Had Apple reported to their shareholders what was happening when they didn't have a perfect handle on it themselves, and things turned out differently the shareholders, media, and people on forums like this would have been a thousand times more outraged than the little bits of squabbling I hear here.
Enough was given out as it was clearly known. Arbitrary information and information that Apple itself could not corroborate with cold, hard facts were not given out because, in my mind, that is much more conscientious and serving the shareholders better. I do believe that a person's health should be his own private matter except when it will materially affect the stockholders, however when even the person himself may not be completely informed as to what his condition is and how it will affect his life, then releasing "we think it might be this" information is not serving the stockholders, the company, and Steve himself.
He took a leave of absence for his health. He did that for himself, his family, and for Apple and its shareholders. Isn't that enough for you? Steve is obsessed with Apple and its fortunes, whether monetary or just producing great products. Do you think he really wanted to take this leave of absence which resulted in major surgery? No. But in doing that he helped himself, his family, and damnit, he did right by the shareholders.
People complain so much that Apple revolves around Steve. You think he doesn't know that? So, in keeping things fairly under wraps until all of the i's were dotted and the t's crossed was, in my opinion, a very business-like and fair way of handling it for all concerned.
Greg
To be fair about this, why is Apple different from every other company?
When important leaders of other companies have problems of this magnitude, the public is informed of what is happening. Why shouldn't Apple be held to the same standard? Why should SJ's obsession with privacy affect that?
When movie stars are assaulted by paparattzzi, we say too bad, they knew what they were getting into by becoming famous. Perhaps SJ should get over it too. Like it or not, he's an internationally famous figure. And the board does have that obligation.
And you are his accountant? You have the information readily available about Steve and all of his finances? Are you aware that there are billionaires and millionaires around the world who give to charities anonymously?
I think it is great that Gates and Buffet are contributing to charity whether it be out of the goodness of their hearts or out of wanting to garner publicity or a combination of both.
Perhaps Steve has contributed and not wanted to garner that publicity? Hmmmmmmm?
Mel, I appreciate a lot of what you say in these forums, but sometimes your posts are conjecture not supported by facts, even though you often require others to supply the facts before you will accept what they have to say.
Show me the last 10 years of Steve's tax returns. Even then, he doesn't need to declare his charity contributions unless he wants a tax benefit.
Only Steve knows where he puts his money. You don't.
Greg
My oh my! You are certainly his little soldier aren't you?
When they have the lists of the biggest charitable givers, his name is never on it, and it's been commented on over the years by those who keep track of such things, that he's one of those who simply isn't a big donor.
It is what it is. You don't have to feel personally offended. It doesn't bother me. It's just a fact. I don't care. I only mentioned it to be fair.
I'm not saying that they lied, per say. /but they didn't tell the full extent of his illness either. SJ's letters didn't either.
I don't think that we have enough information to say one way or the other whether or not they were holding back facts. They may not have known what was wrong with him and were treating him for much less serious stuff until they eventually figured out what was the real problem. Speculation, whether it comes from them, the media, or us doesn't have much value to it - aside from our own perceived values that we attach to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
A problem that was more serious that expected, yes, but what does that mean?
It doesn't read in any of those statements, or the more off the cuff ones given in response to questions at events or at the quarterly conference call, as to the seriousness of his illness. It was always something like; Steve has been ill, he's recovering. It will take time. we expect to have him back at work at the end of june.
Again, key board members not being doctors, and the doctors themselves not having a conclusive answer at the time may have been the actual case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
I never got from any of that that he might need a liver transplant, or that he did get a liver transplant.
Speculation, which would have caused panic, over a potentially minor issue. And we're not key board members so we don't have any legal right to know unless another legal passage comes up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
In fact, there were articles written that were saying that his illness was more serious than either he, or Apple was admitting to, and those articles were blown away by many people here.
I'm sure we all remember that.
I think it is very safe to say that journalist publish BS all the time. Whether its about torture, war in Iraq, whatever the case may be, they twist it however they see fit. Journalistic integrity is not what it used to be, and there was certainly room to play on the fears of people to write a speculatory (note; not a real word) article that doesn't really say much but drive up more fear and ratings. Clearly, the articles you read played upon your already preconceptions of what's going on. Journalism is in the toilet.
------Unrelated:
Very funny anantksundaram at post 53. You made me lulz.
Doesn't really figure highly in my decision to buy Apple products. Whether the CEO gives a dime to charity is really immaterial to the product.
Steve has always been an arrogant SOB (and also right about most things.) But over the past 8+ years look at what has rolled out of Cupertino under his watch.
Quite frankly, SJ can go on with whatever personality he likes. If anything, it seems to help with his creativity. I'm all for it.
This whole issue of his illness and how that affected the stock is absolutely peanuts in light of what he has achieved under Apple. It actually seems like it'll blow over in due course. Let those that have an issue with it file the appropriate claims. Smart money says Steve was acting lawfully and Apple covered its legal bases on the matter. So far the law says no wrong was done. But aparently Steve's "unique position" (whatever that means) calls for a specialized application of the law (mostly by laypeople.) That sounds rather unwise and faintly dangerous.
As for Warren Buffet, he's entitled like everyone else. He's still kicking around it seems. Not sure, however, whether tomorrow people will have remembered what he said. Oh well.
Warren Buffet's contribution was the biggest charitable contribution in the history of the world and still is.
I think he will be remembered for this alone long after SJ, you and myself are gone.
Indeed, you did not say that. And, you are right that Apple, by hindsight, dissembled about the gravity of it all.
I think that it was simple business decision on the part of the board -- they probably weighed the personal versus shareholder-related costs and benefits, and came out on the side of reticence in their business judgment. Even though I happen to side with that, I have no idea whether and how this will come back to haunt Apple.
Some day we will know most or all of the facts. Until then, all we can do is speculate (and have heated arguments), unfortunately.....
I'm not even saying that what they did was wrong, or that it was right.
The law is somewhat hazy when determining exactly what the outside world must know. In fact, Analysts must be told information that specifically may NOT be told to the public, just to investment institutions. Is that fair to everyone else? But it's the law.
I'm not saying that they lied, per say. /but they didn't tell the full extent of his illness either. SJ's letters didn't either.
You have irrefutable proof that at the time those letters were released, they were knowingly lying or misleaqding the full extent of his illness, per se.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
A problem that was more serious that expected, yes, but what does that mean?
It doesn't read in any of those statements, or the more off the cuff ones given in response to questions at events or at the quarterly conference call, as to the seriousness of his illness. It was always something like; Steve has been ill, he's recovering. It will take time. we expect to have him back at work at the end of june.
I never got from any of that that he might need a liver transplant, or that he did get a liver transplant.
Did you?
I wasn't in the position to think it or know it, legally or otherwise. Where you? I didn't know that you were on the board.
IAnalysts must be told information that specifically may NOT be told to the public, just to investment institutions. Is that fair to everyone else? But it's the law.
Not to sidetrack, or start another discussion -- honest!! -- but this one is important to clarify: Under "Regulation FD" analysts and public shareholders must be essentially given the same information, and just about at the same time. (http://www.sec.gov/answers/regfd.htm)
I don't think that we have enough information to say one way or the other whether or not they were holding back facts. They may not have known what was wrong with him and were treating him for much less serious stuff until they eventually figured out what was the real problem. Speculation, whether it comes from them, the media, or us doesn't have much value to it - aside from our own perceived values that we attach to it.
They certainly must have known that he was on a transplant list. He would have had to tell them that. they would have known he had the transplant.
Quote:
Again, key board members not being doctors, and the doctors themselves not having a conclusive answer at the time may have been the actual case.
This has nothing to do with them being doctors. Are you a doctor? If someone told you that they needed a liver transplant, would you understand?
Quote:
Speculation, which would have caused panic, over a potentially minor issue. And we're not key board members so we don't have any legal right to know unless another legal passage comes up.
This wasn't speculation. It was fact. He was seriously ill. He was on a transplant list. He then received a transplant. Where is the speculation?
Panic? I don't know. Apple's stock was depressed pretty badly because the investor community DIDN'T know how serious it was.
Do WE have a right to know? It's hard to say. I think the legal arguments could fall on either side.
Quote:
I think it is very safe to say that journalist publish BS all the time. Whether its about torture, war in Iraq, whatever the case may be, they twist it however they see fit. Journalistic integrity is not what it used to be, and there was certainly room to play on the fears of people to write a speculatory (note; not a real word) article that doesn't really say much but drive up more fear and ratings. Clearly, the articles you read played upon your already preconceptions of what's going on. Journalism is in the toilet.
Please, let's not get into your personal feelings about journalists. They were apparently right.
Let's see he is the second Richest person in the world and he gives more money away to save the poor, research on diseases, HIV research among the few of the many funds he and his Wife (now passed away and still has her charitable funds).
If he's a Buffoon then I want to be a buffoon too. But I can see by your intellect and choice of words in your posting that you are much wiser than he is.
You have irrefutable proof that at the time those letters were released, they were knowingly lying or misleaqding the full extent of his illness, per se.
I wasn't in the position to think it or know it, legally or otherwise. Where you? I didn't know that you were on the board.
We certainly know that he was on a transplant list for at least three or four months. We know that he HAD a transplant at least two months ago, likely somewhat earlier.
We don't have to be on the board to know that now.
What's the argument about? These are now known facts. You can't dispute them. The board had to be told these things. If they weren't, then SJ could be in a lot of trouble. I doubt very much that he tried to conceal the info from them. Do you? Don't throw back a question, or give a rhetorical answer, it's just a yes or no.
Not to sidetrack, or start another discussion -- honest!! -- but this one is important to clarify: Under "Regulation FD" analysts and public shareholders must be essentially given the same information, and just about at the same time. (http://www.sec.gov/answers/regfd.htm)
The "wink-wink" days on this front are over.
Not for everything. there are still requirements for closed door meetings.
How do you know that? If you don't, you should not make such sweeping judgments -- that is tantamount to spouting nonsense.
If you can provide a credible source or cite, however, please accept my advance apologies.
Story on Fortune Magazine March 4th 2008.
"Last year the founder of the Stanford Social Innovation Review called Apple one of "America's Least Philanthropic Companies." Jobs had terminated all of Apple's long-standing corporate philanthropy programs within weeks after returning to Apple in 1997, citing the need to cut costs until profitability rebounded. But the programs have never been restored.
[QUOTE=breeze;1439821]Quote: Originally Posted by Abster2core
Buffett is a buffoon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core
Buffett once said he doesn't invest in technology because he doesn't understand it...Apple is a technology company that thinks differently so do it's lifelong loyal customers and serious investors.
Don't understand Apple , Warren how could you possibly understand jobs, the rest of his company and what he means or doesn't mean. Apple investors have been following this circus of idiot anal- ists and stock manipulative self serving reporting and are still quite happy with their positions - they're not demanding that he forgo his privacy. Anyone who doesn't like it can quite simply fuck off.
What the **** are you talking about. I NEVER EVER said that or the second quote attributed to me ANYWHERE
"Last year the founder of the Stanford Social Innovation Review called Apple one of "America's Least Philanthropic Companies." Jobs had terminated all of Apple's long-standing corporate philanthropy programs within weeks after returning to Apple in 1997, citing the need to cut costs until profitability rebounded. But the programs have never been restored.
That is utter nonsense. How do you go from talking about a "person" (see your earlier post on this) to a CEO managing his shareholder's money?
What do you know about corporate philanthropy programs that Buffett (on behalf of Berkshire Hathaway) or Bill Gates (on behalf of Microsoft) have helped to run/increase/decrease/terminate/create? Indeed, what gives the CEO a right to dispense shareholders' money for his/her pet philanthropic projects?
Don't run away from your own claims. Show me a credible source/cite for his personal wealth.
Comments
Had Apple reported to their shareholders what was happening when they didn't have a perfect handle on it themselves, and things turned out differently the shareholders, media, and people on forums like this would have been a thousand times more outraged than the little bits of squabbling I hear here.
Enough was given out as it was clearly known. Arbitrary information and information that Apple itself could not corroborate with cold, hard facts were not given out because, in my mind, that is much more conscientious and serving the shareholders better. I do believe that a person's health should be his own private matter except when it will materially affect the stockholders, however when even the person himself may not be completely informed as to what his condition is and how it will affect his life, then releasing "we think it might be this" information is not serving the stockholders, the company, and Steve himself.
He took a leave of absence for his health. He did that for himself, his family, and for Apple and its shareholders. Isn't that enough for you? Steve is obsessed with Apple and its fortunes, whether monetary or just producing great products. Do you think he really wanted to take this leave of absence which resulted in major surgery? No. But in doing that he helped himself, his family, and damnit, he did right by the shareholders.
People complain so much that Apple revolves around Steve. You think he doesn't know that? So, in keeping things fairly under wraps until all of the i's were dotted and the t's crossed was, in my opinion, a very business-like and fair way of handling it for all concerned.
Greg
To be fair about this, why is Apple different from every other company?
When important leaders of other companies have problems of this magnitude, the public is informed of what is happening. Why shouldn't Apple be held to the same standard? Why should SJ's obsession with privacy affect that?
When movie stars are assaulted by paparattzzi, we say too bad, they knew what they were getting into by becoming famous. Perhaps SJ should get over it too. Like it or not, he's an internationally famous figure. And the board does have that obligation.
And you are his accountant? You have the information readily available about Steve and all of his finances? Are you aware that there are billionaires and millionaires around the world who give to charities anonymously?
I think it is great that Gates and Buffet are contributing to charity whether it be out of the goodness of their hearts or out of wanting to garner publicity or a combination of both.
Perhaps Steve has contributed and not wanted to garner that publicity? Hmmmmmmm?
Mel, I appreciate a lot of what you say in these forums, but sometimes your posts are conjecture not supported by facts, even though you often require others to supply the facts before you will accept what they have to say.
Show me the last 10 years of Steve's tax returns. Even then, he doesn't need to declare his charity contributions unless he wants a tax benefit.
Only Steve knows where he puts his money. You don't.
Greg
My oh my! You are certainly his little soldier aren't you?
When they have the lists of the biggest charitable givers, his name is never on it, and it's been commented on over the years by those who keep track of such things, that he's one of those who simply isn't a big donor.
It is what it is. You don't have to feel personally offended. It doesn't bother me. It's just a fact. I don't care. I only mentioned it to be fair.
As a "person"? What do you mean by that? Don't follow.....
They have both made Billions of dollars and have both given Billions of dollars to Charity.
Steve gives almost nothing. To me, that says something about what kind of person you are.
I don't care for the Oprah Winfrey's show (I don't care for talk shows and gossip shows).
As a person I think she's incredible.
I'm not saying that they lied, per say. /but they didn't tell the full extent of his illness either. SJ's letters didn't either.
I don't think that we have enough information to say one way or the other whether or not they were holding back facts. They may not have known what was wrong with him and were treating him for much less serious stuff until they eventually figured out what was the real problem. Speculation, whether it comes from them, the media, or us doesn't have much value to it - aside from our own perceived values that we attach to it.
A problem that was more serious that expected, yes, but what does that mean?
It doesn't read in any of those statements, or the more off the cuff ones given in response to questions at events or at the quarterly conference call, as to the seriousness of his illness. It was always something like; Steve has been ill, he's recovering. It will take time. we expect to have him back at work at the end of june.
Again, key board members not being doctors, and the doctors themselves not having a conclusive answer at the time may have been the actual case.
I never got from any of that that he might need a liver transplant, or that he did get a liver transplant.
Speculation, which would have caused panic, over a potentially minor issue. And we're not key board members so we don't have any legal right to know unless another legal passage comes up.
In fact, there were articles written that were saying that his illness was more serious than either he, or Apple was admitting to, and those articles were blown away by many people here.
I'm sure we all remember that.
I think it is very safe to say that journalist publish BS all the time. Whether its about torture, war in Iraq, whatever the case may be, they twist it however they see fit. Journalistic integrity is not what it used to be, and there was certainly room to play on the fears of people to write a speculatory (note; not a real word) article that doesn't really say much but drive up more fear and ratings. Clearly, the articles you read played upon your already preconceptions of what's going on. Journalism is in the toilet.
------Unrelated:
Very funny anantksundaram at post 53. You made me lulz.
Doesn't really figure highly in my decision to buy Apple products. Whether the CEO gives a dime to charity is really immaterial to the product.
Steve has always been an arrogant SOB (and also right about most things.) But over the past 8+ years look at what has rolled out of Cupertino under his watch.
Quite frankly, SJ can go on with whatever personality he likes. If anything, it seems to help with his creativity. I'm all for it.
This whole issue of his illness and how that affected the stock is absolutely peanuts in light of what he has achieved under Apple. It actually seems like it'll blow over in due course. Let those that have an issue with it file the appropriate claims. Smart money says Steve was acting lawfully and Apple covered its legal bases on the matter. So far the law says no wrong was done. But aparently Steve's "unique position" (whatever that means) calls for a specialized application of the law (mostly by laypeople.) That sounds rather unwise and faintly dangerous.
As for Warren Buffet, he's entitled like everyone else. He's still kicking around it seems. Not sure, however, whether tomorrow people will have remembered what he said.
Warren Buffet's contribution was the biggest charitable contribution in the history of the world and still is.
I think he will be remembered for this alone long after SJ, you and myself are gone.
Indeed, you did not say that. And, you are right that Apple, by hindsight, dissembled about the gravity of it all.
I think that it was simple business decision on the part of the board -- they probably weighed the personal versus shareholder-related costs and benefits, and came out on the side of reticence in their business judgment. Even though I happen to side with that, I have no idea whether and how this will come back to haunt Apple.
Some day we will know most or all of the facts. Until then, all we can do is speculate (and have heated arguments), unfortunately.....
I'm not even saying that what they did was wrong, or that it was right.
The law is somewhat hazy when determining exactly what the outside world must know. In fact, Analysts must be told information that specifically may NOT be told to the public, just to investment institutions. Is that fair to everyone else? But it's the law.
Ok, you added stuff.
I'm not saying that they lied, per say. /but they didn't tell the full extent of his illness either. SJ's letters didn't either.
You have irrefutable proof that at the time those letters were released, they were knowingly lying or misleaqding the full extent of his illness, per se.
A problem that was more serious that expected, yes, but what does that mean?
It doesn't read in any of those statements, or the more off the cuff ones given in response to questions at events or at the quarterly conference call, as to the seriousness of his illness. It was always something like; Steve has been ill, he's recovering. It will take time. we expect to have him back at work at the end of june.
I never got from any of that that he might need a liver transplant, or that he did get a liver transplant.
Did you?
I wasn't in the position to think it or know it, legally or otherwise. Where you? I didn't know that you were on the board.
IAnalysts must be told information that specifically may NOT be told to the public, just to investment institutions. Is that fair to everyone else? But it's the law.
Not to sidetrack, or start another discussion -- honest!! -- but this one is important to clarify: Under "Regulation FD" analysts and public shareholders must be essentially given the same information, and just about at the same time. (http://www.sec.gov/answers/regfd.htm)
The "wink-wink" days on this front are over.
I don't think that we have enough information to say one way or the other whether or not they were holding back facts. They may not have known what was wrong with him and were treating him for much less serious stuff until they eventually figured out what was the real problem. Speculation, whether it comes from them, the media, or us doesn't have much value to it - aside from our own perceived values that we attach to it.
They certainly must have known that he was on a transplant list. He would have had to tell them that. they would have known he had the transplant.
Again, key board members not being doctors, and the doctors themselves not having a conclusive answer at the time may have been the actual case.
This has nothing to do with them being doctors. Are you a doctor? If someone told you that they needed a liver transplant, would you understand?
Speculation, which would have caused panic, over a potentially minor issue. And we're not key board members so we don't have any legal right to know unless another legal passage comes up.
This wasn't speculation. It was fact. He was seriously ill. He was on a transplant list. He then received a transplant. Where is the speculation?
Panic? I don't know. Apple's stock was depressed pretty badly because the investor community DIDN'T know how serious it was.
Do WE have a right to know? It's hard to say. I think the legal arguments could fall on either side.
I think it is very safe to say that journalist publish BS all the time. Whether its about torture, war in Iraq, whatever the case may be, they twist it however they see fit. Journalistic integrity is not what it used to be, and there was certainly room to play on the fears of people to write a speculatory (note; not a real word) article that doesn't really say much but drive up more fear and ratings. Clearly, the articles you read played upon your already preconceptions of what's going on. Journalism is in the toilet.
Please, let's not get into your personal feelings about journalists. They were apparently right.
Steve gives almost nothing.
How do you know that? If you don't, you should not make such sweeping judgments -- that is tantamount to spouting nonsense.
If you can provide a credible source or cite, however, please accept my advance apologies.
Buffett is a buffoon
.... Anyone who doesn't like it can quite simply fuck off.
You are calling the 2nd Riches person in the world and the world’s largest philanthropist a Buffoon?
Link: http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/10/...fett_C0R3.html
Let's see he is the second Richest person in the world and he gives more money away to save the poor, research on diseases, HIV research among the few of the many funds he and his Wife (now passed away and still has her charitable funds).
If he's a Buffoon then I want to be a buffoon too. But I can see by your intellect and choice of words in your posting that you are much wiser than he is.
You have irrefutable proof that at the time those letters were released, they were knowingly lying or misleaqding the full extent of his illness, per se.
I wasn't in the position to think it or know it, legally or otherwise. Where you? I didn't know that you were on the board.
We certainly know that he was on a transplant list for at least three or four months. We know that he HAD a transplant at least two months ago, likely somewhat earlier.
We don't have to be on the board to know that now.
What's the argument about? These are now known facts. You can't dispute them. The board had to be told these things. If they weren't, then SJ could be in a lot of trouble. I doubt very much that he tried to conceal the info from them. Do you? Don't throw back a question, or give a rhetorical answer, it's just a yes or no.
Not to sidetrack, or start another discussion -- honest!! -- but this one is important to clarify: Under "Regulation FD" analysts and public shareholders must be essentially given the same information, and just about at the same time. (http://www.sec.gov/answers/regfd.htm)
The "wink-wink" days on this front are over.
Not for everything. there are still requirements for closed door meetings.
I'm against it.
http://www.sec.gov/interps/telephone...upplement4.htm
How do you know that? If you don't, you should not make such sweeping judgments -- that is tantamount to spouting nonsense.
If you can provide a credible source or cite, however, please accept my advance apologies.
Story on Fortune Magazine March 4th 2008.
"Last year the founder of the Stanford Social Innovation Review called Apple one of "America's Least Philanthropic Companies." Jobs had terminated all of Apple's long-standing corporate philanthropy programs within weeks after returning to Apple in 1997, citing the need to cut costs until profitability rebounded. But the programs have never been restored.
Link: http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/02/news...une/index4.htm
Edit: Credible Enough?
Originally Posted by Abster2core
Buffett is a buffoon
Buffett once said he doesn't invest in technology because he doesn't understand it...Apple is a technology company that thinks differently so do it's lifelong loyal customers and serious investors.
Don't understand Apple , Warren how could you possibly understand jobs, the rest of his company and what he means or doesn't mean. Apple investors have been following this circus of idiot anal- ists and stock manipulative self serving reporting and are still quite happy with their positions - they're not demanding that he forgo his privacy. Anyone who doesn't like it can quite simply fuck off.
What the **** are you talking about. I NEVER EVER said that or the second quote attributed to me ANYWHERE
I expect a ******* retraction.
EDIT: language
How do you know that? If you don't, you should not make such sweeping judgments -- that is tantamount to spouting nonsense.
If you can provide a credible source or cite, however, please accept my advance apologies.
They do this every year. This is the 2008 list, the numbers are from from 2007:
http://www.slate.com/id/2209476/
Here's the one from 2009:
http://www.slate.com/id/2209500/
Remember that many of these people give year after year.
There's a top 100 list somewhere, but I can't remember what it's called. He's not on that either.
What the **** are you talking about. I NEVER EVER said that ANYWHERE
I understand your frustration, but please watch the language.
[B]
I understand your frustration, but please watch the language.
It was an error on my part quoting breeze. My apology. I didn't post the quote correctly and it's not Abster2core's fault. I'd be mad too.
[B]
I understand your frustration, but please watch the language.
[QUOTE=melgross;1439864]
[B]
I understand your frustration, but please watch the language.
I apologize for the language. However, I wasn't the first to use it. In fact it is still up above and it was written by me.
And I am still waiting for the retractions
Story on Fortune Magazine March 4th 2008.
"Last year the founder of the Stanford Social Innovation Review called Apple one of "America's Least Philanthropic Companies." Jobs had terminated all of Apple's long-standing corporate philanthropy programs within weeks after returning to Apple in 1997, citing the need to cut costs until profitability rebounded. But the programs have never been restored.
Link: http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/02/news...une/index4.htm
Edit: Credible Enough?
That is utter nonsense. How do you go from talking about a "person" (see your earlier post on this) to a CEO managing his shareholder's money?
What do you know about corporate philanthropy programs that Buffett (on behalf of Berkshire Hathaway) or Bill Gates (on behalf of Microsoft) have helped to run/increase/decrease/terminate/create? Indeed, what gives the CEO a right to dispense shareholders' money for his/her pet philanthropic projects?
Don't run away from your own claims. Show me a credible source/cite for his personal wealth.