. [email protected] you people who are more concerned about their stock portfolio than the man's health.



    Always beware of arguments that begin with "you people." You might want to notice that I said nothing about my portfolio. I am speaking only of the disclosure requirements, and the questions about whether Apple has met them. Many experts believe they have not previously, and are starting to say so again today.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post


    While I agree that people will scream for more details, I think they're doing so only because it's Apple and because of the current perception that the websphere is entitled to know absolutely everything about every public figure's life.



    Any CEO is at risk of death anytime, especially the older ones. Rupert Murdoch is almost 80 and Sumner Redstone is 87. Either one of them could drop dead tomorrow. One could make the case that that's obvious, but ever since Jobs' cancer was announced, it's obvious that his health is compromised and at risk. So I don't know what more information is needed. If you think that Jobs not returning to Apple in an active role will hurt Apple, then you sell the stock. If you have more faith in Apple as a company and its ability to continue to succeed with or without Jobs, you don't. It's as simple as that.



    No, it's not as simple as that. The question is whether Apple has provided accurate and timely information to investors about material events, as they are required to do. The facts are, they've always skated on the edge, which raises questions that don't have to be raised. I realize that I can cite corporate governance experts left and right to document this and you will never believe it. So it's not a function of what is true, only of your willingness to accept it.
  • Reply 137 of 253
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by paxman View Post


    There is a difference between 'disclosure of the facts' and 'the Jobs' privacy'. Apple can disclose what ails their CEO without breaching his privacy imo. When you are so closely linked to the fortunes of Apple there is no wonder the world want's to know and and to some extent has the right to know. But that doesn't mean SJ is not entitled to full privacy. I don't really see why disclosing what ails you infringes on your privacy. Its possible that if Apple were more open and briefed the press regularly re SJ's medical condition, his privacy would be better respected. That's just speculation, however. Apple and SJ will do what they think best. They always do. When you are a maverick like Apple the paradox is that everybody who loves you for being what you are always want to tell you how to behave. If Apple listened to its critics it would no longer be Apple.



    Did you actually read my posts buddy? One issue is that he and his doctors might not know what exactly ails him, or they might be trying out a few things to help him, another is that it might be too complicated to explain. Yet another might be that his doctors consider it would put undue stress on their client for his recovery to be public with any information.



    We know about the cancer history and the liver transplant, we know his doctors made an excellent prognosis on recovery after the liver transplant. One can easily assume his ailment is related to his medical history. What's more to know? As I said it's not as clear an ailment as breaking a leg, that is announce-able, but as his issues might be more complicate or unclear, what is apple to say? And where should they stop? What would suffice, blood tests? MRIs? Even if they did make an announcement, people would require even more yet, because that might not shed any light. So, in view of his medical history being a matter of public knowledge, as well for all the reasons mentioned, I think a medical leave of absence suffices as an announcement. Anything other than that could cause unwarranted panic, speculation, requests for even more information, invasion of privacy etc, etc.
  • Reply 138 of 253
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post


    The line between visionary and sociopath has always thin. Apple under jobs is high risk high reward. He's willing to take those risks because all he cares about is his vision and he's prepared to fail and fail spectacularly if the customer doesn't share it. Normal people can't do this. The little angel on their right shoulder won't let them.



    Well said, he is the visionary at Apple and actually had the power to implement his vision...



    I wish him and his family well.....
  • Reply 139 of 253
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Onhka View Post


    I thought I was quite familiar with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and its latest iteration, i.e., "AS AMENDED THROUGH P.L. 111-257, APPROVED OCTOBER 5, 2010".



    Unless there have been amendments that have not been published in the last few days, there is no guidance as such.



    Disclosure of material events. I believe that language has been in the regulations for a long time. There's no bright line to follow, but during the last two health-related episodes, experts were lining up virtually unanimously with the opinion that Apple was pushing the limits, skating on the edge of the disclosure rules. My point is, there's no good reason for them to handle these situations in such an opaque way.
  • Reply 140 of 253
    onhkaonhka Posts: 1,025member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    No, it's not as simple as that. The question is whether Apple has provided accurate and timely information to investors about material events, as they are required to do. The facts are, they've always skated on the edge, which raises questions that don't have to be raised. I realize that I can cite corporate governance experts left and right to document this and you will never believe it. So it's not a function of what is true, only of your willingness to accept it.



    Please cite!
Sign In or Register to comment.