Personally, I think the Feds are wasting resources in a witch-hunt. They are trying to find the next Enron, Andersen, etc. There is a lot of fishy information leaked to the press as well as press/writers trying to hit their next biggest story. If you put the two together, it spells trouble for anyone or any company in the public eyes.
Equally, there is a "let's make an example as we did with Martha Stewart" aspect to it.
Another huge motivator is, the prosecutors in such cases go on to become rich and/or famous. Who knew Rudy Guiliani before he took on Wall Street (e.g., Boesky and Milken) in the 1980s? Who had heard of Elliot Spitzer before he took on the Blodgetts and the Greenbergs?
Steve Jobs is too plum and iconic a target to pass up, on both counts!
The answer to me seems that it should be made illegal to back date share sales. It's that simple, then companies can use other incentives when hiring. Maybe a corporate jet
Here's the irony: In the same year (or perhaps it was a year earlier) that the apparently backdated options were granted (with perhaps no more than an extra few million in unbooked profits for Jobs resulting from the backdating), Apple gave Steve Jobs as a "special bonus" a Gulfstream V (which would be valued at upwards of $40 million)!
Originally Posted by Originally Posted by digitalclips
The answer to me seems that it should be made illegal to back date share sales. It's that simple, then companies can use other incentives when hiring. Maybe a corporate jet
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Here's the irony: In the same year (or perhaps it was a year earlier) that the apparently backdated options were granted (with perhaps no more than an extra few million in unbooked profits for Jobs resulting from the backdating), Apple gave Steve Jobs as a "special bonus" a Gulfstream V (which would be valued at upwards of $40 million)!
Lasseter got a signing bonus. This was a good way to do it. He was worth it. If I'm a stockholder it's idiotic to complain. Look what he's done! He was worth every penny to me. Case closed.
Lasseter got a signing bonus. This was a good way to do it. He was worth it. If I'm a stockholder it's idiotic to complain. Look what he's done! He was worth every penny to me. Case closed.
I agree. It will be a pity if accountants screwed up after the event though leading to problems as this just feeds the anti Steve Trolls.
"The terms effectively guaranteed that Lasseter would turn an immediate $6.4 million profit the day his new employment took effect, even before he received his first paycheck."
A little misleading. Lasseter a founding member and employee of Pixar in 1986* and an Executive VP in 2001 before the deal was done.
I agree. It will be a pity if accountants screwed up after the event though leading to problems as this just feeds the anti Steve Trolls.
X2 whats the problem here? so APPL is down, just buy 1000 APPL on monday then check on it after a few weeks AAPL @ $83.27, is a buying opportunity I doubt you'd be seeing the stock price this low from here on... unless they foolishly remove SJ
Go ahead and suit him up for one of those federal pen jumpsuits. Wonder if he'll join the Aryan Brotherhood or the Mexican Mafia gang? I wonder if he'll make Jeffrey Skilling his bitch?
Go ahead and suit him up for one of those federal pen jumpsuits. Wonder if he'll join the Aryan Brotherhood or the Mexican Mafia gang? I wonder if he'll make Jeffrey Skilling his bitch?
/
Steve J. better backdate my stock purchase to compensate for the profit lost
Although, doubt Steve J. will be wearing pen jumpsuits any time soon, reason, national security. Fed uses PC's and Windows, without Steve J. how will Windows ever update their OS again?
X2 whats the problem here? so APPL is down, just buy 1000 APPL on monday then check on it after a few weeks AAPL @ $83.27, is a buying opportunity I doubt you'd be seeing the stock price this low from here on... unless they foolishly remove SJ
selling over $97.00/share a few days after the announcement of Apple iPhone and now it's just a little over $83.00? That's a loss of 14.00/share value in less than a month. Don't keep that up Apple!
X2 whats the problem here? so APPL is down, just buy 1000 APPL on monday then check on it after a few weeks AAPL @ $83.27, is a buying opportunity I doubt you'd be seeing the stock price this low from here on... unless they foolishly remove SJ
Maybe simple enough for you, but I don't have $83,000 to drop.
What happens with stock values is probably fairly complex, but It seems as if investors will find a small problem and use that as a reason to jump ship when everything else is going well.
Actually, there is nothing complex about stock values at all. Stock values are a reflection of market demand for the stock, and market demand is more or less a reflection of perceived value. That's it.
Now, quantitatively measuring perceived value in any meaningful way IS much more difficult. Using your measurements to predict the future direction of that perceived value is even more difficult, hence the seemingly "complex" nature of stock values.
In the end though, the value of ANY stock is ONLY a function of perception. Don't belive me? Take a look at Amazon, which was in the red for YEARS (and might still be, I don't know), but still managed to convince the public that they had the potential to make money...and that perception was enough to cause investors to buy lots (and lots) of stock.
selling over $97.00/share a few days after the announcement of Apple iPhone and now it's just a little over $83.00? That's a loss of 14.00/share value in less than a month. Don't keep that up Apple!
Exactly the point I make above. Has anything materially change within the company to decrease the value of the company by 14%? No. Apple and Apple's assets and brand are worth many BILLIONS of dollars.
Apple's stock price is subject to media attention to an even greater extent than most companies (including this 'lil ole rumor mill rag I'm posting on at the moment). Futhermore, the tech press "subset" of mainstream journalism consists of relatively few, but relatively influential journalists and media outlets. David Pogue and Walter Mossberg write most of the articles concerning Apple for the mainstream press, and Appleinsider.com is one of the very fuew Apple rumor sites on the net, read by a very wide vareity of investors, industry pundits, and journalists concerned with AAPL. With such limited sources for news/rumor, the opinons expressed by those sources become increasingly important...especially for a company with stock so largely influenced by the media as shares of AAPL.
Actually, there is nothing complex about stock values at all. Stock values are a reflection of market demand for the stock, and market demand is more or less a reflection of perceived value. That's it.
Now, quantitatively measuring perceived value in any meaningful way IS much more difficult. Using your measurements to predict the future direction of that perceived value is even more difficult, hence the seemingly "complex" nature of stock values.
That's really more or less what I meant. I didn't think it was necessary to spell it out though. The value of everything is based on perception, supply and demand. It's always a question of who is buying, who is selling and why they want to do so when they do so.
Now it appears that Sarbanes-Oxley was even more effective than
random drug testing to change the practice. But to criminalize ballplayers or
CEOs for taking the advice of their trainers or lawyers (Sonsini in Mr. Jobs case)
in an ex-post facto manner seems a bit much.
Backdated grants wasn't the main problem though, it was the proper reporting of the type of expenses that became the problem. In Apple's case, there is also an issue of the fabricated meeting documents to cover up the matter.
Comments
http://www.dealbreaker.com/2007/02/s...f_bac.php#more
Personally, I think the Feds are wasting resources in a witch-hunt. They are trying to find the next Enron, Andersen, etc. There is a lot of fishy information leaked to the press as well as press/writers trying to hit their next biggest story. If you put the two together, it spells trouble for anyone or any company in the public eyes.
Equally, there is a "let's make an example as we did with Martha Stewart" aspect to it.
Another huge motivator is, the prosecutors in such cases go on to become rich and/or famous. Who knew Rudy Guiliani before he took on Wall Street (e.g., Boesky and Milken) in the 1980s? Who had heard of Elliot Spitzer before he took on the Blodgetts and the Greenbergs?
Steve Jobs is too plum and iconic a target to pass up, on both counts!
The answer to me seems that it should be made illegal to back date share sales. It's that simple, then companies can use other incentives when hiring. Maybe a corporate jet
Here's the irony: In the same year (or perhaps it was a year earlier) that the apparently backdated options were granted (with perhaps no more than an extra few million in unbooked profits for Jobs resulting from the backdating), Apple gave Steve Jobs as a "special bonus" a Gulfstream V (which would be valued at upwards of $40 million)!
The answer to me seems that it should be made illegal to back date share sales. It's that simple, then companies can use other incentives when hiring. Maybe a corporate jet
Here's the irony: In the same year (or perhaps it was a year earlier) that the apparently backdated options were granted (with perhaps no more than an extra few million in unbooked profits for Jobs resulting from the backdating), Apple gave Steve Jobs as a "special bonus" a Gulfstream V (which would be valued at upwards of $40 million)!
T'was my drift
Lasseter got a signing bonus. This was a good way to do it. He was worth it. If I'm a stockholder it's idiotic to complain. Look what he's done! He was worth every penny to me. Case closed.
I agree. It will be a pity if accountants screwed up after the event though leading to problems as this just feeds the anti Steve Trolls.
A little misleading. Lasseter a founding member and employee of Pixar in 1986* and an Executive VP in 2001 before the deal was done.
*Pixar Founding Documents: http://alvyray.com/Pixar/default.htm
I agree. It will be a pity if accountants screwed up after the event though leading to problems as this just feeds the anti Steve Trolls.
X2 whats the problem here? so APPL is down, just buy 1000 APPL on monday then check on it after a few weeks
/
Go ahead and suit him up for one of those federal pen jumpsuits. Wonder if he'll join the Aryan Brotherhood or the Mexican Mafia gang? I wonder if he'll make Jeffrey Skilling his bitch?
/
Steve J. better backdate my stock purchase to compensate for the profit lost
Although, doubt Steve J. will be wearing pen jumpsuits any time soon, reason, national security. Fed uses PC's and Windows, without Steve J. how will Windows ever update their OS again?
X2 whats the problem here? so APPL is down, just buy 1000 APPL on monday then check on it after a few weeks
selling over $97.00/share a few days after the announcement of Apple iPhone and now it's just a little over $83.00? That's a loss of 14.00/share value in less than a month. Don't keep that up Apple!
X2 whats the problem here? so APPL is down, just buy 1000 APPL on monday then check on it after a few weeks
Maybe simple enough for you, but I don't have $83,000 to drop.
What happens with stock values is probably fairly complex, but It seems as if investors will find a small problem and use that as a reason to jump ship when everything else is going well.
Actually, there is nothing complex about stock values at all. Stock values are a reflection of market demand for the stock, and market demand is more or less a reflection of perceived value. That's it.
Now, quantitatively measuring perceived value in any meaningful way IS much more difficult. Using your measurements to predict the future direction of that perceived value is even more difficult, hence the seemingly "complex" nature of stock values.
In the end though, the value of ANY stock is ONLY a function of perception. Don't belive me? Take a look at Amazon, which was in the red for YEARS (and might still be, I don't know), but still managed to convince the public that they had the potential to make money...and that perception was enough to cause investors to buy lots (and lots) of stock.
selling over $97.00/share a few days after the announcement of Apple iPhone and now it's just a little over $83.00? That's a loss of 14.00/share value in less than a month. Don't keep that up Apple!
Exactly the point I make above. Has anything materially change within the company to decrease the value of the company by 14%? No. Apple and Apple's assets and brand are worth many BILLIONS of dollars.
Apple's stock price is subject to media attention to an even greater extent than most companies (including this 'lil ole rumor mill rag I'm posting on at the moment). Futhermore, the tech press "subset" of mainstream journalism consists of relatively few, but relatively influential journalists and media outlets. David Pogue and Walter Mossberg write most of the articles concerning Apple for the mainstream press, and Appleinsider.com is one of the very fuew Apple rumor sites on the net, read by a very wide vareity of investors, industry pundits, and journalists concerned with AAPL. With such limited sources for news/rumor, the opinons expressed by those sources become increasingly important...especially for a company with stock so largely influenced by the media as shares of AAPL.
Actually, there is nothing complex about stock values at all. Stock values are a reflection of market demand for the stock, and market demand is more or less a reflection of perceived value. That's it.
Now, quantitatively measuring perceived value in any meaningful way IS much more difficult. Using your measurements to predict the future direction of that perceived value is even more difficult, hence the seemingly "complex" nature of stock values.
That's really more or less what I meant. I didn't think it was necessary to spell it out though. The value of everything is based on perception, supply and demand. It's always a question of who is buying, who is selling and why they want to do so when they do so.
Sweeeeeeet! A new Apple product will be released on Tuesday.
WTF?
Steve Jobs is to stock options as Barry Bonds is to steroids.
This analogy is very apt. A large percentage of top echelon ballplayers equate
to significant numbers of silicon valley names.
Now it appears that Sarbanes-Oxley was even more effective than
random drug testing to change the practice. But to criminalize ballplayers or
CEOs for taking the advice of their trainers or lawyers (Sonsini in Mr. Jobs case)
in an ex-post facto manner seems a bit much. Remember that the BALCO stuff
was a designer drug that slipped through many loopholes by not appearing
on the scheduled list of steroids, just as backdated grants appeared in keeping
with the law pre-Sarbox.
"Legal but unethical" is such a slippery area. For a prosecutor to succeed here, they
have to take on a veteran general counsel with years of experience, a (by all appearances)
straight-shooting ex-ADP accountant who literally saved Apple by floating
millions in convertible notes, a superstar outside counsel who advised myriad
other companies to grant similar executive compensation in accordance with accepted
corporate governance of the day, a megastar CEO, and a US vice president.
All this hubbub over interpretation of an ambiguous SEC rule, written by
teams of other attorneys.
Ultimately, its lawyers v. lawyers with the media taking shareholders hostage.
Now it appears that Sarbanes-Oxley was even more effective than
random drug testing to change the practice. But to criminalize ballplayers or
CEOs for taking the advice of their trainers or lawyers (Sonsini in Mr. Jobs case)
in an ex-post facto manner seems a bit much.
Backdated grants wasn't the main problem though, it was the proper reporting of the type of expenses that became the problem. In Apple's case, there is also an issue of the fabricated meeting documents to cover up the matter.