No, that's not how it works. Shareholders are entitled to information which can materially effect their investments. How much of a CEO's medical situation is covered by this right to know is a matter of debate, but to say that public companies have a right to create information black holes is just not correct. One of the reasons these rumors get started is because of the lack of information provided by Apple. They create mysteries and someone is going to try to solve it.
I'm constantly amazed at how you post as 'tho you actually knew what you are talking about. It doesn't matter how you "want" things to be .... it doesn't even matter how I, or anyone else wants them to be either. It only matters at how things are. Following is a pretty good interpretation of the (SEC rules Page 15) : http://www.businessweek.com/technolo...624_212886.htm
"Ask legal and corporate governance experts and they'll tell you that indeed Apple is adhering to the letter of the law on this. That's because in the eyes of regulators, Apple really doesn't have to say much. The closest thing to guidance the SEC does give appears on page 15 of the form for filing an 8K report, used for alerting shareholders to events that may have a material effect on the company. Listed companies have to report the retirement, resignation, firing, or other departure of principal officers, and the hiring and appointment of new ones. That's it."
(bold emphasis mine)
Please stop posting misunderstanding info of what's required ... either intentionally or not. A little research before you post goes a long way. ...
So much for Steve's wish to have his privacy respected....
The only thing more profitable to leak to the media than product details is Jobs details
As for all th shareholder blah blah, SEC rules only require revealing if one can't do his or her job, who is taking over and if it is temp or permanent. Details are not required
I wasnt that person..... Not a fantasy, you just choose not to believe, its that simple.
Steve can easily be cured, but healing doesnt come from "Buddha" ...healing comes from Jehovah Rapha ... Its sad that the most influential tech mind in this world cant somehow realize that... It really puts the words "Those who see are blind, and those who are blind can see" into better terms.
I really want this guy healed like many, but he has to choose.
So much for integrity and ethics. Journalism really has gone to hell.
I couldn't agree more .... even when it's clear that the info was given "off record" to respect Steve Jobs privacy .... as soon as there's no chance of a lawsuit ..... anything goes. With this kind of "journalism" there's no wonder that newspapers are a dying breed. Sad.
No, that's not how it works. Shareholders are entitled to information which can materially effect their investments. How much of a CEO's medical situation is covered by this right to know is a matter of debate, but to say that public companies have a right to create information black holes is just not correct. One of the reasons these rumors get started is because of the lack of information provided by Apple. They create mysteries and someone is going to try to solve it.
I believe you are talking about uncertainty, not risk. There will be uncertainty related to outcomes regardless of the quantity and quality of information provided on basically any issue. In other words, black holes will exist in some form, the only question being the extent of the size of the hole. Risks, on the other hand, can be (and are) continuously measured by markets. The effect of Steve Jobs's health could arguably be built into the Apple's expected returns, since risks associated with that have already been digested by the market. Providing more information may, for all we know, do little to change that. It could even worsen the volatility. For instance, if he told us that his absence was because of some XYZ condition or procedure, the medical uncertainties may be such that it does not tell us anything about his ability to continue to be CEO and continue to make strategic decisions, his state of mind, whether he will survive and if so for how long, etc.
Also, 'entitled to know' and 'material' are nebulous. I might think I am entitled to know Apple's new product introductions in the future since they are obviously be material, but that does not mean that Apple will (or should) give it to me.
Regardless of whether something is an entitlement or not, there is a sense of decency that might be expected to prevail. And even if the entitlement to know trumps decency, there is then such a thing as a right to privacy.
I am simply saying that there are no obvious answers in this situation.
I'm constantly amazed at how you post as 'tho you actually knew what you are talking about. It doesn't matter how you "want" things to be .... it doesn't even matter how I, or anyone else wants them to be either. It only matters at how things are. Following is a pretty good interpretation of the (SEC rules Page 15) : http://www.businessweek.com/technolo...624_212886.htm
"Ask legal and corporate governance experts and they'll tell you that indeed Apple is adhering to the letter of the law on this. That's because in the eyes of regulators, Apple really doesn't have to say much. The closest thing to guidance the SEC does give appears on page 15 of the form for filing an 8K report, used for alerting shareholders to events that may have a material effect on the company. Listed companies have to report the retirement, resignation, firing, or other departure of principal officers, and the hiring and appointment of new ones. That's it."
(bold emphasis mine)
Please stop posting misunderstanding info of what's required ... either intentionally or not. A little research before you post goes a long way. ...
I have already posted numerous quotes from other experts in the field arguing otherwise. I suppose you conveniently missed those. You also conveniently missed my actual point, which I have made numerous times, and was right in post you quoted back. So, once more for the cheap seats: whether they are obligated to do so, or not, more information would be the right thing to do, not just for shareholders, but for the wellbeing of the company as well.
Your constant misunderstandings appear to be deliberate. You can't seem to even accurately represent the text you're quoting back.
I believe you are talking about uncertainty, not risk. There will be uncertainty related to outcomes regardless of the quantity and quality of information provided on basically any issue. In other words, black holes will exist in some form, the only question being the extent of the size of the hole. Risks, on the other hand, can be (and are) continuously measured by markets. The effect of Steve Jobs's health could arguably be built into the Apple's expected returns, since risks associated with that have already been digested by the market. Providing more information may, for all we know, do little to change that. It could even worsen the volatility. For instance, if he told us that his absence was because of some XYZ condition or procedure, the medical uncertainties may be such that it does not tell us anything about his ability to continue to be CEO and continue to make strategic decisions, his state of mind, whether he will survive and if so for how long, etc.
Also, 'entitled to know' and 'material' are nebulous. I might think I am entitled to know Apple's new product introductions in the future since they are obviously be material, but that does not mean that Apple will (or should) give it to me.
Regardless of whether something is an entitlement or not, there is a sense of decency that might be expected to prevail. And even if the entitlement to know trumps decency, there is then such a thing as a right to privacy.
I am simply saying that there are no obvious answers in this situation.
Sure, I agree with you entirely, especially with your last sentence. This is what I've been saying all along. This is Apple's third try at handling this situation, and the third time they've done it ungracefully. They can do better, and without violating Steve's medical privacy. You can't stop people from wanting to know more than what's been disclosed, and it's not like the questions (such as, "can he fulfill his CEO duties while on leave?") are totally illegitimate to ask about someone running a public company. The best way to address this interest is to make the explanations just a bit more complete. Not a lot, just some.
This is Apple's third try at handling this situation, and the third time they've done it ungracefully. They can do better, and without violating Steve's medical privacy. You can't stop people from wanting to know more than what's been disclosed, and it's not like the questions (such as, "can he fulfill his CEO duties while on leave?") are totally illegitimate to ask about someone running a public company. The best way to address this interest is to make the explanations just a bit more complete. Not a lot, just some.
Good point. It would make people happier if they gave more details about the logistics of Steve's absence, instead of the usual secrecy business... The problem is Steve's absence doesn't really affect the short term; it's more about the long term, which is why people are clamoring to know how serious his condition is and when (let's not say if) he'll be back.
I have already posted numerous quotes from other experts in the field arguing otherwise. I suppose you conveniently missed those. You also conveniently missed my actual point, which I have made numerous times, and was right in post you quoted back. So, once more for the cheap seats: whether they are obligated to do so, or not, more information would be the right thing to do, not just for shareholders, but for the wellbeing of the company as well.
Your constant misunderstandings appear to be deliberate. You can't seem to even accurately represent the text you're quoting back.
Your quote:
No, that's not how it works. Shareholders are entitled to information which can materially effect their investments. How much of a CEO's medical situation is covered by this right to know is a matter of debate,
A quote from filing form: Listed companies have to report the retirement, resignation, firing, or other departure of principal officers, and the hiring and appointment of new ones. That's it."
It seems pretty clear to me. (A) Your opinion is "not how it works". (B) medical info is not "up for debate".
Not only are you the one who is confused but to reference previous info (with no links) is just an obvious attempt to get "off the hook" of accountability ..... something that is part of your MO ... sad, really.
I'm off to listen to webcast of financial reports, so take your time, gather your thoughts and try another of your "spin" posts.
The problem is Steve's absence doesn't really affect the short term; it's more about the long term, which is why people are clamoring to .....
To be blunt about it, any investor that has not already factored the long term -- heck, even the medium term -- re. SJ's health into Apple's stock price and his decision to continue to hold has no place being in the market.
Of course that assumes that one's view of 'long' term is more than a few quarters.....
Sure, I agree with you entirely, especially with your last sentence. This is what I've been saying all along. This is Apple's third try at handling this situation, and the third time they've done it ungracefully. They can do better, and without violating Steve's medical privacy. You can't stop people from wanting to know more than what's been disclosed, and it's not like the questions (such as, "can he fulfill his CEO duties while on leave?") are totally illegitimate to ask about someone running a public company. The best way to address this interest is to make the explanations just a bit more complete. Not a lot, just some.
To be blunt about it, any investor that has not already factored the long term -- heck, even the medium term -- re. SJ's health into Apple's stock price and his decision to continue to hold has no place being in the market.
Of course that assumes that one's view of 'long' term is more than a few quarters.....
And I completely agree with you.
I'm just saying that there are people and investors out there that don't necessarily think as logically about things...
Comments
Did you just get out of prison? I had hoped you were dead since we hadn't heard from you for six months or so.
interesting, you were hoping i was not alive, but yet i somehow remained in your subconscious?
get a life creep
No, that's not how it works. Shareholders are entitled to information which can materially effect their investments. How much of a CEO's medical situation is covered by this right to know is a matter of debate, but to say that public companies have a right to create information black holes is just not correct. One of the reasons these rumors get started is because of the lack of information provided by Apple. They create mysteries and someone is going to try to solve it.
I'm constantly amazed at how you post as 'tho you actually knew what you are talking about. It doesn't matter how you "want" things to be .... it doesn't even matter how I, or anyone else wants them to be either. It only matters at how things are. Following is a pretty good interpretation of the (SEC rules Page 15) : http://www.businessweek.com/technolo...624_212886.htm
"Ask legal and corporate governance experts and they'll tell you that indeed Apple is adhering to the letter of the law on this. That's because in the eyes of regulators, Apple really doesn't have to say much. The closest thing to guidance the SEC does give appears on page 15 of the form for filing an 8K report, used for alerting shareholders to events that may have a material effect on the company. Listed companies have to report the retirement, resignation, firing, or other departure of principal officers, and the hiring and appointment of new ones. That's it."
(bold emphasis mine)
Please stop posting misunderstanding info of what's required ... either intentionally or not. A little research before you post goes a long way. ...
So much for Steve's wish to have his privacy respected....
The only thing more profitable to leak to the media than product details is Jobs details
As for all th shareholder blah blah, SEC rules only require revealing if one can't do his or her job, who is taking over and if it is temp or permanent. Details are not required
Steve can easily be cured, but healing doesnt come from "Buddha" ...healing comes from Jehovah Rapha ... Its sad that the most influential tech mind in this world cant somehow realize that... It really puts the words "Those who see are blind, and those who are blind can see" into better terms.
I really want this guy healed like many, but he has to choose.
So much for integrity and ethics. Journalism really has gone to hell.
I couldn't agree more .... even when it's clear that the info was given "off record" to respect Steve Jobs privacy .... as soon as there's no chance of a lawsuit ..... anything goes. With this kind of "journalism" there's no wonder that newspapers are a dying breed. Sad.
No, that's not how it works. Shareholders are entitled to information which can materially effect their investments. How much of a CEO's medical situation is covered by this right to know is a matter of debate, but to say that public companies have a right to create information black holes is just not correct. One of the reasons these rumors get started is because of the lack of information provided by Apple. They create mysteries and someone is going to try to solve it.
I believe you are talking about uncertainty, not risk. There will be uncertainty related to outcomes regardless of the quantity and quality of information provided on basically any issue. In other words, black holes will exist in some form, the only question being the extent of the size of the hole. Risks, on the other hand, can be (and are) continuously measured by markets. The effect of Steve Jobs's health could arguably be built into the Apple's expected returns, since risks associated with that have already been digested by the market. Providing more information may, for all we know, do little to change that. It could even worsen the volatility. For instance, if he told us that his absence was because of some XYZ condition or procedure, the medical uncertainties may be such that it does not tell us anything about his ability to continue to be CEO and continue to make strategic decisions, his state of mind, whether he will survive and if so for how long, etc.
Also, 'entitled to know' and 'material' are nebulous. I might think I am entitled to know Apple's new product introductions in the future since they are obviously be material, but that does not mean that Apple will (or should) give it to me.
Regardless of whether something is an entitlement or not, there is a sense of decency that might be expected to prevail. And even if the entitlement to know trumps decency, there is then such a thing as a right to privacy.
I am simply saying that there are no obvious answers in this situation.
I thought healing came from Ahura Mazda.
Exodus 15:26
Tumor Response and Clinical Benefit in Neuroendocrine Tumors After 7.4 GBq 90Y-DOTATOC
current crises and is able to get back to Apple. Where he goes and how he did it, is
none of our business. He did is part by declaring he has an illness and saying that he
will be back later.
Yasna 44:2
Ex.20:3 Ex.20:4; Le.19:4 ;Ex.20:20 ; Ex.20:5 ; Ex.20:5 ;Lev.18:21 ;Lev.19:31;Lev.19:31
I'm constantly amazed at how you post as 'tho you actually knew what you are talking about. It doesn't matter how you "want" things to be .... it doesn't even matter how I, or anyone else wants them to be either. It only matters at how things are. Following is a pretty good interpretation of the (SEC rules Page 15) : http://www.businessweek.com/technolo...624_212886.htm
"Ask legal and corporate governance experts and they'll tell you that indeed Apple is adhering to the letter of the law on this. That's because in the eyes of regulators, Apple really doesn't have to say much. The closest thing to guidance the SEC does give appears on page 15 of the form for filing an 8K report, used for alerting shareholders to events that may have a material effect on the company. Listed companies have to report the retirement, resignation, firing, or other departure of principal officers, and the hiring and appointment of new ones. That's it."
(bold emphasis mine)
Please stop posting misunderstanding info of what's required ... either intentionally or not. A little research before you post goes a long way. ...
I have already posted numerous quotes from other experts in the field arguing otherwise. I suppose you conveniently missed those. You also conveniently missed my actual point, which I have made numerous times, and was right in post you quoted back. So, once more for the cheap seats: whether they are obligated to do so, or not, more information would be the right thing to do, not just for shareholders, but for the wellbeing of the company as well.
Your constant misunderstandings appear to be deliberate. You can't seem to even accurately represent the text you're quoting back.
I believe you are talking about uncertainty, not risk. There will be uncertainty related to outcomes regardless of the quantity and quality of information provided on basically any issue. In other words, black holes will exist in some form, the only question being the extent of the size of the hole. Risks, on the other hand, can be (and are) continuously measured by markets. The effect of Steve Jobs's health could arguably be built into the Apple's expected returns, since risks associated with that have already been digested by the market. Providing more information may, for all we know, do little to change that. It could even worsen the volatility. For instance, if he told us that his absence was because of some XYZ condition or procedure, the medical uncertainties may be such that it does not tell us anything about his ability to continue to be CEO and continue to make strategic decisions, his state of mind, whether he will survive and if so for how long, etc.
Also, 'entitled to know' and 'material' are nebulous. I might think I am entitled to know Apple's new product introductions in the future since they are obviously be material, but that does not mean that Apple will (or should) give it to me.
Regardless of whether something is an entitlement or not, there is a sense of decency that might be expected to prevail. And even if the entitlement to know trumps decency, there is then such a thing as a right to privacy.
I am simply saying that there are no obvious answers in this situation.
Sure, I agree with you entirely, especially with your last sentence. This is what I've been saying all along. This is Apple's third try at handling this situation, and the third time they've done it ungracefully. They can do better, and without violating Steve's medical privacy. You can't stop people from wanting to know more than what's been disclosed, and it's not like the questions (such as, "can he fulfill his CEO duties while on leave?") are totally illegitimate to ask about someone running a public company. The best way to address this interest is to make the explanations just a bit more complete. Not a lot, just some.
This is Apple's third try at handling this situation, and the third time they've done it ungracefully. They can do better, and without violating Steve's medical privacy. You can't stop people from wanting to know more than what's been disclosed, and it's not like the questions (such as, "can he fulfill his CEO duties while on leave?") are totally illegitimate to ask about someone running a public company. The best way to address this interest is to make the explanations just a bit more complete. Not a lot, just some.
Good point. It would make people happier if they gave more details about the logistics of Steve's absence, instead of the usual secrecy business... The problem is Steve's absence doesn't really affect the short term; it's more about the long term, which is why people are clamoring to know how serious his condition is and when (let's not say if) he'll be back.
I have already posted numerous quotes from other experts in the field arguing otherwise. I suppose you conveniently missed those. You also conveniently missed my actual point, which I have made numerous times, and was right in post you quoted back. So, once more for the cheap seats: whether they are obligated to do so, or not, more information would be the right thing to do, not just for shareholders, but for the wellbeing of the company as well.
Your constant misunderstandings appear to be deliberate. You can't seem to even accurately represent the text you're quoting back.
Your quote:
No, that's not how it works. Shareholders are entitled to information which can materially effect their investments. How much of a CEO's medical situation is covered by this right to know is a matter of debate,
A quote from filing form: Listed companies have to report the retirement, resignation, firing, or other departure of principal officers, and the hiring and appointment of new ones. That's it."
It seems pretty clear to me. (A) Your opinion is "not how it works". (B) medical info is not "up for debate".
Not only are you the one who is confused but to reference previous info (with no links) is just an obvious attempt to get "off the hook" of accountability ..... something that is part of your MO ... sad, really.
I'm off to listen to webcast of financial reports, so take your time, gather your thoughts and try another of your "spin" posts.
The problem is Steve's absence doesn't really affect the short term; it's more about the long term, which is why people are clamoring to .....
To be blunt about it, any investor that has not already factored the long term -- heck, even the medium term -- re. SJ's health into Apple's stock price and his decision to continue to hold has no place being in the market.
Of course that assumes that one's view of 'long' term is more than a few quarters.....
Sure, I agree with you entirely, especially with your last sentence. This is what I've been saying all along. This is Apple's third try at handling this situation, and the third time they've done it ungracefully. They can do better, and without violating Steve's medical privacy. You can't stop people from wanting to know more than what's been disclosed, and it's not like the questions (such as, "can he fulfill his CEO duties while on leave?") are totally illegitimate to ask about someone running a public company. The best way to address this interest is to make the explanations just a bit more complete. Not a lot, just some.
Agree wholeheartedly.
To be blunt about it, any investor that has not already factored the long term -- heck, even the medium term -- re. SJ's health into Apple's stock price and his decision to continue to hold has no place being in the market.
Of course that assumes that one's view of 'long' term is more than a few quarters.....
And I completely agree with you.
I'm just saying that there are people and investors out there that don't necessarily think as logically about things...