You've been here two months, and you haven't figured out yet that these guys would rather lose a nut before they would say anything even slightly disparaging about Apple?
Jobs could shit on their beds in the middle of the night, and they'd call it a pillow mint.
DID THEY NOT BAN YOU ASS??Well you new phone arrived
^ This. This whole situation really aggravates me, and other's unbelievable obsession with other's lives...purely sickens me.
I don't care HOW much I have invested in Apple, it doesn't buy my juicy details on mr. steve jobs. I wish him the best of health and a speedy recovery, but if he doesn't want me know, then I don't want to know.
That's how an adult deals with such a situation, fwiw.
Still your eyes remained glued at this sad car wreck ?
You read like I read. I also feel self shame at this ... intrusion in Steve's life.
At this point I'm only arguing with people who are bent on misrepresenting what I've said. Many seem to prefer to argue with people with extreme opinions. Maybe it's because they have extreme opinions themselves and find it easier to shadowbox with people for whom they can fabricate extreme opinions that they don't actually have, than to have an actual discussion. I don't know. Anyhow, that's when these discussions start getting bizarre.
I don't necessarily agree with the sentiment, but that's the most succinct and laugh-out-loud characterisation of Apple addicts I've ever heard
It's not a succint characterization of anything. It is a condescending, demeaning slam against people who don't agree with your viewpoint.
There is a cadre of people who post here that frequently come in with overwhelming negativity and present their views as facts, who then get miffed when intelligent people actually challenge them and require that they back up their assertions with actual information. Slurs and stupid commentary like the quote above is what generally results.
Sarbanes-Oxley changed the 8-K disclosure requirements for public corporations. Made them tougher and required them to be made in a more timely fashion. You could look it up. I did. The very document you cited pointed out that the rules were about to get tougher. They did.
What Sarbanes-Oxley did, primarily, was to speed up the filing of the 8K (Section 409 of the Act). There were some additional clarifications of items already there, and a few items of disclosure were added --none of those remotely deals with health of the CEO.
ADD: In my previous reply to you when I said "I don't wish to engage you in a discussion on this at this time" that was the truth -- I had tons of errands to run and things to get done, and I was short on time. But I can see that I could have worded it better.
Are you referring to Jobs' condition, or your series of illiterate posts?
He wasn't actually attacking anyone. He was simply surprised that the topic has to get so much attention. I don't see any reason for you to attack him personally.
At least he doesn't have profanity in his sig. If we're questioning literacy, we might as well question taste.
He wasn't actually attacking anyone. He was simply surprised that the topic has to get so much attention. I don't see any reason for you to attack him personally.
At least he doesn't have profanity in his sig. If we're questioning literacy, we might as well question taste.
And, I recall that brucep has previously explained the reason for his posting style. (I am unable to give you a link).
wilco, being the obsessive-compulsive that he is, would not understand, so best to let it go.
What Sarbanes-Oxley did, primarily, was to speed up the filing of the 8K (Section 409 of the Act). There were some additional clarifications of items already there, and a few items of disclosure were added --none of those remotely deals with health of the CEO.
I know, I looked at this stuff yesterday.
"Presumptive" is an important term of legal art -- it refers to things which can be assumed to be covered by a law, but it doesn't necessarily end there. Other things can be arguably covered by a law because of what the law generally intends to do. In this case, the law intends to require public corporations to disclose material events that a "reasonably prudent investor" might want to know about a company before buying or selling a stock. That's a pretty wide target.
Based on what I've read, a goodly number of experts in corporate governance believe that Apple pushed the limits on disclosure. I can see their point, especially as an AAPL investor who's seen his investments hammered more than once over rumors that Apple could have easily quashed. Apple doesn't need to play this so close to the vest -- they just do, out of habit I suppose. As an investor this is annoying, and I think it could also get them in trouble down the line.
"Presumptive" is an important term of legal art -- it refers to things which can be assumed to be covered by a law, but it doesn't necessarily end there. Other things can be arguably covered by a law because of what the law generally intends to do. In this case, the law intends to require public corporations to disclose material events that a "reasonably prudent investor" might want to know about a company before buying or selling a stock. That's a pretty wide target.
I know what 'presumptive' means.
There are two other keywords that you cite: "material" and "reasonably prudent investor." You can drive a truck through both of those, especially if, as a board, you have met all the criteria of the business judgment rule.
Thus, for instance, if Apple board can show that SJ kept them informed, they deliberated as a board, followed all of the business judgment criteria in arriving at their conclusion, and the conclusion they came to was that it is not material, or that a prudent investor would have taken into account the risk that SJ wouldn't be around one day, then there is little that shareholders can do. That is the nature of the US corporate governance system. (And, thank God for that, for o/w courts would be second-guessing everything that companies do).
If any of these so-called corporate governance 'experts' had a leg to stand on -- and I have not seen one that has cited an effective reasoning for how a shareholder might prevail -- you bet that some schmuck would have brought a lawsuit already.
You can't serve multiple masters. You are either in it for your customers or you are in it for your shareholders. Personally I would rather do business with a company that is in it for their customers.
It is unbelievable! I had to answer this statement given how naieve I feel it is even if it provokes a war.
How hard earned money which these corporations want is what allows them to innovate. You are treating Jobs and Apple like they are some type of god like cult only doing good for society and not interested in cash and should be allowed to trample on the investor even though they have sought our money.
There are two other keywords that you cite: "material" and "reasonably prudent investor." You can drive a truck through both of those, especially if, as a board, you have met all the criteria of the business judgment rule.
That truck goes both ways, is my point.
So far the company hasn't given anyone any real grounds to sue. If future events should suggest that Apple has misrepresented any of the facts bearing on Steve's ability to serve as CEO, then watch out. It would be even worse for the company if it turned out that people at the top knew, and traded on the information. I'm not saying this has happened or will happen, only that this is just the sort of thing that gets the SEC sniffing around and class action lawyers sharpening their pencils. I think Apple can avoid this risk entirely by being just a little more transparent. As a stockholder, I wish they would.
Apple's silence on Steve Jobs' health may have broken federal securities rules
Firms aren't required to disclose medical details about executives, lawyers say. But they are required to divulge 'material' information investors should know before buying or selling stock.
By David Sarno and Walter Hamilton
June 25, 2009
Reporting from Los Angeles and New York ? Steve Jobs' medical condition turned out to be more serious than Apple Inc. officials had previously acknowledged -- and that has analysts and legal experts questioning whether the company ran afoul of federal securities rules.
Apple had disclosed in early January that Jobs had a "hormone imbalance" and would take a leave of absence, but never said he was so sick that he needed a liver transplant.
Companies are not required to divulge medical details about executives, lawyers said. But they are required to disclose "material" information, which is defined as what a reasonable investor would need to know to make an informed decision on buying or selling stock.
"If they tried to lessen the disclosure and make it misleading by omission, that's just as bad as telling something that flat isn't true," said Jeffrey C. Soza, a securities lawyer at Glaser, Weil, Fink, Jacobs, Howard & Shapiro in Los Angeles.
The Tennessee doctor who led the transplant team said this week that Jobs was "the sickest patient on the waiting list" at the time a donor liver became available.
Dr. James D. Eason said that Apple's key man had tested high -- more likely to die from the condition -- on an index that rates patients with end-stage liver disease.
But all that investors or the public knew came from two brief statements on Apple's website. The first, about the hormone imbalance, was followed a week later by one from Jobs saying his health issue was "more complex" and would require a six-month leave.
The Cupertino, Calif., company has maintained that the initial statement was enough to satisfy disclosure rules imposed on publicly traded companies. But some analysts aren't so sure. Intentionally downplaying the extent of such an illness could set Apple on the wrong side of securities laws, Soza said.
Investor Warren E. Buffett agreed that Apple had been less than forthright. "Certainly Steve Jobs is important to Apple," he said in a CNBC-TV interview Wednesday. "Whether he is facing serious surgery or not is a material fact."
The state of Jobs' health has long been a subject of popular discussion, including his surgery for pancreatic cancer in 2004 and his widely observed weight loss that preceded his leave of absence. With that information in the public sphere, some experts say Apple fulfilled its legal obligation by saying that Jobs was on medical leave.
"His health is a matter of private information, which the board may be in possession of but has no affirmative obligation to disclose," said G. William Speer, a lawyer at Bryan Cave in Atlanta.
Jobs, who founded Apple in 1979, is widely considered a visionary whose products have repeatedly allowed the company to reinvent itself and stay ahead of the competition. His importance to the company fuels the debates on how much information about his health is material for investors.
"Steve is Apple," said Danielle Levitas, an analyst for industry research firm IDC. "The company was on the skids, and he came back to revive them. No doubt, if he were gone, it would be a different company. There aren't a whole lot of people out there like Steve Jobs."
Nor are there many companies whose fate seems so closely tied to that of a single person, said Stephen Davis, a corporate governance expert at Yale University's Millstein Center for Corporate Governance and Performance.
"Whether he's able to come back, in what capacity and when are all highly relevant to Apple's owners," Davis said. "We're in the middle of huge financial crisis that's been caused in part by huge failures of corporate governance. This is an age when you would hope corporations would get that shareholders need some pretty high-quality disclosure."
The Securities and Exchange Commission declined to comment on the situation.
The revelation of Jobs' illness riled critics because it comes on the heels of long-standing displeasure with Apple's secretive culture and what detractors say is its grudging disclosure of important issues.
"Across the board the company is tight-lipped and tends to hold information close to its vest," said Patrick McGurn, special counsel at RiskMetrics Group, a New York advisor to large investors on governance issues. "This isn't an isolated issue with Apple. It's a major concern at this point."
Apple agrees with Speer's view that Jobs' health is a private matter, and it has said almost nothing about it even after news of the liver transplant.
"Steve continues to look forward to returning to Apple at the end of June," reiterated Apple spokesman Steve Dowling.
He noted that the Tennessee doctors were "authorized" to release their statement late Tuesday about Jobs' condition, but declined to comment on whether Apple should have said more to investors.
Dowling also said none of the eight members of the board of directors would be available to comment. Former Vice President Al Gore and current and former chief executives of Google Inc., Genentech Inc. and Intuit Inc. declined to comment. Three other directors did not return calls.
Secrecy makes Apple products sexier and more exciting.
It would be boring if they lay down their product roadmap like many other companies do.
True, but this secrecy also means that products don't get properly tested prior to release (which requires getting beta software into the hands of lots of people and prototype hardware out into the real world). The most recent example of this I can point to is the broken SATA implementation in the new Macbook Pros. Fixed quickly, but it should have been fixed before shipping.
With Apple again failing to advise shareholders that chief executive Steve Jobs underwent major surgery, the New York Times has published a profile of the company's unparalleled aura of secrecy, which stems from products to personnel and everything in between.
[QUOTE=bizwarrior;1438720]I am sure I will upset the Apple fanboys in here but this is wrong. I am an Apple shareholder and Jobs health affects the price of the stock. If he should pass on without warning many people would take a hit in regards to their investment.
You got plenty of warning chief. And Apple's secrecy (read: discretion) has sent the stock price soaring, which is the real problem.
This may be the only entirely-correct thing I've read on this subject!
Quote:
Originally Posted by delreyjones
I was disappointed to read this in the NY Times, and even more here in AI. Please, somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but my recollection is that first, Apple said Jobs' weight loss was due to a "hormone imbalance". Then, a few weeks later, they elaborated only a tiny bit and said the problem was "more complex" (than the hormone imbalance). I have no reason to believe that when they said "hormone imbalance" that they knew it was more complex. That sort of confusion followed by more illumination is common for medical problems.
When they realized the problem was more serious, my attitude was that "more complex" was all the detail I needed. At the time I realized it might mean metastasized cancer or something equally serious. Apple also told us it would require six months leave of absence, so it was obviously serious. They told us the truth at the high level, but they didn't tell us any low level details, which we never needed.
Comments
Why do you keep arguing with them?
You've been here two months, and you haven't figured out yet that these guys would rather lose a nut before they would say anything even slightly disparaging about Apple?
Jobs could shit on their beds in the middle of the night, and they'd call it a pillow mint.
DID THEY NOT BAN YOU ASS??Well you new phone arrived
http://www.sprintusers.com/forum/sho...=188829&page=5
peace and welcome back dude
9
^ This. This whole situation really aggravates me, and other's unbelievable obsession with other's lives...purely sickens me.
I don't care HOW much I have invested in Apple, it doesn't buy my juicy details on mr. steve jobs. I wish him the best of health and a speedy recovery, but if he doesn't want me know, then I don't want to know.
That's how an adult deals with such a situation, fwiw.
Still your eyes remained glued at this sad car wreck ?
You read like I read. I also feel self shame at this ... intrusion in Steve's life.
So does that means he was pretty damn sick then? Metastatic cancer is some serious shit.
No ONE HAS SAID CANCER or Metastatic cancer yet .
All that was said is liver transplant. or did I misread ?
But all this is not goods news .
Why do you keep arguing with them?
At this point I'm only arguing with people who are bent on misrepresenting what I've said. Many seem to prefer to argue with people with extreme opinions. Maybe it's because they have extreme opinions themselves and find it easier to shadowbox with people for whom they can fabricate extreme opinions that they don't actually have, than to have an actual discussion. I don't know. Anyhow, that's when these discussions start getting bizarre.
I don't know how sick he was or how advanced his cancer was. Only his doctors really know all the facts.
Yet here you are posting about it...
Still your eyes remained glued at this sad car wreck ?
Are you referring to Jobs' condition, or your series of illiterate posts?
I don't necessarily agree with the sentiment, but that's the most succinct and laugh-out-loud characterisation of Apple addicts I've ever heard
It's not a succint characterization of anything. It is a condescending, demeaning slam against people who don't agree with your viewpoint.
There is a cadre of people who post here that frequently come in with overwhelming negativity and present their views as facts, who then get miffed when intelligent people actually challenge them and require that they back up their assertions with actual information. Slurs and stupid commentary like the quote above is what generally results.
Sarbanes-Oxley changed the 8-K disclosure requirements for public corporations. Made them tougher and required them to be made in a more timely fashion. You could look it up. I did. The very document you cited pointed out that the rules were about to get tougher. They did.
What Sarbanes-Oxley did, primarily, was to speed up the filing of the 8K (Section 409 of the Act). There were some additional clarifications of items already there, and a few items of disclosure were added --none of those remotely deals with health of the CEO.
You can find the SEC's final rule here (look under Section C): http://www.sarbanes-oxley.com/displa..._id=288#seciid
ADD: In my previous reply to you when I said "I don't wish to engage you in a discussion on this at this time" that was the truth -- I had tons of errands to run and things to get done, and I was short on time. But I can see that I could have worded it better.
Are you referring to Jobs' condition, or your series of illiterate posts?
He wasn't actually attacking anyone. He was simply surprised that the topic has to get so much attention. I don't see any reason for you to attack him personally.
At least he doesn't have profanity in his sig. If we're questioning literacy, we might as well question taste.
He wasn't actually attacking anyone. He was simply surprised that the topic has to get so much attention. I don't see any reason for you to attack him personally.
At least he doesn't have profanity in his sig. If we're questioning literacy, we might as well question taste.
And, I recall that brucep has previously explained the reason for his posting style. (I am unable to give you a link).
wilco, being the obsessive-compulsive that he is, would not understand, so best to let it go.
What Sarbanes-Oxley did, primarily, was to speed up the filing of the 8K (Section 409 of the Act). There were some additional clarifications of items already there, and a few items of disclosure were added --none of those remotely deals with health of the CEO.
I know, I looked at this stuff yesterday.
"Presumptive" is an important term of legal art -- it refers to things which can be assumed to be covered by a law, but it doesn't necessarily end there. Other things can be arguably covered by a law because of what the law generally intends to do. In this case, the law intends to require public corporations to disclose material events that a "reasonably prudent investor" might want to know about a company before buying or selling a stock. That's a pretty wide target.
Based on what I've read, a goodly number of experts in corporate governance believe that Apple pushed the limits on disclosure. I can see their point, especially as an AAPL investor who's seen his investments hammered more than once over rumors that Apple could have easily quashed. Apple doesn't need to play this so close to the vest -- they just do, out of habit I suppose. As an investor this is annoying, and I think it could also get them in trouble down the line.
"Presumptive" is an important term of legal art -- it refers to things which can be assumed to be covered by a law, but it doesn't necessarily end there. Other things can be arguably covered by a law because of what the law generally intends to do. In this case, the law intends to require public corporations to disclose material events that a "reasonably prudent investor" might want to know about a company before buying or selling a stock. That's a pretty wide target.
I know what 'presumptive' means.
There are two other keywords that you cite: "material" and "reasonably prudent investor." You can drive a truck through both of those, especially if, as a board, you have met all the criteria of the business judgment rule.
Thus, for instance, if Apple board can show that SJ kept them informed, they deliberated as a board, followed all of the business judgment criteria in arriving at their conclusion, and the conclusion they came to was that it is not material, or that a prudent investor would have taken into account the risk that SJ wouldn't be around one day, then there is little that shareholders can do. That is the nature of the US corporate governance system. (And, thank God for that, for o/w courts would be second-guessing everything that companies do).
If any of these so-called corporate governance 'experts' had a leg to stand on -- and I have not seen one that has cited an effective reasoning for how a shareholder might prevail -- you bet that some schmuck would have brought a lawsuit already.
Time will tell....
Then don't buy the stock.
I seriously wish more companies were like the CEO of Costco and tell Wall Street to pretty much take it or leave it. All this pandering to stockholders is a serious limiter of innovation. I think the stock market is a serious parasite on corporate innovation.
You can't serve multiple masters. You are either in it for your customers or you are in it for your shareholders. Personally I would rather do business with a company that is in it for their customers.
It is unbelievable! I had to answer this statement given how naieve I feel it is even if it provokes a war.
How hard earned money which these corporations want is what allows them to innovate. You are treating Jobs and Apple like they are some type of god like cult only doing good for society and not interested in cash and should be allowed to trample on the investor even though they have sought our money.
There are two other keywords that you cite: "material" and "reasonably prudent investor." You can drive a truck through both of those, especially if, as a board, you have met all the criteria of the business judgment rule.
That truck goes both ways, is my point.
So far the company hasn't given anyone any real grounds to sue. If future events should suggest that Apple has misrepresented any of the facts bearing on Steve's ability to serve as CEO, then watch out. It would be even worse for the company if it turned out that people at the top knew, and traded on the information. I'm not saying this has happened or will happen, only that this is just the sort of thing that gets the SEC sniffing around and class action lawyers sharpening their pencils. I think Apple can avoid this risk entirely by being just a little more transparent. As a stockholder, I wish they would.
But as you say, time will tell.
I think Apple can avoid this risk entirely by being just a little more transparent. As a stockholder, I wish they would.
The sentiment that Apple could be a little more transparent -- in general -- I totally agree with.
Apple's silence on Steve Jobs' health may have broken federal securities rules
Firms aren't required to disclose medical details about executives, lawyers say. But they are required to divulge 'material' information investors should know before buying or selling stock.
By David Sarno and Walter Hamilton
June 25, 2009
Reporting from Los Angeles and New York ? Steve Jobs' medical condition turned out to be more serious than Apple Inc. officials had previously acknowledged -- and that has analysts and legal experts questioning whether the company ran afoul of federal securities rules.
Apple had disclosed in early January that Jobs had a "hormone imbalance" and would take a leave of absence, but never said he was so sick that he needed a liver transplant.
Companies are not required to divulge medical details about executives, lawyers said. But they are required to disclose "material" information, which is defined as what a reasonable investor would need to know to make an informed decision on buying or selling stock.
"If they tried to lessen the disclosure and make it misleading by omission, that's just as bad as telling something that flat isn't true," said Jeffrey C. Soza, a securities lawyer at Glaser, Weil, Fink, Jacobs, Howard & Shapiro in Los Angeles.
The Tennessee doctor who led the transplant team said this week that Jobs was "the sickest patient on the waiting list" at the time a donor liver became available.
Dr. James D. Eason said that Apple's key man had tested high -- more likely to die from the condition -- on an index that rates patients with end-stage liver disease.
But all that investors or the public knew came from two brief statements on Apple's website. The first, about the hormone imbalance, was followed a week later by one from Jobs saying his health issue was "more complex" and would require a six-month leave.
The Cupertino, Calif., company has maintained that the initial statement was enough to satisfy disclosure rules imposed on publicly traded companies. But some analysts aren't so sure. Intentionally downplaying the extent of such an illness could set Apple on the wrong side of securities laws, Soza said.
Investor Warren E. Buffett agreed that Apple had been less than forthright. "Certainly Steve Jobs is important to Apple," he said in a CNBC-TV interview Wednesday. "Whether he is facing serious surgery or not is a material fact."
The state of Jobs' health has long been a subject of popular discussion, including his surgery for pancreatic cancer in 2004 and his widely observed weight loss that preceded his leave of absence. With that information in the public sphere, some experts say Apple fulfilled its legal obligation by saying that Jobs was on medical leave.
"His health is a matter of private information, which the board may be in possession of but has no affirmative obligation to disclose," said G. William Speer, a lawyer at Bryan Cave in Atlanta.
Jobs, who founded Apple in 1979, is widely considered a visionary whose products have repeatedly allowed the company to reinvent itself and stay ahead of the competition. His importance to the company fuels the debates on how much information about his health is material for investors.
"Steve is Apple," said Danielle Levitas, an analyst for industry research firm IDC. "The company was on the skids, and he came back to revive them. No doubt, if he were gone, it would be a different company. There aren't a whole lot of people out there like Steve Jobs."
Nor are there many companies whose fate seems so closely tied to that of a single person, said Stephen Davis, a corporate governance expert at Yale University's Millstein Center for Corporate Governance and Performance.
"Whether he's able to come back, in what capacity and when are all highly relevant to Apple's owners," Davis said. "We're in the middle of huge financial crisis that's been caused in part by huge failures of corporate governance. This is an age when you would hope corporations would get that shareholders need some pretty high-quality disclosure."
The Securities and Exchange Commission declined to comment on the situation.
The revelation of Jobs' illness riled critics because it comes on the heels of long-standing displeasure with Apple's secretive culture and what detractors say is its grudging disclosure of important issues.
"Across the board the company is tight-lipped and tends to hold information close to its vest," said Patrick McGurn, special counsel at RiskMetrics Group, a New York advisor to large investors on governance issues. "This isn't an isolated issue with Apple. It's a major concern at this point."
Apple agrees with Speer's view that Jobs' health is a private matter, and it has said almost nothing about it even after news of the liver transplant.
"Steve continues to look forward to returning to Apple at the end of June," reiterated Apple spokesman Steve Dowling.
He noted that the Tennessee doctors were "authorized" to release their statement late Tuesday about Jobs' condition, but declined to comment on whether Apple should have said more to investors.
Dowling also said none of the eight members of the board of directors would be available to comment. Former Vice President Al Gore and current and former chief executives of Google Inc., Genentech Inc. and Intuit Inc. declined to comment. Three other directors did not return calls.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...,1155506.story
Secrecy makes Apple products sexier and more exciting.
It would be boring if they lay down their product roadmap like many other companies do.
True, but this secrecy also means that products don't get properly tested prior to release (which requires getting beta software into the hands of lots of people and prototype hardware out into the real world). The most recent example of this I can point to is the broken SATA implementation in the new Macbook Pros. Fixed quickly, but it should have been fixed before shipping.
You got plenty of warning chief. And Apple's secrecy (read: discretion) has sent the stock price soaring, which is the real problem.
ps -- everybody dies.
I was disappointed to read this in the NY Times, and even more here in AI. Please, somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but my recollection is that first, Apple said Jobs' weight loss was due to a "hormone imbalance". Then, a few weeks later, they elaborated only a tiny bit and said the problem was "more complex" (than the hormone imbalance). I have no reason to believe that when they said "hormone imbalance" that they knew it was more complex. That sort of confusion followed by more illumination is common for medical problems.
When they realized the problem was more serious, my attitude was that "more complex" was all the detail I needed. At the time I realized it might mean metastasized cancer or something equally serious. Apple also told us it would require six months leave of absence, so it was obviously serious. They told us the truth at the high level, but they didn't tell us any low level details, which we never needed.