At this point I think most people are assuming Steve won't be back (but hoping they're wrong!). And there has been no panic.
As Horace Dediu at asymco.com has pointed out, Apple's P/E premium dropped in half, back to the average for the stock market, around when Steve Jobs looked sick at his January keynote in 2008, and it remains at that level. The lack of panic on Tuesday is additional evidence that the expectation that AAPL can't count on having Steve much longer has been baked into the stock price for the past three years.
Thanks for posting this link. Most interesting. The summation:
Quote:
Having led you this far in the story, I?m afraid I?m going to let you down at the end: The cause for the loss of faith is a mystery to me.
There is only one noteworthy event that took place on that date: Macworld 2008 (January 14-18). During the keynote, Steve Jobs introduced the Macbook Air (and Time Capsule and Leopard and pre-announced the iPhone SDK which, six months later led to the app supernova). I remember that day and I remember that the stock began selling off exactly at the point when the Air was mentioned. It has never been the same since.
Obviously, correlation is not causation. The Macbook Air need not be the cause for the loss of faith in Apple as an investment. Or can it? I?m hoping someone can explain this because to me it makes no sense. The product was not a home run but it did not do badly either and its current incarnation seems to be a hit. Whatever sins the original Air may have had have surely been expurgated by now.
Regardless the cause, the bottom line is that, in the eyes of investors, Apple stopped being ?special? that day. Its valuation dropped to in-line the S&P and, given its growth, well below what a large growth company should be worth. The company?s shares went into the bargain bin and are still there today.
It doesn't inform anything. In fact bringing it up misinforms, since it sounds so official, but doesn't apply to this situation in any imaginable way. Show me who is demanding access to any medical records, for instance. Nobody, right? So forget HIPAA, it's nothing more than a red herring argument.
I never said anyone is demanding medical records. In fact I said HIPAA doesn't offer legal guidance in this situation.
What it does offer is a baseline for who can have access to a persons medical information and underscores a persons right to privacy.
The article is about how much information should be given out by apple about Steve. I believe people in a position of power should give out more information but the question of how much doesn't seem to be clear. Or if it is I would have expected the former head of the SEC to indicate that instead of saying "enough information is already known" or "you'd have to be blind". It seems to be an area with few guidlines.
Apple does have a succession plan, and only the deaf, dumb and blind are missing it.
Every time that Jobs has taken medical leave, Cook has stepped up into the CEO role. If Jobs never comes back, I'm sure that Cook will just have the acting bit removed from his job title or have joint added to it.
I never said anyone is demanding medical records. In fact I said HIPAA doesn't offer legal guidance in this situation.
What it does offer is a baseline for who can have access to a persons medical information and underscores a persons right to privacy.
The article is about how much information should be given out by apple about Steve. I believe people in a position of power should give out more information but the question of how much doesn't seem to be clear. Or if it is I would have expected the former head of the SEC to indicate that instead of saying "enough information is already known" or "you'd have to be blind". It seems to be an area with few guidlines.
I agree that the disclosure guidance is minimal, which leads to the debate, but not that HIPAA sheds any light on the situation, legally or ethically. You might say that a public company's requirement to keep investors informed of material events and the need to protect the privacy of its top officers are in tension. Neither is the master of the other. Even Leavitt has some problems with the way Apple has handled this situation, even if it's not specifically directed to medical details. Others with knowledge of the disclosure requirements have more issues with it than he does. It's a debate. My point all along has been that Apple could quite easily do more to curtail this debate, and doing so would not require giving anyone access to Steve's medical records. That's why I get up in arms about the mentions of HIPAA. The issues it covers were never the question. Other things are, so why not discuss them instead?
Yes they have disclosed just enough to cause uncertainty in the market. Doesn't matter how many Macs, iPhones or iPads Apple sells as long as Jobs health remains uncertain the stock will continue to take a beating.
Anyone that doubts that take a look at the stock the last three days in spite of record earnings.
Yeah, like the last 2 times Steve tok some time off? OH! That's right.... the stock went through the roof the last two times!! This is normal cycle for AAPL, do some homework and sell and go elsewhere if you don't have the stones to go through AAPL's normal cycles.
Yeah, like the last 2 times Steve tok some time off? OH! That's right.... the stock went through the roof the last two times!! This is normal cycle for AAPL, do some homework and sell and go elsewhere if you don't have the stones to go through AAPL's normal cycles.
Normal cycles. Three days is a normal cycle. Hey its 43 degrees where I am now what the temp there on Fantasy Island?
someone who owns Apple stock has got to be deaf, dumb and blind not to know that Jobs has an illness that can reoccur at any time," Leavitt reportedly said.
He is wrong. I just pulled Tommy away from his pinball machine and he told me he knows all about Jobs' illness.
So they should say they have a secret succession plan?
Sort of reminds me of the time on the West Wing when Josh told the press that the President had a secret plan to fight inflation.
That was an homage to Nixon's 1968 campaign bullshit that he had a secret plan to end the war in Vietnam. I hope nobody on the Apple board would want to imitate that douche.
Because its one side for many people. When Apple stock jumps and I say its because they are following market trends rather then some stupid news that means nothing they want to say thats BS. But when Apple stock is then then all of a sudden its because the Nasdaq is down.
Not saying your the one that does that.
I have no real issue with the stock being down right now, I have over 20 years until I plan to retire. However I am feel certain the recent drop has nothing to do with anything else but the SJ news.
That news hit just about every media outlet in the US that day. Being a long time investor I can tell you I don't have anywhere neare the confidence in Cook that I do in Jobs if this situation was to become worse over the next year. There are several even on this forum that have raised the same issue.
First of all, I wouldn't put much faith in what others say is the reason for any stock movement. We each have to make up our own mind and be comfortable with our choices.
As for Tim Cook being able to lead Apple .... consider this. Every company needs different kinds of leadership. On one hand it needs someone like a Steve Jobs ... who can visualize "the future" and not forget what the goal is .... to make insanely great products.
On the other hand, you also need someone like a Tim Cook ... who by all accounts is a genius at turning ideas into reality while seeking out savings and efficiencies. Obviously I'd like to see Steve Jobs at the helm forever ... but I wouldn't lose a lot of sleep with Tim Cook at the helm. Apple has a lot of great people there and I'm sure that, collectively, they'd be able to ride out any storm. just my 2 cents. Good Luck with Apple.
First of all, I wouldn't put much faith in what others say is the reason for any stock movement. We each have to make up our own mind and be comfortable with our choices.
As for Tim Cook being able to lead Apple .... consider this. Every company needs different kinds of leadership. On one hand it needs someone like a Steve Jobs ... who can visualize "the future" and not forget what the goal is .... to make insanely great products.
On the other hand, you also need someone like a Tim Cook ... who by all accounts is a genius at turning ideas into reality while seeking out savings and efficiencies. Obviously I'd like to see Steve Jobs at the helm forever ... but I wouldn't lose a lot of sleep with Tim Cook at the helm. Apple has a lot of great people there and I'm sure that, collectively, they'd be able to ride out any storm. just my 2 cents. Good Luck with Apple.
Day 4. When was the last time recently you saw AAPL down four days in a row? Google id doing the same thing was up but then closed down I believe 2.2% also announced a CEO change this week.
How long will this last? Who knows but until there is a bit more known about Jobs I don't expect any major spikes in AAPL in the near future.
Day 4. When was the last time recently you saw AAPL down four days in a row? Google id doing the same thing was up but then closed down I believe 2.2% also announced a CEO change this week.
How long will this last? Who knows but until there is a bit more known about Jobs I don't expect any major spikes in AAPL in the near future.
As much as it pains me to say so, I agree with this assessment. Apple has done an absolutely abysmal job managing this news and this is reflected in the stock's performance. They've handled it so badly that even a fabulous earnings report had no positive impact. Sadly this week we witnessed the continued collapse of AAPL's multiples. At this point, it can only be seen as investors voting a lack of confidence in Apple's management. The truth of the matter is, investors are being cheated out of stock appreciation in a huge and scary way, to which management turns a blind eye.
That was an homage to Nixon's 1968 campaign bullshit that he had a secret plan to end the war in Vietnam. I hope nobody on the Apple board would want to imitate that douche.
I'm not sure 'homage' is quite the right word, 'parody' perhaps?
As much as it pains me to say so, I agree with this assessment. Apple has done an absolutely abysmal job managing this news and this is reflected in the stock's performance. They've handled it so badly that even a fabulous earnings report had no positive impact. Sadly this week we witnessed the continued collapse of AAPL's multiples. At this point, it can only be seen as investors voting a lack of confidence in Apple's management. The truth of the matter is, investors are being cheated out of stock appreciation in a huge and scary way, to which management turns a blind eye.
This just might be the dumbest thing you have ever posted, unless, of course, you're just trying to "stir the pot" hoping for controversy .... with you, it's hard to tell. In any case, try looking at Nasdaq .... you just might find a "clue". The "proof" is that today the Nasdaq is up over 1% and, lo and behold, Apple is up over 3%. Did the management of Apple get"smart" all of a sudden or is Apple following the trends set by the market in general? Come on Dr M .... you can do better .... can't you?
Steve Jobs Should Take A Cue From AIG's Cancer-Stricken CEO
AIG's Robert Benmosche said on Monday he will stay on as the insurer's CEO despite the fact that he continues to battle cancer. Benmosche first acknowledged that he had the disease in October. Steve Jobs and Apple's board should take note of Benmosche's openness about his condition.
Jobs last week said he would take a second medical leave in as many years "so I can focus on my health." He didn't disclose what's ailing him, and his secrecy has led to speculation that he has suffered a recurrence of the pancreatic cancer he revealed in 2004, nine months after the diagnosis, or complications from a 2009 liver transplant he had tried to keep secret.
Or maybe Jobs is suffering an altogether new medical calamity. No one really knows.
While this great CEO's condition is not to be taken lightly, Jobs needs to take a page from Benmosche's open book and inform the public about his health. The right to medical privacy goes only so far if you've accepted the top job at a company with 46,000 employees, hundreds of partners, millions of customers, and investors who have capitalized your operation to the tune of $312 billion.
Comments
At this point I think most people are assuming Steve won't be back (but hoping they're wrong!). And there has been no panic.
As Horace Dediu at asymco.com has pointed out, Apple's P/E premium dropped in half, back to the average for the stock market, around when Steve Jobs looked sick at his January keynote in 2008, and it remains at that level. The lack of panic on Tuesday is additional evidence that the expectation that AAPL can't count on having Steve much longer has been baked into the stock price for the past three years.
Thanks for posting this link. Most interesting. The summation:
Having led you this far in the story, I?m afraid I?m going to let you down at the end: The cause for the loss of faith is a mystery to me.
There is only one noteworthy event that took place on that date: Macworld 2008 (January 14-18). During the keynote, Steve Jobs introduced the Macbook Air (and Time Capsule and Leopard and pre-announced the iPhone SDK which, six months later led to the app supernova). I remember that day and I remember that the stock began selling off exactly at the point when the Air was mentioned. It has never been the same since.
Obviously, correlation is not causation. The Macbook Air need not be the cause for the loss of faith in Apple as an investment. Or can it? I?m hoping someone can explain this because to me it makes no sense. The product was not a home run but it did not do badly either and its current incarnation seems to be a hit. Whatever sins the original Air may have had have surely been expurgated by now.
Regardless the cause, the bottom line is that, in the eyes of investors, Apple stopped being ?special? that day. Its valuation dropped to in-line the S&P and, given its growth, well below what a large growth company should be worth. The company?s shares went into the bargain bin and are still there today.
It doesn't inform anything. In fact bringing it up misinforms, since it sounds so official, but doesn't apply to this situation in any imaginable way. Show me who is demanding access to any medical records, for instance. Nobody, right? So forget HIPAA, it's nothing more than a red herring argument.
I never said anyone is demanding medical records. In fact I said HIPAA doesn't offer legal guidance in this situation.
What it does offer is a baseline for who can have access to a persons medical information and underscores a persons right to privacy.
The article is about how much information should be given out by apple about Steve. I believe people in a position of power should give out more information but the question of how much doesn't seem to be clear. Or if it is I would have expected the former head of the SEC to indicate that instead of saying "enough information is already known" or "you'd have to be blind". It seems to be an area with few guidlines.
Every time that Jobs has taken medical leave, Cook has stepped up into the CEO role. If Jobs never comes back, I'm sure that Cook will just have the acting bit removed from his job title or have joint added to it.
I never said anyone is demanding medical records. In fact I said HIPAA doesn't offer legal guidance in this situation.
What it does offer is a baseline for who can have access to a persons medical information and underscores a persons right to privacy.
The article is about how much information should be given out by apple about Steve. I believe people in a position of power should give out more information but the question of how much doesn't seem to be clear. Or if it is I would have expected the former head of the SEC to indicate that instead of saying "enough information is already known" or "you'd have to be blind". It seems to be an area with few guidlines.
I agree that the disclosure guidance is minimal, which leads to the debate, but not that HIPAA sheds any light on the situation, legally or ethically. You might say that a public company's requirement to keep investors informed of material events and the need to protect the privacy of its top officers are in tension. Neither is the master of the other. Even Leavitt has some problems with the way Apple has handled this situation, even if it's not specifically directed to medical details. Others with knowledge of the disclosure requirements have more issues with it than he does. It's a debate. My point all along has been that Apple could quite easily do more to curtail this debate, and doing so would not require giving anyone access to Steve's medical records. That's why I get up in arms about the mentions of HIPAA. The issues it covers were never the question. Other things are, so why not discuss them instead?
Yes they have disclosed just enough to cause uncertainty in the market. Doesn't matter how many Macs, iPhones or iPads Apple sells as long as Jobs health remains uncertain the stock will continue to take a beating.
Anyone that doubts that take a look at the stock the last three days in spite of record earnings.
Yeah, like the last 2 times Steve tok some time off? OH! That's right.... the stock went through the roof the last two times!! This is normal cycle for AAPL, do some homework and sell and go elsewhere if you don't have the stones to go through AAPL's normal cycles.
Yeah, like the last 2 times Steve tok some time off? OH! That's right.... the stock went through the roof the last two times!! This is normal cycle for AAPL, do some homework and sell and go elsewhere if you don't have the stones to go through AAPL's normal cycles.
Normal cycles. Three days is a normal cycle. Hey its 43 degrees where I am now what the temp there on Fantasy Island?
someone who owns Apple stock has got to be deaf, dumb and blind not to know that Jobs has an illness that can reoccur at any time," Leavitt reportedly said.
He is wrong. I just pulled Tommy away from his pinball machine and he told me he knows all about Jobs' illness.
He is wrong. I just pulled Tommy away from his pinball machine and he told me he knows all about Jobs' illness.
Told you? How?
PS: One of my all-time favorite albums, btw.
So they should say they have a secret succession plan?
Sort of reminds me of the time on the West Wing when Josh told the press that the President had a secret plan to fight inflation.
That was an homage to Nixon's 1968 campaign bullshit that he had a secret plan to end the war in Vietnam. I hope nobody on the Apple board would want to imitate that douche.
Told you? How?
PS: One of my all-time favorite albums, btw.
He spelled it out in Morse code, using pinball bumper buzzers.
Because its one side for many people. When Apple stock jumps and I say its because they are following market trends rather then some stupid news that means nothing they want to say thats BS. But when Apple stock is then then all of a sudden its because the Nasdaq is down.
Not saying your the one that does that.
I have no real issue with the stock being down right now, I have over 20 years until I plan to retire. However I am feel certain the recent drop has nothing to do with anything else but the SJ news.
That news hit just about every media outlet in the US that day. Being a long time investor I can tell you I don't have anywhere neare the confidence in Cook that I do in Jobs if this situation was to become worse over the next year. There are several even on this forum that have raised the same issue.
First of all, I wouldn't put much faith in what others say is the reason for any stock movement. We each have to make up our own mind and be comfortable with our choices.
As for Tim Cook being able to lead Apple .... consider this. Every company needs different kinds of leadership. On one hand it needs someone like a Steve Jobs ... who can visualize "the future" and not forget what the goal is .... to make insanely great products.
On the other hand, you also need someone like a Tim Cook ... who by all accounts is a genius at turning ideas into reality while seeking out savings and efficiencies. Obviously I'd like to see Steve Jobs at the helm forever ... but I wouldn't lose a lot of sleep with Tim Cook at the helm. Apple has a lot of great people there and I'm sure that, collectively, they'd be able to ride out any storm. just my 2 cents. Good Luck with Apple.
First of all, I wouldn't put much faith in what others say is the reason for any stock movement. We each have to make up our own mind and be comfortable with our choices.
As for Tim Cook being able to lead Apple .... consider this. Every company needs different kinds of leadership. On one hand it needs someone like a Steve Jobs ... who can visualize "the future" and not forget what the goal is .... to make insanely great products.
On the other hand, you also need someone like a Tim Cook ... who by all accounts is a genius at turning ideas into reality while seeking out savings and efficiencies. Obviously I'd like to see Steve Jobs at the helm forever ... but I wouldn't lose a lot of sleep with Tim Cook at the helm. Apple has a lot of great people there and I'm sure that, collectively, they'd be able to ride out any storm. just my 2 cents. Good Luck with Apple.
Day 4. When was the last time recently you saw AAPL down four days in a row? Google id doing the same thing was up but then closed down I believe 2.2% also announced a CEO change this week.
How long will this last? Who knows but until there is a bit more known about Jobs I don't expect any major spikes in AAPL in the near future.
Day 4. When was the last time recently you saw AAPL down four days in a row? Google id doing the same thing was up but then closed down I believe 2.2% also announced a CEO change this week.
How long will this last? Who knows but until there is a bit more known about Jobs I don't expect any major spikes in AAPL in the near future.
As much as it pains me to say so, I agree with this assessment. Apple has done an absolutely abysmal job managing this news and this is reflected in the stock's performance. They've handled it so badly that even a fabulous earnings report had no positive impact. Sadly this week we witnessed the continued collapse of AAPL's multiples. At this point, it can only be seen as investors voting a lack of confidence in Apple's management. The truth of the matter is, investors are being cheated out of stock appreciation in a huge and scary way, to which management turns a blind eye.
That was an homage to Nixon's 1968 campaign bullshit that he had a secret plan to end the war in Vietnam. I hope nobody on the Apple board would want to imitate that douche.
I'm not sure 'homage' is quite the right word, 'parody' perhaps?
As much as it pains me to say so, I agree with this assessment. Apple has done an absolutely abysmal job managing this news and this is reflected in the stock's performance. They've handled it so badly that even a fabulous earnings report had no positive impact. Sadly this week we witnessed the continued collapse of AAPL's multiples. At this point, it can only be seen as investors voting a lack of confidence in Apple's management. The truth of the matter is, investors are being cheated out of stock appreciation in a huge and scary way, to which management turns a blind eye.
This just might be the dumbest thing you have ever posted, unless, of course, you're just trying to "stir the pot" hoping for controversy .... with you, it's hard to tell. In any case, try looking at Nasdaq .... you just might find a "clue". The "proof" is that today the Nasdaq is up over 1% and, lo and behold, Apple is up over 3%. Did the management of Apple get"smart" all of a sudden or is Apple following the trends set by the market in general? Come on Dr M .... you can do better .... can't you?
Steve Jobs Should Take A Cue From AIG's Cancer-Stricken CEO
AIG's Robert Benmosche said on Monday he will stay on as the insurer's CEO despite the fact that he continues to battle cancer. Benmosche first acknowledged that he had the disease in October. Steve Jobs and Apple's board should take note of Benmosche's openness about his condition.
Jobs last week said he would take a second medical leave in as many years "so I can focus on my health." He didn't disclose what's ailing him, and his secrecy has led to speculation that he has suffered a recurrence of the pancreatic cancer he revealed in 2004, nine months after the diagnosis, or complications from a 2009 liver transplant he had tried to keep secret.
Or maybe Jobs is suffering an altogether new medical calamity. No one really knows.
While this great CEO's condition is not to be taken lightly, Jobs needs to take a page from Benmosche's open book and inform the public about his health. The right to medical privacy goes only so far if you've accepted the top job at a company with 46,000 employees, hundreds of partners, millions of customers, and investors who have capitalized your operation to the tune of $312 billion.
http://www.informationweek.com/news/...leID=229100259
___
I transcribe it far in my page