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.
By definition anonymous donors don't end up on lists. So, he's right, if you aren't his accountant, you have zero clue how much or how little Jobs donates. Stating "he simply isn't a big donor" requires more information than you have.
Likewise, Apple didn't lie about his health and neither you nor Ireland have any proof to assert that they did.
BTW: "You are certainly his little soldier aren't you?" is a personal attack. Something that mods shouldn't be engaging in.
Of course there are always minor exceptions. But not for what your post was referring to earlier. Your link is unbearably long-winded and I did not read through all of it, but the critical piece of Reg FD -- and the one that directly addresses your earlier post -- is this, from the link:
"[Question] 8. During a nonpublic meeting with analysts, an issuer's CEO provides material nonpublic information on a subject she had not planned to cover. Although the CEO had not planned to disclose this information when she entered the meeting, after hearing the direction of the discussion, she decided to provide it, knowing that the information was material and nonpublic. Would this be considered an intentional disclosure that violated Regulation FD because no simultaneous public disclosure was made?
Yes. A disclosure is "intentional" under Regulation FD when the person making it either knows, or is reckless in not knowing, that the information he or she is communicating is both material and nonpublic. In this example, the CEO knew that the information was material and nonpublic, so the disclosure was "intentional" under Regulation FD, even though she did not originally plan to make it."
By definition anonymous donors don't end up on lists. So, he's right, if you aren't his accountant, you have zero clue how much or how little Jobs donates. Stating "he simply isn't a big donor" requires more information than you have.
Likewise, Apple didn't lie about his health and neither you nor Ireland have any proof to assert that they did.
BTW: "You are certainly his little soldier aren't you?" is a personal attack. Something that mods shouldn't be engaging in.
Of course, he could be anonymous, but you know it's not likely.
I specifically said that I wasn't accusing them of lying. But telling a partial truth, while not exactly a lie, isn't the entire truth either.
You can respond in like manner as long as you don't go too far. I assume you read his post? (and after all the things you said to me over the years that I never complained about?) Water under the bridge. Right?
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.
I started my posting defending Buffet when the room was calling for his head and calling him every name under the sun.
That lead into his charitable contributions. Which in turn lead to Steve Jobs "known" contributions.
To be honest I didn't know about the Fortune information until I Googled it and to be honest it turns my stomach he hasn't started the contributions back with 25 Billion of Cash in Apples Account.
So let's end this by saying as far as the World knows Steve Jobs doesn't contribute to any known charity or of any amount that would be noted as worthy. He may on his own but I guess we'll never know.
Of course there are always minor exceptions. But not for what your post was referring to earlier. Your link is unbearably long-winded and I did not read through all of it, but the critical piece of Reg FD -- and the one that directly addresses your earlier post -- is this, from the link:
"[Question] 8. During a nonpublic meeting with analysts, an issuer's CEO provides material nonpublic information on a subject she had not planned to cover. Although the CEO had not planned to disclose this information when she entered the meeting, after hearing the direction of the discussion, she decided to provide it, knowing that the information was material and nonpublic. Would this be considered an intentional disclosure that violated Regulation FD because no simultaneous public disclosure was made?
Yes. A disclosure is "intentional" under Regulation FD when the person making it either knows, or is reckless in not knowing, that the information he or she is communicating is both material and nonpublic. In this example, the CEO knew that the information was material and nonpublic, so the disclosure was "intentional" under Regulation FD, even though she did not originally plan to make it."
You do realize that what is being argued here in this thread is what constitutes important, required disclosure? I'm simply pointing out that not everything must, or can be disclosed. I'm not allowing for the level of materiality.
Let me just make it clear that while I admire people for giving substantial portions of their wealth away, I consider it a personal matter, and don't criticize someone for not doing it. I only mentioned him for the purpose of fairness, and a as a datum point.
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.
Those letters and statements were in January. It's now June. Assume 4 months and you're STILL not back to Jan 5.
Quote:
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.
It's not a yes or no. It's a question of what was known when certain statements were made. Given the data you have today, you still no nothing more conclusive than the board probably knew by March and possibly by late January.
That's still enough time for doctors to be determining if a liver transplant was required in early January with a variety of treatment possibiities still open at that point.
On Jan 5, he was ill but not on his deathbed and probably thinking that requiring a liver transplant to be a low probability outcome.
Jan 15th when he took leave until June he was effectively out of the picture, back to being a private citizen, the stock tanked 7% in one day and Steve Jobs dying was priced into the stock and frankly still is priced in. There's a 20% chance he's dead within 5 years from this.
Apple has shown, at least in the short term, they can still execute will without Steve.
I started my posting defending Buffet when the room was calling for his head and calling him every name under the sun.
That lead into his charitable contributions. Which in turn lead to Steve Jobs "known" contributions.
To be honest I didn't know about the Fortune information until I Googled it and to be honest it turns my stomach he hasn't started the contributions back with 25 Billion of Cash in Apples Account.
So let's end this by saying as far as the World knows Steve Jobs doesn't contribute to any known charity or of any amount that would be noted as worthy. He may on his own but I guess we'll never know.
That is a fair point. Just so you know, I happen to be a HUGE fan of Buffett too. But I would not tear one person down to sing praises of the other.
I was specifically reponding to your reference to the quality of Jobs as a 'person' and your subsequent statement "Steve gives almost nothing. To me, that says something about what kind of person you are." The implication being that someone who doesn't give (or isn't known to) is somehow a bad person sounds to me overly judgmental.
For all we know, he may have very detailed plans for giving, upon his death or at some later stage in his life. (Indeed, I truly hope so). He may not have broadcast that. We simply don't know.
Of course, he could be anonymous, but you know it's not likely.
More likely than other folks given the guy is a privacy freak.
Quote:
You can respond in like manner as long as you don't go too far. I assume you read his post? (and after all the things you said to me over the years that I never complained about?) Water under the bridge. Right?
I'm not a mod. You are.
And yes, I read his post given I reiterated his main point.
To all the geniuses who said Jobs should tell the world he is sick - get off your high horses.
If he did Apple share price would drop by half the same day, yes probably at $50 or maybe less and he did the right thing by keeping quiet about it. And then announce when the 3GS is revealed. For a share price to fall is easy but to push it up again needs heaps of cash which is in very short supply now. WB really sucks for making that comment - just watch what what to BH when he announce he is dying, bet you everyone will be dumping it because there is no one like him in BH.
Sad to say arm chair critics are just like blog writers, they say whatever they want they are not accountable because nothing will come back to haunt them, everything is conveniently forgotten.
To engage a poster over a comment is down right stupid because it's worth the time or the effort.
Do not expect fairness from Buffett towards Steve Jobs, he is a close friend of Bill Gates.
Oh, I don't know about that: From everything that I've seen and read about Buffett (which is a fair amount), he seems like a remarkably straighforward, fair, and honest person to me.
He was simply stating a view based on what someone like himself may have done, in response to a pointed question. I don't think he was questioning Jobs' motives.
Well, if you are a shareholder he does work for you, just as a politician is technically a servant of the people. A ship's captain is responsible for the passengers on that ship, and has no right to say something like "My life first, passenger's lives second" (to paraphrase another post on this thread).
This is one of the responsibilities he takes on as CEO of a company.
I am glad it seems he is healthier, but he is not above the law.
And I am not just agreeing with Buffet, I'm not interested in him.
This is fallacious. Apple is a company that operates without Jobs. Once he CEO is publicly removed from day-to-day operations future personal issues don't matter. The person isn't in charge anymore, the company is running independently. The company ran just fine during Job's absence and had a stock price run-up greater than that of the larger market, essentially proving Jobs at the helm is not a direct necessity for value in the Apple stock price. Everything else thought about the future of "what might have happened" is baseless speculation and holds no legal relevance.
Buffet's comparison is fallacious, Berkshire Hathaway does not operate without Warren Buffet. The ENTIRE company is based solely on the reputation of Buffet making the decisions and has never in it's entire history been any different.
Those letters and statements were in January. It's now June. Assume 4 months and you're STILL not back to Jan 5.
And? You think it's credible that he didn't keep the board informed about what was happening leading up to that? And why no statement afterwards? Once they did know, they could have issued another statement.
I'm not saying they should have, just that they could have.
Quote:
It's not a yes or no. It's a question of what was known when certain statements were made. Given the data you have today, you still no nothing more conclusive than the board probably knew by March and possibly by late January.
Of course it is. The board knew what was going on with him. You don't think they were told how serious it was when he told them of his 6 month leave? Which started about January.
Quote:
That's still enough time for doctors to be determining if a liver transplant was required in early January with a variety of treatment possibiities still open at that point.
They knew by January that there was something seriously wrong. cancer doesn't start up suddenly. And doctors knew that this could happen after his first operation. That's been stated by a doctor on AI, just, I think it was, yesterday.
It still doesn't explain why they couldn't have issued a statement in March, or April, or May, or June after he was mostly better.
Quote:
On Jan 5, he was ill but not on his deathbed and probably thinking that requiring a liver transplant to be a low probability outcome.
I won't argue that for January, though as you say, we're not his doctors, so we don't know if he wasn't told that it was a likely need by then.
Quote:
Jan 15th when he took leave until June he was effectively out of the picture, back to being a private citizen, the stock tanked 7% in one day and Steve Jobs dying was priced into the stock and frankly still is priced in. There's a 20% chance he's dead within 5 years from this.
Apple has shown, at least in the short term, they can still execute will without Steve.
Well, I said that about the stock before. It tanked again after this news came out.
Comments
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.
Apology accepted.
Thank you.
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
I respond to what I see. I edited someone else earlier.
Guys, I'm no prude, but we're getting a LOT of e-mails about language lately.
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.
By definition anonymous donors don't end up on lists. So, he's right, if you aren't his accountant, you have zero clue how much or how little Jobs donates. Stating "he simply isn't a big donor" requires more information than you have.
Likewise, Apple didn't lie about his health and neither you nor Ireland have any proof to assert that they did.
BTW: "You are certainly his little soldier aren't you?" is a personal attack. Something that mods shouldn't be engaging in.
I respond to what I see. I edited someone else earlier.
Guys, I'm no prude, but we're getting a LOT of e-mails about language lately.
Then do a command-f and search for **** on page one where it all started.
Not for everything. there are still requirements for closed door meetings.
I'm against it.
http://www.sec.gov/interps/telephone...upplement4.htm
Of course there are always minor exceptions. But not for what your post was referring to earlier. Your link is unbearably long-winded and I did not read through all of it, but the critical piece of Reg FD -- and the one that directly addresses your earlier post -- is this, from the link:
"[Question] 8. During a nonpublic meeting with analysts, an issuer's CEO provides material nonpublic information on a subject she had not planned to cover. Although the CEO had not planned to disclose this information when she entered the meeting, after hearing the direction of the discussion, she decided to provide it, knowing that the information was material and nonpublic. Would this be considered an intentional disclosure that violated Regulation FD because no simultaneous public disclosure was made?
Yes. A disclosure is "intentional" under Regulation FD when the person making it either knows, or is reckless in not knowing, that the information he or she is communicating is both material and nonpublic. In this example, the CEO knew that the information was material and nonpublic, so the disclosure was "intentional" under Regulation FD, even though she did not originally plan to make it."
By definition anonymous donors don't end up on lists. So, he's right, if you aren't his accountant, you have zero clue how much or how little Jobs donates. Stating "he simply isn't a big donor" requires more information than you have.
Likewise, Apple didn't lie about his health and neither you nor Ireland have any proof to assert that they did.
BTW: "You are certainly his little soldier aren't you?" is a personal attack. Something that mods shouldn't be engaging in.
Of course, he could be anonymous, but you know it's not likely.
I specifically said that I wasn't accusing them of lying. But telling a partial truth, while not exactly a lie, isn't the entire truth either.
You can respond in like manner as long as you don't go too far. I assume you read his post? (and after all the things you said to me over the years that I never complained about?) Water under the bridge. Right?
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.
These are excellent sources. Thanks.
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.
I started my posting defending Buffet when the room was calling for his head and calling him every name under the sun.
That lead into his charitable contributions. Which in turn lead to Steve Jobs "known" contributions.
To be honest I didn't know about the Fortune information until I Googled it and to be honest it turns my stomach he hasn't started the contributions back with 25 Billion of Cash in Apples Account.
So let's end this by saying as far as the World knows Steve Jobs doesn't contribute to any known charity or of any amount that would be noted as worthy. He may on his own but I guess we'll never know.
Then do a command-f and search for **** on page one where it all started.
I didn't enter this from the beginning, and it's a bit late for it now.
Don't get torn over this. no one is being given demerits.
Of course there are always minor exceptions. But not for what your post was referring to earlier. Your link is unbearably long-winded and I did not read through all of it, but the critical piece of Reg FD -- and the one that directly addresses your earlier post -- is this, from the link:
"[Question] 8. During a nonpublic meeting with analysts, an issuer's CEO provides material nonpublic information on a subject she had not planned to cover. Although the CEO had not planned to disclose this information when she entered the meeting, after hearing the direction of the discussion, she decided to provide it, knowing that the information was material and nonpublic. Would this be considered an intentional disclosure that violated Regulation FD because no simultaneous public disclosure was made?
Yes. A disclosure is "intentional" under Regulation FD when the person making it either knows, or is reckless in not knowing, that the information he or she is communicating is both material and nonpublic. In this example, the CEO knew that the information was material and nonpublic, so the disclosure was "intentional" under Regulation FD, even though she did not originally plan to make it."
You do realize that what is being argued here in this thread is what constitutes important, required disclosure? I'm simply pointing out that not everything must, or can be disclosed. I'm not allowing for the level of materiality.
These are excellent sources. Thanks.
Let me just make it clear that while I admire people for giving substantial portions of their wealth away, I consider it a personal matter, and don't criticize someone for not doing it. I only mentioned him for the purpose of fairness, and a as a datum point.
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.
Those letters and statements were in January. It's now June. Assume 4 months and you're STILL not back to Jan 5.
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.
It's not a yes or no. It's a question of what was known when certain statements were made. Given the data you have today, you still no nothing more conclusive than the board probably knew by March and possibly by late January.
That's still enough time for doctors to be determining if a liver transplant was required in early January with a variety of treatment possibiities still open at that point.
On Jan 5, he was ill but not on his deathbed and probably thinking that requiring a liver transplant to be a low probability outcome.
Jan 15th when he took leave until June he was effectively out of the picture, back to being a private citizen, the stock tanked 7% in one day and Steve Jobs dying was priced into the stock and frankly still is priced in. There's a 20% chance he's dead within 5 years from this.
Apple has shown, at least in the short term, they can still execute will without Steve.
I started my posting defending Buffet when the room was calling for his head and calling him every name under the sun.
That lead into his charitable contributions. Which in turn lead to Steve Jobs "known" contributions.
To be honest I didn't know about the Fortune information until I Googled it and to be honest it turns my stomach he hasn't started the contributions back with 25 Billion of Cash in Apples Account.
So let's end this by saying as far as the World knows Steve Jobs doesn't contribute to any known charity or of any amount that would be noted as worthy. He may on his own but I guess we'll never know.
That is a fair point. Just so you know, I happen to be a HUGE fan of Buffett too. But I would not tear one person down to sing praises of the other.
I was specifically reponding to your reference to the quality of Jobs as a 'person' and your subsequent statement "Steve gives almost nothing. To me, that says something about what kind of person you are." The implication being that someone who doesn't give (or isn't known to) is somehow a bad person sounds to me overly judgmental.
For all we know, he may have very detailed plans for giving, upon his death or at some later stage in his life. (Indeed, I truly hope so). He may not have broadcast that. We simply don't know.
Of course, he could be anonymous, but you know it's not likely.
More likely than other folks given the guy is a privacy freak.
You can respond in like manner as long as you don't go too far. I assume you read his post? (and after all the things you said to me over the years that I never complained about?) Water under the bridge. Right?
I'm not a mod. You are.
And yes, I read his post given I reiterated his main point.
If he did Apple share price would drop by half the same day, yes probably at $50 or maybe less and he did the right thing by keeping quiet about it. And then announce when the 3GS is revealed. For a share price to fall is easy but to push it up again needs heaps of cash which is in very short supply now. WB really sucks for making that comment - just watch what what to BH when he announce he is dying, bet you everyone will be dumping it because there is no one like him in BH.
Sad to say arm chair critics are just like blog writers, they say whatever they want they are not accountable because nothing will come back to haunt them, everything is conveniently forgotten.
To engage a poster over a comment is down right stupid because it's worth the time or the effort.
Do not expect fairness from Buffett towards Steve Jobs, he is a close friend of Bill Gates.
Oh, I don't know about that: From everything that I've seen and read about Buffett (which is a fair amount), he seems like a remarkably straighforward, fair, and honest person to me.
He was simply stating a view based on what someone like himself may have done, in response to a pointed question. I don't think he was questioning Jobs' motives.
I wish corporate America had more CEOs like WB.
Well, if you are a shareholder he does work for you, just as a politician is technically a servant of the people. A ship's captain is responsible for the passengers on that ship, and has no right to say something like "My life first, passenger's lives second" (to paraphrase another post on this thread).
This is one of the responsibilities he takes on as CEO of a company.
I am glad it seems he is healthier, but he is not above the law.
And I am not just agreeing with Buffet, I'm not interested in him.
This is fallacious. Apple is a company that operates without Jobs. Once he CEO is publicly removed from day-to-day operations future personal issues don't matter. The person isn't in charge anymore, the company is running independently. The company ran just fine during Job's absence and had a stock price run-up greater than that of the larger market, essentially proving Jobs at the helm is not a direct necessity for value in the Apple stock price. Everything else thought about the future of "what might have happened" is baseless speculation and holds no legal relevance.
Buffet's comparison is fallacious, Berkshire Hathaway does not operate without Warren Buffet. The ENTIRE company is based solely on the reputation of Buffet making the decisions and has never in it's entire history been any different.
Those letters and statements were in January. It's now June. Assume 4 months and you're STILL not back to Jan 5.
And? You think it's credible that he didn't keep the board informed about what was happening leading up to that? And why no statement afterwards? Once they did know, they could have issued another statement.
I'm not saying they should have, just that they could have.
It's not a yes or no. It's a question of what was known when certain statements were made. Given the data you have today, you still no nothing more conclusive than the board probably knew by March and possibly by late January.
Of course it is. The board knew what was going on with him. You don't think they were told how serious it was when he told them of his 6 month leave? Which started about January.
That's still enough time for doctors to be determining if a liver transplant was required in early January with a variety of treatment possibiities still open at that point.
They knew by January that there was something seriously wrong. cancer doesn't start up suddenly. And doctors knew that this could happen after his first operation. That's been stated by a doctor on AI, just, I think it was, yesterday.
It still doesn't explain why they couldn't have issued a statement in March, or April, or May, or June after he was mostly better.
On Jan 5, he was ill but not on his deathbed and probably thinking that requiring a liver transplant to be a low probability outcome.
I won't argue that for January, though as you say, we're not his doctors, so we don't know if he wasn't told that it was a likely need by then.
Jan 15th when he took leave until June he was effectively out of the picture, back to being a private citizen, the stock tanked 7% in one day and Steve Jobs dying was priced into the stock and frankly still is priced in. There's a 20% chance he's dead within 5 years from this.
Apple has shown, at least in the short term, they can still execute will without Steve.
Well, I said that about the stock before. It tanked again after this news came out.