Next up... Steve Jobs gets gas from eating at Taco Bell... how will it affect the stock!
Right on! While the headline is factually correct (Jobs receives subpoena) the IMPLIED headline is that Jobs is in trouble. The headline was designed to draw mouse clicks. Journalists and their editors know exactly how people react to things. They teach this in journalism school. They know that what is not said or explained will be interpreted in certain ways depending on the headline.
Jobs mentioned in back-dating investigation + Jobs receives subpoena = Jobs in legal trouble.
Very simple journalism logic, all planned in advance, executed to perfection. Of course it helps that we Mac fanboys go ballistic over this stuff. They know that too, all too well.
Right on! While the headline is factually correct (Jobs receives subpoena) the IMPLIED headline is that Jobs is in trouble. The headline was designed to draw mouse clicks. Journalists and their editors know exactly how people react to things. They teach this in journalism school. They know that what is not said or explained will be interpreted in certain ways depending on the headline.
Jobs mentioned in back-dating investigation + Jobs receives subpoena = Jobs in legal trouble.
Very simple journalism logic, all planned in advance, executed to perfection. Of course it helps that we Mac fanboys go ballistic over this stuff. They know that too, all too well.
How does it feel to be manipulated?
Hence I only joked about a Reagan defense. Who is taking this too seriously? I think most comments have been light and positive.
While backdating is now illegal, it wasn't when it was being done, at the height of the internet boom. It is a civil action today. Anderson and Heinen are being sued. For money.
Even if Jobs had conspired in a way that was tortious -- I think that's the term -- he'd just owe a few million bucks, which I believe he could pay out of his piggy bank. What has lost a few CEOs their jobs has been that they've backdated, and that has been only one of a number of ways that they've inflated their compensation at the expense of the shareholder, while not making their corporations more profitable. The stockholders have nothing to complain about with SJ. He has made them a s__load of money in the last 10 years.
The morality of these practices back when they were done was questionable, but their legality was not. Once the new laws were passed in the wake of Enron and the stock bubble bursting in 2001, Apple restated its earnings, a couple of scapegoa-- er, a couple of people resigned, and Jobs was cleared of wrongdoing. I'm sure that Heinen will question the official version of things, trying to get out of her fines. Jobs will walk, largely because if you took a vote of Apple shareholders, they'd elect Steve King of Apple for Life. What's that stock selling for recently? How many Macs, iPods and iPhones are selling this Christmas? Here, Steve, take this slap on the wrist and let's party!
While no one is completely bulletproof, it would be some serious "egg on the face" to have formal charges leveled on Steve while being overseen by a Board of Directors that includes the former Vice President. (what being the founder of the internet and all)
While backdating is now illegal, it wasn't when it was being done, at the height of the internet boom. It is a civil action today. Anderson and Heinen are being sued. For money.
Even if Jobs had conspired in a way that was tortious -- I think that's the term -- he'd just owe a few million bucks, which I believe he could pay out of his piggy bank. What has lost a few CEOs their jobs has been that they've backdated, and that has been only one of a number of ways that they've inflated their compensation at the expense of the shareholder, while not making their corporations more profitable. The stockholders have nothing to complain about with SJ. He has made them a s__load of money in the last 10 years.
The morality of these practices back when they were done was questionable, but their legality was not. Once the new laws were passed in the wake of Enron and the stock bubble bursting in 2001, Apple restated its earnings, a couple of scapegoa-- er, a couple of people resigned, and Jobs was cleared of wrongdoing. I'm sure that Heinen will question the official version of things, trying to get out of her fines. Jobs will walk, largely because if you took a vote of Apple shareholders, they'd elect Steve King of Apple for Life. What's that stock selling for recently? How many Macs, iPods and iPhones are selling this Christmas? Here, Steve, take this slap on the wrist and let's party!
Speaking of Enron, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act is widely regarded as extremely harmful to investment and reduces American competitiveness, I've heard it called the "Accountant Protection Act". Companies have to be allowed to fail, even if they do so in spectacular fashion, in order for their true value in the marketplace to be determined... this is not an excuse for fraud, which should always remain prosecutable.
Speaking of Enron, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act is widely regarded as extremely harmful to investment and reduces American competitiveness, I've heard it called the "Accountant Protection Act".
Yes, there is lots of evidence that S-OX was legislation based on junk or non-existent data. And yes, evidence does show that S-OX has been a boon to accountants and lawyers. There is also some evidence that it may have delayed or prevented some smaller firms from going public (and hastened the move of some smaller public firms to go private), although this is quite difficult to pin down.
But as to S-OX having a negative impact on investment or US competitiveness -- despite lots of media and some public policy wailing to that effect -- credible empirical evidence shows essentially no impact at all.
At long last, Steve Jobs is required to testify UNDER OATH so that, if he lies, he can be prosecuted for Perjury and Obstruction of Justice.
Some would have us believe that Sterve Jobs, the obsessive micro-manager, hand picked a calendar date to maximize his profit from stock options worth $646,6 millions, but didn't realize that:
1- No one is worth nearly $650 millions;
2- The profits of Apple should be divided among stockholders and don't belong to the CEO and his puppet Vice-Presidents.
In the alternative, Steve Jobs would have us believe that Nancy Heinen, Apple Vice-President of Legal Affairs, acted on her own, in secrecy, and definitely not at the request of Steve Jobs, in deciding to secretly backdate stock options to the benefit of Steve Jobs and Apple higher management.
Fred Anderson, Apple's former Chief Financial Officer, is on record as stating that he backdated stock options only after Steve Jobs "informed him that he had received the Board's approval for the massive grant, when in fact no approval had been granted".
Quote:
Anderson, who like Heinen resigned from his post at Apple ahead of the formal SEC crackdown, settled with the Commission in April. As part of the deal, he agreed to a fine of $150,000 and to repay about $3.5 million in disgorgement of profit, without admitting or denying any wrongdoing.
In a statement that followed his settlement with the SEC, Anderson largely shifted the blame for his involvement in a backdated 2001 Executive Team grant back to Jobs. He claimed that Jobs came to him in late January of 2001 and informed him that he had received the Board's approval for the massive grant, when in fact no approval had been granted.
2- The profits of Apple should be divided among stockholders and don't belong to the CEO and his puppet Vice-Presidents.
While not commenting the SEC investigation I will pick you up on these comments you made if I may.
Obviously you are entitled to your opinion but so am I and I think he is worth that and more ... but for SJ, what would Apple be worth now, if even still in existence? Yet here's Apple now with a market cap the envy of the the tech industry and an amazing product portfolio and sales through the roof.
Many, if not perhaps most, CEOs are not worth for they get paid one could argue, but SJ one very big exception.
There would be nothing to divide up but for Steve. This isn't just some Apple fan-boy's comment it is from someone with a lot of stock in Apple. As well as a lot of Apple equipment.
At long last, Steve Jobs is required to testify UNDER OATH so that, if he lies, he can be prosecuted for Perjury and Obstruction of Justice.
Some would have us believe that Sterve Jobs, the obsessive micro-manager, hand picked a calendar date to maximize his profit from stock options worth $646,6 millions, but didn't realize that:
1- No one is worth nearly $650 millions;
Can you keep fantasies out of your argument? Ideally, you are right, but stick to reality here. He was given options, and the issue is not the options or the amount, but the dating, and particularly document fabrication to suggest that a meeting took place when it did not.
Quote:
2- The profits of Apple should be divided among stockholders and don't belong to the CEO and his puppet Vice-Presidents.
If there was enough discontent with stockholders, they would object, so where is the stockholder revolt?
Quote:
In the alternative, Steve Jobs would have us believe that Nancy Heinen, Apple Vice-President of Legal Affairs, acted on her own, in secrecy, and definitely not at the request of Steve Jobs, in deciding to secretly backdate stock options to the benefit of Steve Jobs and Apple higher management.
Fred Anderson, Apple's former Chief Financial Officer, is on record as stating that he backdated stock options only after Steve Jobs "informed him that he had received the Board's approval for the massive grant, when in fact no approval had been granted".
Steve Jobs will have his day in Court.
I think this is a projection of some sort on your part. This new development doesn't mean that yet.
If there was enough discontent with stockholders, they would object, so where is the stockholder revolt?
There are outstanding stockholder class actions because backdating stock options is ILLEGAL, meaning that Steve Jobs and his Vice-Presidents cannot take money from Apple. Just like Fred Anderson, they must pay back the profit they made from exercising illegal stock options.
No this is not oversimplifying. It's the same legal system. The issue before the court is Heinen. Jobs is being subpoenaed as a witness, but he doesn't have to make a personal appearance in court. They are allowing him to give his testimony in a written document, which is called a deposition. This means they need his version of the events but neither the defense nor the prosecution wants to ask him any questions.
The defendant is never allowed to give a deposition.
Jobs will go to his attorney's office, make his statement about what happened, the legal aide will type it up, he'll sign it, it will be properly notarized and such, and delivered to the court.
There are outstanding stockholder class actions because backdating stock options is ILLEGAL, meaning that Steve Jobs and his Vice-Presidents cannot take money from Apple. Just like Fred Anderson, they must pay back the profit they made from exercising illegal stock options.
The stock options were most likely legal, I don't understand why you say the stock options were illegal. The only thing that might be illegal about it was the backdating, and more certainly fabricating board records and improper reporting the payment.
Comments
Next up... Steve Jobs gets gas from eating at Taco Bell... how will it affect the stock!
Right on! While the headline is factually correct (Jobs receives subpoena) the IMPLIED headline is that Jobs is in trouble. The headline was designed to draw mouse clicks. Journalists and their editors know exactly how people react to things. They teach this in journalism school. They know that what is not said or explained will be interpreted in certain ways depending on the headline.
Jobs mentioned in back-dating investigation + Jobs receives subpoena = Jobs in legal trouble.
Very simple journalism logic, all planned in advance, executed to perfection. Of course it helps that we Mac fanboys go ballistic over this stuff. They know that too, all too well.
How does it feel to be manipulated?
Right on! While the headline is factually correct (Jobs receives subpoena) the IMPLIED headline is that Jobs is in trouble. The headline was designed to draw mouse clicks. Journalists and their editors know exactly how people react to things. They teach this in journalism school. They know that what is not said or explained will be interpreted in certain ways depending on the headline.
Jobs mentioned in back-dating investigation + Jobs receives subpoena = Jobs in legal trouble.
Very simple journalism logic, all planned in advance, executed to perfection. Of course it helps that we Mac fanboys go ballistic over this stuff. They know that too, all too well.
How does it feel to be manipulated?
Hence I only joked about a Reagan defense. Who is taking this too seriously? I think most comments have been light and positive.
Even if Jobs had conspired in a way that was tortious -- I think that's the term -- he'd just owe a few million bucks, which I believe he could pay out of his piggy bank. What has lost a few CEOs their jobs has been that they've backdated, and that has been only one of a number of ways that they've inflated their compensation at the expense of the shareholder, while not making their corporations more profitable. The stockholders have nothing to complain about with SJ. He has made them a s__load of money in the last 10 years.
The morality of these practices back when they were done was questionable, but their legality was not. Once the new laws were passed in the wake of Enron and the stock bubble bursting in 2001, Apple restated its earnings, a couple of scapegoa-- er, a couple of people resigned, and Jobs was cleared of wrongdoing. I'm sure that Heinen will question the official version of things, trying to get out of her fines. Jobs will walk, largely because if you took a vote of Apple shareholders, they'd elect Steve King of Apple for Life. What's that stock selling for recently? How many Macs, iPods and iPhones are selling this Christmas? Here, Steve, take this slap on the wrist and let's party!
...that includes the former Vice President. (what being the founder of the internet and all)
What about the Clinton defence..?
Sorry
I didn't inhale?
Hence my comment. He will be under oath. He has to be very careful not to say anything in his 'deposition' that can be used against him later.
He was already investigated by the SEC and acquitted. They can't reopen a case they acquitted him on.
He was already investigated by the SEC and acquitted. They can't reopen a case they acquitted him on.
Are you sure (cite?). I thought he was only acquitted by his own board......
What about the Clinton defence..?
Sorry
What about it? Do you have any idea what you're talking about?
While backdating is now illegal, it wasn't when it was being done, at the height of the internet boom. It is a civil action today. Anderson and Heinen are being sued. For money.
Even if Jobs had conspired in a way that was tortious -- I think that's the term -- he'd just owe a few million bucks, which I believe he could pay out of his piggy bank. What has lost a few CEOs their jobs has been that they've backdated, and that has been only one of a number of ways that they've inflated their compensation at the expense of the shareholder, while not making their corporations more profitable. The stockholders have nothing to complain about with SJ. He has made them a s__load of money in the last 10 years.
The morality of these practices back when they were done was questionable, but their legality was not. Once the new laws were passed in the wake of Enron and the stock bubble bursting in 2001, Apple restated its earnings, a couple of scapegoa-- er, a couple of people resigned, and Jobs was cleared of wrongdoing. I'm sure that Heinen will question the official version of things, trying to get out of her fines. Jobs will walk, largely because if you took a vote of Apple shareholders, they'd elect Steve King of Apple for Life. What's that stock selling for recently? How many Macs, iPods and iPhones are selling this Christmas? Here, Steve, take this slap on the wrist and let's party!
Speaking of Enron, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act is widely regarded as extremely harmful to investment and reduces American competitiveness, I've heard it called the "Accountant Protection Act". Companies have to be allowed to fail, even if they do so in spectacular fashion, in order for their true value in the marketplace to be determined... this is not an excuse for fraud, which should always remain prosecutable.
Speaking of Enron, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act is widely regarded as extremely harmful to investment and reduces American competitiveness, I've heard it called the "Accountant Protection Act".
Yes, there is lots of evidence that S-OX was legislation based on junk or non-existent data. And yes, evidence does show that S-OX has been a boon to accountants and lawyers. There is also some evidence that it may have delayed or prevented some smaller firms from going public (and hastened the move of some smaller public firms to go private), although this is quite difficult to pin down.
But as to S-OX having a negative impact on investment or US competitiveness -- despite lots of media and some public policy wailing to that effect -- credible empirical evidence shows essentially no impact at all.
Some would have us believe that Sterve Jobs, the obsessive micro-manager, hand picked a calendar date to maximize his profit from stock options worth $646,6 millions, but didn't realize that:
1- No one is worth nearly $650 millions;
2- The profits of Apple should be divided among stockholders and don't belong to the CEO and his puppet Vice-Presidents.
In the alternative, Steve Jobs would have us believe that Nancy Heinen, Apple Vice-President of Legal Affairs, acted on her own, in secrecy, and definitely not at the request of Steve Jobs, in deciding to secretly backdate stock options to the benefit of Steve Jobs and Apple higher management.
Fred Anderson, Apple's former Chief Financial Officer, is on record as stating that he backdated stock options only after Steve Jobs "informed him that he had received the Board's approval for the massive grant, when in fact no approval had been granted".
Anderson, who like Heinen resigned from his post at Apple ahead of the formal SEC crackdown, settled with the Commission in April. As part of the deal, he agreed to a fine of $150,000 and to repay about $3.5 million in disgorgement of profit, without admitting or denying any wrongdoing.
In a statement that followed his settlement with the SEC, Anderson largely shifted the blame for his involvement in a backdated 2001 Executive Team grant back to Jobs. He claimed that Jobs came to him in late January of 2001 and informed him that he had received the Board's approval for the massive grant, when in fact no approval had been granted.
Steve Jobs will have his day in Court.
1- No one is worth nearly $650 millions;
2- The profits of Apple should be divided among stockholders and don't belong to the CEO and his puppet Vice-Presidents.
While not commenting the SEC investigation I will pick you up on these comments you made if I may.
Obviously you are entitled to your opinion but so am I and I think he is worth that and more ... but for SJ, what would Apple be worth now, if even still in existence? Yet here's Apple now with a market cap the envy of the the tech industry and an amazing product portfolio and sales through the roof.
Many, if not perhaps most, CEOs are not worth for they get paid one could argue, but SJ one very big exception.
There would be nothing to divide up but for Steve. This isn't just some Apple fan-boy's comment it is from someone with a lot of stock in Apple. As well as a lot of Apple equipment.
Steve may be worried about being subpoenaed by the SEC, but I bet he is even more stressed out trying to decide what to wear to his deposition.
mmmm black maybe?
At long last, Steve Jobs is required to testify UNDER OATH so that, if he lies, he can be prosecuted for Perjury and Obstruction of Justice.
Some would have us believe that Sterve Jobs, the obsessive micro-manager, hand picked a calendar date to maximize his profit from stock options worth $646,6 millions, but didn't realize that:
1- No one is worth nearly $650 millions;
Can you keep fantasies out of your argument? Ideally, you are right, but stick to reality here. He was given options, and the issue is not the options or the amount, but the dating, and particularly document fabrication to suggest that a meeting took place when it did not.
2- The profits of Apple should be divided among stockholders and don't belong to the CEO and his puppet Vice-Presidents.
If there was enough discontent with stockholders, they would object, so where is the stockholder revolt?
In the alternative, Steve Jobs would have us believe that Nancy Heinen, Apple Vice-President of Legal Affairs, acted on her own, in secrecy, and definitely not at the request of Steve Jobs, in deciding to secretly backdate stock options to the benefit of Steve Jobs and Apple higher management.
Fred Anderson, Apple's former Chief Financial Officer, is on record as stating that he backdated stock options only after Steve Jobs "informed him that he had received the Board's approval for the massive grant, when in fact no approval had been granted".
Steve Jobs will have his day in Court.
I think this is a projection of some sort on your part. This new development doesn't mean that yet.
If there was enough discontent with stockholders, they would object, so where is the stockholder revolt?
There are outstanding stockholder class actions because backdating stock options is ILLEGAL, meaning that Steve Jobs and his Vice-Presidents cannot take money from Apple. Just like Fred Anderson, they must pay back the profit they made from exercising illegal stock options.
Greed doesn't pay!
No this is not oversimplifying. It's the same legal system. The issue before the court is Heinen. Jobs is being subpoenaed as a witness, but he doesn't have to make a personal appearance in court. They are allowing him to give his testimony in a written document, which is called a deposition. This means they need his version of the events but neither the defense nor the prosecution wants to ask him any questions.
The defendant is never allowed to give a deposition.
Jobs will go to his attorney's office, make his statement about what happened, the legal aide will type it up, he'll sign it, it will be properly notarized and such, and delivered to the court.
As I said, a big ho-hum.
.
There are outstanding stockholder class actions because backdating stock options is ILLEGAL, meaning that Steve Jobs and his Vice-Presidents cannot take money from Apple. Just like Fred Anderson, they must pay back the profit they made from exercising illegal stock options.
The stock options were most likely legal, I don't understand why you say the stock options were illegal. The only thing that might be illegal about it was the backdating, and more certainly fabricating board records and improper reporting the payment.