I personally have not read Apples 10K but I imagine they do like many companies which are require by law to disclose any risk to the business and many time they list the lost of key personally as risk to future business. If Apple did this I could see that they done their ethical responsible to inform the investment community there is risk to the company future performance if for any reason they lose one of these key people.
No where does it say they must disclose the exact risk like medical or death or being recruited away to another company, those are easily assumed.
Many companies list this in their 10K as a potential business risk, that you must take into consideration before making you investment. I personally understand Apple's business so well that I do not bother reading their 10K, like I have done with other companies.
If you have not read Apple's 10K and other disclosure documents, stop complaining about them hiding stuff and read the 10K and associated documents and see if they made the disclosure.
By the way, the quotations are referenced to Charles Elson, director of the Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware. I would suspect that his knowledge and expertise in this matter far exceeds yours. If not, we would all be please to view your credentials. Otherwise, your silence would be appreciated.
And, not that you are entitled to your opinion, unless verified, some of your comments are tantamount to libel, IMO. Certainly, malicious intent.
Useful report, and that's essentially what I've been getting at. It's been stated time and time again that health issues are not considered material.
Whether people would like the application of the disclosure law widened is a different matter. Perhaps a case can be made for that. I personally don't think so.
And the question of whther Apple lied or somehow misled people on this issue remains an open question. It was, however, made clear by Apple early on, at least implicitly, that they would not be directly addressing the health issue.
Apple and Steve Jobs made it clear that Steve would be leaving for a time, but will stay on in some limited capacity. That's all. This was clear. Whether people are entitled to more is the question. I really don't think they are.
That is true, eventually every one dies including you. But the difference is what they have achieved before they die. What have you done that is good for the world?
Also there is difference between lies and not giving the information you do not have to give. If one is lying to extract money from you, that is different from telling something to protect yourself. I think your thoughts are far fetched and IDIOTIC!!
I suggest you read the article first before making statements like that.
The article says the secrecy is so high that new products are often covered under black cloaks. This explains how they could ever let loose those infamous high glossy screens. No glare under black cloaks.
I'm no legal expert, but couldn't Jobs have sued Apple under the terms of the Health Information Privacy Act had they disclosed anything beyond what he approved them to? I think this covers all employees regardless of rank or status.
However, I have to take exception to the second last line. It may be an opinion, but one of questionable taste. Unless, that is, you understand that we are all living on borrowed time.
As Thomas Full once said, ?Birth is the beginning of death.?
Obviously we are all on the road to death. My point is that it is disingenuous for investors/stockholders to come out and say "But my portfolio went down in value because Steve Jobs didn't disclose that he had [insert potential illness here], Apple should be investigated and/or sued."
He had CANCER! Everybody knows it. That makes him very much more likely to get it again along with a whole host of other possibilities. Investors who don't like that shouldn't invest in Apple.
Is it really 'unprecedented'? Do all the CEOs of all the millions of listed companies have their medical details presented to the public? How much of Steve Jobs's iconic status comes from him and how much from a baying press?
"So do investors across corporate America have the right to know this sort of information as they struggle to manage their recession-hit portfolios? What are the rules under U.S. securities laws?"
"Q: Why did news about Jobs' liver transplant come from The Wall Street Journal and not from Apple?
A: Companies don't have to give updates on their executives' health. That is typically not considered "material information," which must be disclosed under rules put forth by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
"Nothing is required to be disclosed unless the health issue affects his ability to steward the company appropriately," said Charles Elson, director of the Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware.
Jobs also has been on medical leave since January, which means he technically isn't working for the company in an executive capacity."
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.
My entitlement is due to the fact I invested hard earned money into their stock and I have a right under the law to such important information. If Apple does not want to abide by the law or wants this type of privacy then let them take that stockpile of cash and take the company private.
Show us what portions of the law require a company to detail the health state and care information of an employee not currently acting as an officer.
Show us what portions of the law require a company to detail the health state and care information of an employee not currently acting as an officer.
Actually, I'd like to add to that challenge to bizwarrior: Show us what portions of the law require a company to detail the health state and care information of an employee whether or not (s)he is currently acting as an officer.
My entitlement is due to the fact I invested hard earned money into their stock and I have a right under the law to such important information. If Apple does not want to abide by the law or wants this type of privacy then let them take that stockpile of cash and take the company private.
If you may, I would like to apologize for those who have debased your intelligence, knowledge and expertise. I must admit that that you are quite possibly correct on the law that covers your assertion.
I have just one question. And if you would respond to such, I will do my best to support your position. So please, where do you live? I surmise that it is not on Continental North America, South America Europe, Africa, Oceania or Asia. I must admit, I know very little of Antarctica.
Oh, and if it is in a special institution, I promise I will keep any information that you wish to disclose confidential. Unless of course, there is a law that says otherwise.
Actually, I'd like to add to that challenge to bizwarrior: Show us what portions of the law require a company to detail the health state and care information of an employee whether or not (s)he is currently acting as an officer.
If I am not mistaken, an officer of the company is obliged to disclose any such information to the board, but the board is not obliged to tell anybody without the consent of the officer.
1) We are on a message board on the internet crossing all borders.
2) The correct usage of lie and lay is taught in elementary schools across the United States.
3) Being home schooled by Helen Keller isn?t something to brag about. (just sayin?)
I would like to step in and defend teckstud: what he wrote is correct in English. I am happy to take your word that it is incorrect in American.
Therefore his post my have, once again, been an incoherent rant but it was grammatically correct - although not necessarily in the language he was trying to write in.
I would like to step in and defend teckstud: what he wrote is correct in English. I am happy to take your word that it is incorrect in American.
Therefore his post my have, once again, been an incoherent rant but it was grammatically correct - although not necessarily in the language he was trying to write in.
British English doesn?t have the same rules about lie v. lay as US English?
Comments
No where does it say they must disclose the exact risk like medical or death or being recruited away to another company, those are easily assumed.
Many companies list this in their 10K as a potential business risk, that you must take into consideration before making you investment. I personally understand Apple's business so well that I do not bother reading their 10K, like I have done with other companies.
If you have not read Apple's 10K and other disclosure documents, stop complaining about them hiding stuff and read the 10K and associated documents and see if they made the disclosure.
You better read up on what the SEC mandates. You are so far off base, it is a travesty that you opinions are on record.
Perhaps a light review is in order. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...shealth23.html
By the way, the quotations are referenced to Charles Elson, director of the Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware. I would suspect that his knowledge and expertise in this matter far exceeds yours. If not, we would all be please to view your credentials. Otherwise, your silence would be appreciated.
And, not that you are entitled to your opinion, unless verified, some of your comments are tantamount to libel, IMO. Certainly, malicious intent.
Useful report, and that's essentially what I've been getting at. It's been stated time and time again that health issues are not considered material.
Whether people would like the application of the disclosure law widened is a different matter. Perhaps a case can be made for that. I personally don't think so.
And the question of whther Apple lied or somehow misled people on this issue remains an open question. It was, however, made clear by Apple early on, at least implicitly, that they would not be directly addressing the health issue.
Apple and Steve Jobs made it clear that Steve would be leaving for a time, but will stay on in some limited capacity. That's all. This was clear. Whether people are entitled to more is the question. I really don't think they are.
That is true, eventually every one dies including you. But the difference is what they have achieved before they die. What have you done that is good for the world?
Also there is difference between lies and not giving the information you do not have to give. If one is lying to extract money from you, that is different from telling something to protect yourself. I think your thoughts are far fetched and IDIOTIC!!
I suggest you read the article first before making statements like that.
Edit: I don't agree with the "Apple lies" part above. They ... dissemble and mislead?
I guess it all depends on where your defintion of the word lies lies.
I guess it all depends on where your defintion of the word lies lies.
What?s funny is your misuse of the word lies.
What?s funny is your misuse of the word lies.
Funnier than that is that you've yet to realize that we don't talk the Queen's English here in the USA.
Funnier than that is that you've yet to realize that we don't talk the Queen's English here in the USA.
1) We are on a message board on the internet crossing all borders.
2) The correct usage of lie and lay is taught in elementary schools across the United States.
3) Being home schooled by Helen Keller isn?t something to brag about. (just sayin?)
However, I have to take exception to the second last line. It may be an opinion, but one of questionable taste. Unless, that is, you understand that we are all living on borrowed time.
As Thomas Full once said, ?Birth is the beginning of death.?
Obviously we are all on the road to death. My point is that it is disingenuous for investors/stockholders to come out and say "But my portfolio went down in value because Steve Jobs didn't disclose that he had [insert potential illness here], Apple should be investigated and/or sued."
He had CANCER! Everybody knows it. That makes him very much more likely to get it again along with a whole host of other possibilities. Investors who don't like that shouldn't invest in Apple.
1) We are on a message board on the internet crossing all borders.
NO- really?
2) The correct usage of lie and lay is taught in elementary schools across the United States.
I'm supposed to remember that far back?
3) Being home schooled by Helen Keller isn?t something to brag about. (just sayin?)
If I were home schooled by Helen Keller - I would brag about it- a remarkable human being.
Where the 4th insult- why did you stop?
It was a play on words- that's all. Geesh- where's my spoon for you.
"So do investors across corporate America have the right to know this sort of information as they struggle to manage their recession-hit portfolios? What are the rules under U.S. securities laws?"
"Q: Why did news about Jobs' liver transplant come from The Wall Street Journal and not from Apple?
A: Companies don't have to give updates on their executives' health. That is typically not considered "material information," which must be disclosed under rules put forth by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
"Nothing is required to be disclosed unless the health issue affects his ability to steward the company appropriately," said Charles Elson, director of the Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware.
Jobs also has been on medical leave since January, which means he technically isn't working for the company in an executive capacity."
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.
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/01/steve-jobs-heal/
My entitlement is due to the fact I invested hard earned money into their stock and I have a right under the law to such important information. If Apple does not want to abide by the law or wants this type of privacy then let them take that stockpile of cash and take the company private.
Show us what portions of the law require a company to detail the health state and care information of an employee not currently acting as an officer.
Show us what portions of the law require a company to detail the health state and care information of an employee not currently acting as an officer.
Actually, I'd like to add to that challenge to bizwarrior: Show us what portions of the law require a company to detail the health state and care information of an employee whether or not (s)he is currently acting as an officer.
My entitlement is due to the fact I invested hard earned money into their stock and I have a right under the law to such important information. If Apple does not want to abide by the law or wants this type of privacy then let them take that stockpile of cash and take the company private.
If you may, I would like to apologize for those who have debased your intelligence, knowledge and expertise. I must admit that that you are quite possibly correct on the law that covers your assertion.
I have just one question. And if you would respond to such, I will do my best to support your position. So please, where do you live? I surmise that it is not on Continental North America, South America Europe, Africa, Oceania or Asia. I must admit, I know very little of Antarctica.
Oh, and if it is in a special institution, I promise I will keep any information that you wish to disclose confidential. Unless of course, there is a law that says otherwise.
Actually, I'd like to add to that challenge to bizwarrior: Show us what portions of the law require a company to detail the health state and care information of an employee whether or not (s)he is currently acting as an officer.
If I am not mistaken, an officer of the company is obliged to disclose any such information to the board, but the board is not obliged to tell anybody without the consent of the officer.
1) We are on a message board on the internet crossing all borders.
2) The correct usage of lie and lay is taught in elementary schools across the United States.
3) Being home schooled by Helen Keller isn?t something to brag about. (just sayin?)
I would like to step in and defend teckstud: what he wrote is correct in English. I am happy to take your word that it is incorrect in American.
Therefore his post my have, once again, been an incoherent rant but it was grammatically correct - although not necessarily in the language he was trying to write in.
I would like to step in and defend teckstud: what he wrote is correct in English. I am happy to take your word that it is incorrect in American.
Therefore his post my have, once again, been an incoherent rant but it was grammatically correct - although not necessarily in the language he was trying to write in.
British English doesn?t have the same rules about lie v. lay as US English?