Apple board obligated to disclose material changes in Jobs' health

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 59
    ouraganouragan Posts: 424member
    Why should an investor be concerned with the absence of statement on Steve Jobs' health?



    This is not a case of "No news is good news".



    As Gene Munster alludes to, IF and ONLY IF Apple board of directors issued a statement on Steve Jobs' health would they be liable in damages and exposed to shareholder class action lawsuits should Steve Jobs' health take a turn for the worse.



    The current situation warrants the utmost caution because:



    1- Steve Jobs doesn't want to resign;

    2- Steve Jobs had pancreatic cancer surgery a few years ago;

    3- Steve Jobs IS NOT a 5 year cancer survivor;

    4- Steve Jobs' physical appearance has started to deteriorate;

    5- Neither Steve Jobs, the Apple board of directors, or Steve Jobs' physicians will be on record to state that he is healthy and cancer free.





    Given Apple status as a speculative stock, priced for perfection, every potential downturn must be examined. Steve Jobs' health matters until the day he resigns his functions at Apple. See:



    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/23/te...=1&oref=slogin



    http://www.nypost.com/seven/07212008...alk_120853.htm



    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/26/bu...26nocera.html?



  • Reply 42 of 59
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 19,114member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    Investment bank Piper Jaffray is assuring Apple investors Friday that the compa



    As such, the analyst maintained his Buy rating and $250 price target on shares of the Cupertino-based company.



    Get this: He says that something is of huge importance to the value of the stock. Despite the new information/speculation that has been revealed (or not, as is alleged) resulting in greater uncertainty, he maintains his $250 target.



    Does he see a basic internal inconsistency in his stance?
  • Reply 43 of 59
    What other CEO has laid out succession plans after their departure?!? Hmmmmmmmm?
  • Reply 44 of 59
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,005member
    Teh Steve will blackball Munster from Apple's quarterly calls. Jobs has had lesser men taken out for smaller infractions.
  • Reply 45 of 59
    foo2foo2 Posts: 1,077member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ouragan View Post


    The current situation warrants the utmost caution because:



    1- Steve Jobs doesn't want to resign;

    2- Steve Jobs had pancreatic cancer surgery a few years ago;

    3- Steve Jobs IS NOT a 5 year cancer survivor;

    4- Steve Jobs' physical appearance has started to deteriorate;

    5- Neither Steve Jobs, the Apple board of directors, or Steve Jobs' physicians will be on record to state that he is healthy and cancer free.




    I'm sorry, but you're commenting from a position of extreme ignorance. (Dare I say stupidity?) If Jobs is not cancer free, then in all likelihood it's due to another event--another cancer--not the one he was cured of 3 years ago. There is no artificial 5-years of survival benchmark involved with the rare, curable form of pancreatic cancer he had. His recent gaunt appearance is almost certainly--and most easily explained by--residual effects of the radical surgery that cured him of the cancer 3 years ago, exacerbated by a recent infection. These effects are highly manageable, but sometimes with corrective surgery required, which he has now undergone. It's perfectly understandable that Jobs doesn't wish to share his day-to-day gastrointestinal experiences with the public and he needn't share them with the board either. SO LAY OFF!
  • Reply 46 of 59
    axolotlaxolotl Posts: 14member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by frugality View Post


    Steve is mortal, and some day he will return to the dust like any of us.



    Wait, what? Oh, no, no, no, no, no. No. N.O. He is Steve Jobs. He's never gonna die.



    Ok, now seriously, I agree. Steve's health is nobody's business but his. I hope he lives many years.



    Cheers
  • Reply 47 of 59
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ktappe View Post


    I'm pretty sure you mean that rumors of his failing health are greatly exaggerated.



    I made the same suggestion re: yesterday's article on the subject, so it's a little surprising to see the same exact language in today's piece.
  • Reply 48 of 59
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member
    Yes, but the Board of Apple is the judge of whether it effects his performance. Judging on Apple's performance, clearly he is performing his duties. If there were a problem, Jobs would only have to disclose this to the Board. The Board would then determine if it was material. The Board would have no right without Jobs' permission to disclose his health condition because of health privacy laws. They, however, could remove him from his position.



    This focus on Jobs health is being orchestrated by people shorting Apple's stock. Shorting a stock should be illegal, as it is not investing. Instead, you are gambling that a company will fail and you are working against actual investors.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jdavy View Post


    Actually he is a public figure and his health is material to Apple. The world does have the right to know if it materially affects his ability to perform as CEO of Apple. That aside, I am glad he is doing well as are all of our toys. I can not wait to see what he and Apple have in store for us all this fall.



    Peace. :-)



  • Reply 49 of 59
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member
    I am an attorney who used to work in the area of employment law. Jobs' health is protected by health privacy laws. It is illegal for the Board to disclose Jobs health without his permission. The only duty Jobs has is too report to the Board any situation that might effect his duties. He wouldn't even have to give the Board the specific nature of his health concern. The Board would then have to make a determination if his performance was materially being effected thus warranting his removal. Jobs' performance obviously is running on all cylinders.



    Again, this focus on Jobs' health is likely being manipulated by people looking for the stock to go down.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ouragan View Post


    Why should an investor be concerned with the absence of statement on Steve Jobs' health?



    This is not a case of "No news is good news".



    As Gene Munster alludes to, IF and ONLY IF Apple board of directors issued a statement on Steve Jobs' health would they be liable in damages and exposed to shareholder class action lawsuits should Steve Jobs' health take a turn for the worse.



    The current situation warrants the utmost caution because:



    1- Steve Jobs doesn't want to resign;

    2- Steve Jobs had pancreatic cancer surgery a few years ago;

    3- Steve Jobs IS NOT a 5 year cancer survivor;

    4- Steve Jobs' physical appearance has started to deteriorate;

    5- Neither Steve Jobs, the Apple board of directors, or Steve Jobs' physicians will be on record to state that he is healthy and cancer free.





    Given Apple status as a speculative stock, priced for perfection, every potential downturn must be examined. Steve Jobs' health matters until the day he resigns his functions at Apple. See:



    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/23/te...=1&oref=slogin



    http://www.nypost.com/seven/07212008...alk_120853.htm







  • Reply 50 of 59
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,946member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TBell View Post


    I am an attorney who used to work in the area of employment law. Jobs' health is protected by health privacy laws. It is illegal for the Board to disclose Jobs health without his permission.



    I think sensible statements like that are only going to be ignored by trolls like ouragan. In the past, he railed on Jobs and the board for doing illegal things, now he's actively demanding that they do other illegal things.
  • Reply 51 of 59
    retiariusretiarius Posts: 142member
    This is pure Steve, to Joe Nocera, business reporter/feces disturber at NYT,

    in an after-hours byline:



    "On Thursday afternoon, several hours after I?d gotten my final ?Steve?s health is a private matter? ? and much to my amazement ? Mr. Jobs called me. ?This is Steve Jobs,? he began. ?You think I?m an arrogant [expletive] who thinks he?s above the law, and I think you?re a slime bucket who gets most of his facts wrong.? After that rather arresting opening, he went on to say that he would give me some details about his recent health problems, but only if I would agree to keep them off the record. I tried to argue him out of it, but he said he wouldn?t talk if I insisted on an on-the-record conversation. So I agreed."



    The definition of "private matter" now coincides with off-the-record conversations

    with tactless reporters. Win, win. It all stays private under the aegis of SEC regulation FD,

    but is disseminated nevertheless.
  • Reply 52 of 59
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by retiarius View Post


    This is pure Steve, to Joe Nocera, business reporter/feces disturber at NYT,

    in an after-hours byline:



    "On Thursday afternoon, several hours after I?d gotten my final ?Steve?s health is a private matter? ? and much to my amazement ? Mr. Jobs called me. ?This is Steve Jobs,? he began. ?You think I?m an arrogant [expletive] who thinks he?s above the law, and I think you?re a slime bucket who gets most of his facts wrong.? After that rather arresting opening, he went on to say that he would give me some details about his recent health problems, but only if I would agree to keep them off the record. I tried to argue him out of it, but he said he wouldn?t talk if I insisted on an on-the-record conversation. So I agreed."



    The definition of "private matter" now coincides with off-the-record conversations

    with tactless reporters. Win, win. It all stays private under the aegis of SEC regulation FD,

    but is disseminated nevertheless.



    Nocera goes on to say:



    "While his health problems amounted to a good deal more than ?a common bug,? they weren?t life-threatening and he doesn?t have a recurrence of cancer. After he hung up the phone, it occurred to me that I had just been handed, by Mr. Jobs himself, the very information he was refusing to share with the shareholders who have entrusted him with their money.



    You would think he?d want them to know before me. But apparently not."




    Surely, there is a difference in the two disclosures? If the information is revealed to shareholders, they can and will trade on it. Mr. Nocera cannot.



    I have no doubt that SJ knew that. And Nocera should know that.
  • Reply 53 of 59
    winterspanwinterspan Posts: 605member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mr Underhill View Post


    I can't see what all the fuss is about. Nobody knows how long they've got anyway.



    I'd say Mr Jobs actually stands a better chance of living longer than some people because at least his doctors know what's going on inside of him and he's getting regular checks.



    How many times have you heard of people just dropping down dead when there supposedly in good health. We've just lost a local lad, 17yrs old, football player, running for the ball, bang gone in 60 seconds. Had a heart problem that stemmed from an illness as a young child. Doctors said if they'd known about it he'd still be walking around.



    People are just walking around thinking it'll never happen to them and then bam it's all over. It's what's going on inside of you that counts and none us know that unless we get checked out and are regularly monitored.



    Give the guy a break and keep the posts to technical or exciting news. It's getting pretty dark in these forums lately.



    I completely agree. Coming from a family of ER physicians, I know first hand that what you say is true. I would bet that the vast majority of people who die each month had no idea it was coming, whether we are talking car accidents, household accidents, homicide, cardiac arrest, stroke, crazy random disease that kills you within weeks, etc. Having been through the cancer treatment and possibly other major surgeries, (not to mention that he's RICH), Jobs probably has a crack team of experts monitoring everything about his health.
  • Reply 54 of 59
    retiariusretiarius Posts: 142member
    >Surely, there is a difference in the two disclosures? If the information is revealed to shareholders, >they can and will trade on it. Mr. Nocera cannot.



    Is he a section 16(b) insider? Does NYT use blind trusts for reporter holdings?



    Beats me, but all parties have told the (pretextual) truth. For WWDC, Steve may have had

    a flu or cold, just as Apple PR said. For reporters taken aside, he had followup

    (exploratory?) surgery, not revealed via official Apple PR. For Nocera, maybe

    Mr. Jobs went into details of prognosis and diet, but told him he was an a*hole for

    asking anyway. Verity, at all levels. Misnomer abounds, such as that benign pancreatic

    endocrine tumors (vs. malignant exocrine, 90%+ fatal) are classified as cancer, even

    though they aren't because they don't invade surrounding tissue.



    This is only negative FUD if you subscribe to the premise that that AAPL share price

    would collapse upon '[email protected]' untimely demise. For all we know, Apple would

    front-run any freefall by selling put options and instituting a posthumous share buyback

    (done surgically, over the few days of margin-call settlement time) comprising

    just a fraction of their billions in cash. Apple could even have heretofore unimagined

    'doomsday machine' plans in place which could double the stock overnight.



    Pundits have historically underestimated Apple, with or without their fearless leader.
  • Reply 55 of 59
    gqbgqb Posts: 1,934member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by winterspan View Post


    I completely agree. Coming from a family of ER physicians, I know first hand that what you say is true. I would bet that the vast majority of people who die each month had no idea it was coming, whether we are talking car accidents, household accidents, homicide, cardiac arrest, stroke, crazy random disease that kills you within weeks, etc. Having been through the cancer treatment and possibly other major surgeries, (not to mention that he's RICH), Jobs probably has a crack team of experts monitoring everything about his health.



    The problem is that he's shown that he's willing to ignore that advantage by pursuing moronic 'holistic' self-treatment rather than immediately getting proper treatment. 9 months of treating himself via 'special diet' before getting his surgery? THAT's the cause of the concern.
  • Reply 56 of 59
    bigdaddypbigdaddyp Posts: 811member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolf for the pack View Post


    Comment from one of the posts:



    "I'm up for standing in for Jobs, pick me, pick me. I have vision coming out of my ass..."



    That is how Ballmer got his job with that exact line....and no kidding...that is how Vista came to life!



    Just sayin'



    Does that mean you fart out new versions of windows mobile os?
  • Reply 57 of 59
    sky kingsky king Posts: 189member
    Seems to me that if Piper Jaffray is all that wise and knowledgeable they would have invented a computer, a mobile telephone, or something. On the other hand, I guess it's easier to analyze and criticize the work of others.



    Let's see...exactly how many statues have been erected or books of praise written about analysts & critics? Oh yeah...they do that kind of stuff for people who actually accomplish something...like Steve Jobs or Bill Gates.
  • Reply 58 of 59
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ouragan View Post


    Do you really believe that? If Jobs was O.K., it would be incumbent upon Apple's board to issue a press statement confirming his good health. Steve Jobs himself, given the public interest in his physical appearance, should have made a public statement about his current condition, supported by a medical report signed by his treating physicians.



    Whispers are for fools. The absence of a public statement by Steve Jobs, the Apple board or Steve Jobs' physician is a strong indication that he is severely sick.



    Don't be silly, that's the exact opposite of the truth. While his health does not have any prospect of affecting his work as CEO, his medical status is his own private matter, not for disclosure to shareholders or the public. As soon as it may affect his work, it ceases to be private and the company must make a statement about the material change in circumstances.



    As long as the company says "Steve's health is a private matter", you can be sure there is no threat to his role in the company from his health. We also got the bonus statement that he isn't planning on leaving. If there were any significant risk, that statement would be a criminal lie, and Oppenheimer could find himself in legal trouble later.
  • Reply 59 of 59
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,946member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Sky King View Post


    Seems to me that if Piper Jaffray is all that wise and knowledgeable they would have invented a computer, a mobile telephone, or something. On the other hand, I guess it's easier to analyze and criticize the work of others.



    Let's see...exactly how many statues have been erected or books of praise written about analysts & critics? Oh yeah...they do that kind of stuff for people who actually accomplish something...like Steve Jobs or Bill Gates.



    I don't know where you found this argument, but you should return it. It's not very good.
Sign In or Register to comment.