The SEC? The same SEC that never caught on to Maddoff even though they had been warned on numerous occassions that he was committing fraud? I think they need to focus on the big stuff and not worry about this piddly stuff. It's not as if Apple is doing poorly b/c of Jobs health.
Just who do these people think they are. There are certain areas in the lives of people which are personal and private. To maintain that it is because it affects the life of others is just stupid.
So does a person's every day life. If it was to be suggested that since they got a flu a few years ago. Therefore to prevent loss to others they should live life in a Bubble so they are safe. Get real people. If you cannot tolerate the chances life sometimes deals get out of the Game. There are on sure deals.
There are certain areas in the lives of people which are personal and private.
Right. And there are certain areas of certain people's (CEO) lives that are not quite so personal and private.
How much a corporation discloses is open to debate but if they lie about what they do know, (such as publicly stating he has a hormonal imbalance when they know he is really messed up) then that is a big issue.
This seems to be what the SEC is looking into.
Quote:
Security and Exchange Commission is still reviewing disclosures made by Apple earlier this year to determine whether the company knowingly withheld material information from shareholders about the health of its chief executive.
Why not? They may as well test how flimsy their argument is when juxtaposed with the right to privacy and HIPAA legislation.
Just because someone is a CEO doesn't give people Carte Blanche to know everything about their personal life in particular their health record.
I think people are being windbags here. If you think you have a case ...lawyer up and bring a fire retardant suit.
yes and no.
when the someone is a CEO like Jobs who has a rep for micromanaging etc, the feeling with the media and the stockholders is that if anything happens to that person, said company would be doomed. for a while this was probably true with Apple but I think it is pretty evident that despite a lack of public statement naming an heir apparent, Apple and Jobs had a plan going after the whole cancer thing started.
but because of said belief, the media and the stockholders demand information. technically information is only required to be stated if the condition affects the person's ability to do his/her job. which I think it is safe to say, Jobs condition did not. until very recently
HOWEVER. if a company chooses to make a statement it must be a truthful one. this is the trouble that Apple is facing. folks are saying that they told half truths and lies about Jobs condition. and the 9 days is proof of this. when in fact, given Jobs particular condition and how it affects his health, sometimes very suddenly. it is possible that things just changed that fast. Or perhaps he went to see the doctor a few days before and was told that was just a hormone imbalance but some blood was taken and a week later (sometime in the middle of the 9 days) the results came back and showed it wasn't simple after all. thus the med leave. and no hanky panky.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GodBless
I buy, use and benefit from Apple products (and am using one to type this) so although I have an inclination to favor Apple, I most certainly cannot endorse Apple's choice to deliberately deceive the media about their most important member's health conditions.
my, my aren't you quick to assume that it was deliberate. you have them tried and convicted. perhaps you would like to choose the punishment as well. How about this. Steve Jobs is forced to quit, is forced to give all his riches away to charity and Apple makes a public statement of apology for presuming to keep clones off the shelves and makes Psystar an official Macintosh builder.
The SEC must be building a hell of a case. Apparently they have been at it for six months..."said a person familiar with the matter."
Maybe the SEC should take at look at why Bloomberg feel the need to print, essentially, the same story just a few days before Apple announce their results?
HOWEVER. if a company chooses to make a statement it must be a truthful one. this is the trouble that Apple is facing. folks are saying that they told half truths and lies about Jobs condition. and the 9 days is proof of this. when in fact, given Jobs particular condition and how it affects his health, sometimes very suddenly. it is possible that things just changed that fast. Or perhaps he went to see the doctor a few days before and was told that was just a hormone imbalance but some blood was taken and a week later (sometime in the middle of the 9 days) the results came back and showed it wasn't simple after all. thus the med leave. and no hanky panky.
I disagree because Apple cannot force Steve Jobs to reveal his complete medical condition and 2) Steve Jobs may not know the seriousness of his illness . Let us be frank here , when we saw the picture of Steve Jobs ,who looked like a skeleton six months ago ,a lot of people especially tech writers , pundits and media heads began chiming in his diagnosis, prognosis and eventual death , it affected Apple's stock like crazy.Heck, if Steve Jobs was forced to reveal his diagnosis, I would hazard a bet that Apple's stock value would drop more than three times it's value and what's worse , analysts would continuously spread doom and gloom about Apple that investors would not care whether Apple have an excellent product line coming up or how Tim Cook is an excellent and competent replacement of Steve Jobs . All they have in their mind is Apple is doomed with out Steve .
My best guess is this , Steve might have known how serious his medical condition was , but he did not yet know the specifics of his prognosis and treatment . At the same time , he is torn between revealing too much of his medical condition or none at all because he was worried that if he told the board and the media that he was seriously ill and might need a transplant or whatever treatment options that was offered to him , Apple might be financially hurt both in the short and long term and might not be able to recover from the financial hit that hysterical as well as vengeful analysts and fearful investors might bring to the company . That was the reason why he gave a very vague answer to his diagnosis , he was protecting his privacy and at the same time protecting Apple .
The SEC must be building a hell of a case. Apparently they have been at it for six months..."said a person familiar with the matter."
Maybe the SEC should take at look at why Bloomberg feel the need to print, essentially, the same story just a few days before Apple announce their results?
None of the previous stories I have read or have which have been posted here mentioned an actual ongoing SEC investigation. They discussed the potential issues only. This is the first I've heard that the SEC is in fact looking into this. So this is news (to me), and not a rehash. And consequently all of the previous discussions here have been mainly about whether the SEC rules might cover disclosures about the health of a CEO. Many argued vehemently that the rules could not possibly cover this. Turns out the SEC believes it can. That was my only point.
Apple Shareholders would be better served if the SEC completed their work on controlling Short Selling rather than worrying about Jobs' health 6 months ago. Apple's stock is costantly manipulated and the Hedgefunds have large short positions. The SEC should spend their time working on a good up-tick rule and better enforcement on naked short selling. Steve Jobs is back now and trying to attach blame on a health issue is pointkess.
At the time of the transplant, he was reportedly the sickest person on the waiting list.
Why tell us, it was OBVIOUS from the last updates Apple gave us he was this severely bad (no we don't need to know the details - just CLEARLY that the acuteness of condition and prognosis essentially finishes the role at Apple he was previously managing instead of them continuing to infer everythings back to how it was before his medical leave of absence
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb
This whole thing is B.S. as far as I'm concerned. Once it was announced that Steve Jobs had cancer, we knew all anyone needed to know because anyone who has had any type of cancer is always subject to relapse and the type of cancer Steve had is particularly virulent. Everything announced (or not announced) since then is trivial and incidental because any investor who felt an absence of Steve Jobs was a risk to their investment should have already factored that in once the cancer was announced. The specifics don't matter once the risk was defined.
Unfortunately you assume all the humans involved were knowledgable and rational - THEY WEREN'T since a large majority were KOOL AID drinkers - the last People on earth who would accept their immortal god - Jobs - cancer would RETURN, that his health and prognosis would be so severe that he would need such a life effecting, risky transplant procedure + outcome)
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb
Furthermore, most CEOs are type A personalities and are therefore subject to stress releated illnesses such as heart attacks and strokes. I'm amazed that Ballmer hasn't had a heart attack yet - he's both overweight and flies into rages.
In addition, since most CEOs travel extensively, they are also at risk for travel accidents.
And even if Steve was100% healthy, he could pick up and quit at anytime, just as other CEOs have.
Yes but all those risks U state are considered + accepted when buying stock - NOTHING can be done to warn about these events beforehand unlike with a progressive long term TERMINAL illness eg the cancer victim's ability to perform their role/job/duties they do usually do regularly - stock holders can be warned LONG in advance.
My best guess is this , Steve might have known how serious his medical condition was , but he did not yet know the specifics of his prognosis and treatment . At the same time , he is torn between revealing too much of his medical condition or none at all because he was worried that if he told the board and the media that he was seriously ill and might need a transplant or whatever treatment options that was offered to him , Apple might be financially hurt both in the short and long term and might not be able to recover from the financial hit that hysterical as well as vengeful analysts and fearful investors might bring to the company . That was the reason why he gave a very vague answer to his diagnosis , he was protecting his privacy and at the same time protecting Apple .
Oh so of course its perfectly moral for Jobs + Apple to break rules and regulations everyone else has to abide by + deceive and manipulate stockholders and customers AS LONG as it saves Jobs + Apples skin. No problems that by doing so they cause more OVERALL suffering and/or loss of money than the demise of Jobs and his Apple EVER would in the first place....Same old same old deceit from Jobs + Apple as throughout their history to save their SELFISH,HEARTLESS + GREEDY necks
Quote:
Originally Posted by dshel
Apple Shareholders would be better served if the SEC completed their work on controlling Short Selling rather than worrying about Jobs' health 6 months ago. Apple's stock is costantly manipulated and the Hedgefunds have large short positions. The SEC should spend their time working on a good up-tick rule and better enforcement on naked short selling.
Not really since thats all subjective clap trap from your highly fcuked up Jobs/Apple cultist mind.
Quote:
Steve Jobs is back now and trying to attach blame on a health issue is pointkess.
Only pointless if it has potential to shake the beliefs of Kool aid drinkers.
Hes hardly "back" in the capacity he left EVEN in the winter is HE? Or do you know of superhumans that can deal with advanced malignant cancer AND THEN highly COMPLEX,TRAUMATIC major central organ transplant and not be a practically inert shadow of their former selves so soon after the events? Don't think apple will be allowing any new pics of Jobs to be taken in the near future - a 50wk old exumed corpse would probably look like it had more life in it and chance of survival that Jobs current appearance/movement
Hey, have some investors been screwing around illegally with the shares of high-flying Apple, Inc., a superstar of the investment scene?
Apparently, the Securities & Exchange Commission is suspicious this may be the case and has kicked off an investigation into the trading in Apple's securities both here and abroad. This is revealed in a series of documents it recently fired off to the brokerage community.
I have obtained copies of those internal SEC documents from a regulatory contact. Interestingly, the nature of its interest shows that the commission is not investigating, as is usually the case, the trading that occurred in a specific time period, but rather, in this instance, in four specific time periods. This suggests the SEC could be looking into more than one potential violation in the trading in Apple shares.
What the agency is seeking in its queries to the brokerage community are the names of its clients who specifically bought and sold Apple's securities in those four time periods and whether anyone did so with a knowledge of non-public, inside information.
What's it all about? The SEC, as usual, declined comment, and Apple refused to respond to calls seeking comment. Wall Street sources, however, speculated that the agency's investigation likely centered on possible trading that may have been based on the illegal use of inside information involving three particular Apple-related developments. In effect, they raise specific questions:
--Whether anyone got an illegal lead on precisely how sales were faring on key items in Apple's highly successful Ipod product line.
--Whether anyone was given a precise insight into the health of the company's co-founder and CEO, Steve Jobs, a cancer survivor who took a six-month leave of absence last January and then received a liver transplant. Subsequent questions about the viability of his health then led to a great deal of volatility in Apple's shares.
--Whether anyone had exact knowledge of when specific releases would be made by the company with regard to Jobs' health or Ipod sales and pretty much of an awareness, as well, as to what those announcements would say.
Judging from "some uncanny trading" that he saw taking place in Apple, one hedge fund trader told me "it almost looked at times like the buyers and sellers were working at the company."
Comments
So does a person's every day life. If it was to be suggested that since they got a flu a few years ago. Therefore to prevent loss to others they should live life in a Bubble so they are safe. Get real people. If you cannot tolerate the chances life sometimes deals get out of the Game. There are on sure deals.
There are certain areas in the lives of people which are personal and private.
Right. And there are certain areas of certain people's (CEO) lives that are not quite so personal and private.
How much a corporation discloses is open to debate but if they lie about what they do know, (such as publicly stating he has a hormonal imbalance when they know he is really messed up) then that is a big issue.
This seems to be what the SEC is looking into.
Security and Exchange Commission is still reviewing disclosures made by Apple earlier this year to determine whether the company knowingly withheld material information from shareholders about the health of its chief executive.
Why not? They may as well test how flimsy their argument is when juxtaposed with the right to privacy and HIPAA legislation.
Just because someone is a CEO doesn't give people Carte Blanche to know everything about their personal life in particular their health record.
I think people are being windbags here. If you think you have a case ...lawyer up and bring a fire retardant suit.
yes and no.
when the someone is a CEO like Jobs who has a rep for micromanaging etc, the feeling with the media and the stockholders is that if anything happens to that person, said company would be doomed. for a while this was probably true with Apple but I think it is pretty evident that despite a lack of public statement naming an heir apparent, Apple and Jobs had a plan going after the whole cancer thing started.
but because of said belief, the media and the stockholders demand information. technically information is only required to be stated if the condition affects the person's ability to do his/her job. which I think it is safe to say, Jobs condition did not. until very recently
HOWEVER. if a company chooses to make a statement it must be a truthful one. this is the trouble that Apple is facing. folks are saying that they told half truths and lies about Jobs condition. and the 9 days is proof of this. when in fact, given Jobs particular condition and how it affects his health, sometimes very suddenly. it is possible that things just changed that fast. Or perhaps he went to see the doctor a few days before and was told that was just a hormone imbalance but some blood was taken and a week later (sometime in the middle of the 9 days) the results came back and showed it wasn't simple after all. thus the med leave. and no hanky panky.
I buy, use and benefit from Apple products (and am using one to type this) so although I have an inclination to favor Apple, I most certainly cannot endorse Apple's choice to deliberately deceive the media about their most important member's health conditions.
my, my aren't you quick to assume that it was deliberate. you have them tried and convicted. perhaps you would like to choose the punishment as well. How about this. Steve Jobs is forced to quit, is forced to give all his riches away to charity and Apple makes a public statement of apology for presuming to keep clones off the shelves and makes Psystar an official Macintosh builder.
Now it turns out the SEC is looking into the possibility that they did violate rules, rules that some here still swear don't even exist.
How do you mean "Now it turns out"? Today's Bloomberg story appears to just be a rehash of January's Bloomberg story.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=a.RXubj_uVPM
The SEC must be building a hell of a case. Apparently they have been at it for six months..."said a person familiar with the matter."
Maybe the SEC should take at look at why Bloomberg feel the need to print, essentially, the same story just a few days before Apple announce their results?
HOWEVER. if a company chooses to make a statement it must be a truthful one. this is the trouble that Apple is facing. folks are saying that they told half truths and lies about Jobs condition. and the 9 days is proof of this. when in fact, given Jobs particular condition and how it affects his health, sometimes very suddenly. it is possible that things just changed that fast. Or perhaps he went to see the doctor a few days before and was told that was just a hormone imbalance but some blood was taken and a week later (sometime in the middle of the 9 days) the results came back and showed it wasn't simple after all. thus the med leave. and no hanky panky.
I disagree because Apple cannot force Steve Jobs to reveal his complete medical condition and 2) Steve Jobs may not know the seriousness of his illness . Let us be frank here , when we saw the picture of Steve Jobs ,who looked like a skeleton six months ago ,a lot of people especially tech writers , pundits and media heads began chiming in his diagnosis, prognosis and eventual death , it affected Apple's stock like crazy.Heck, if Steve Jobs was forced to reveal his diagnosis, I would hazard a bet that Apple's stock value would drop more than three times it's value and what's worse , analysts would continuously spread doom and gloom about Apple that investors would not care whether Apple have an excellent product line coming up or how Tim Cook is an excellent and competent replacement of Steve Jobs . All they have in their mind is Apple is doomed with out Steve .
My best guess is this , Steve might have known how serious his medical condition was , but he did not yet know the specifics of his prognosis and treatment . At the same time , he is torn between revealing too much of his medical condition or none at all because he was worried that if he told the board and the media that he was seriously ill and might need a transplant or whatever treatment options that was offered to him , Apple might be financially hurt both in the short and long term and might not be able to recover from the financial hit that hysterical as well as vengeful analysts and fearful investors might bring to the company . That was the reason why he gave a very vague answer to his diagnosis , he was protecting his privacy and at the same time protecting Apple .
Not taking up for 'ol Barry, but it is a redirect.
Contact this guy - maybe he can tell you more:
This Domain Is For Sale
Tharwat Abdul-Malik ([email protected])
+1.7704066885
Fax: +1.7704066885
12850 Highway 9 N
Suite 600-250
Alpharetta, GA 30004
US
(he may be Obamas long lost cousin)
LOL, long lost cousin.
How do you mean "Now it turns out"? Today's Bloomberg story appears to just be a rehash of January's Bloomberg story.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=a.RXubj_uVPM
The SEC must be building a hell of a case. Apparently they have been at it for six months..."said a person familiar with the matter."
Maybe the SEC should take at look at why Bloomberg feel the need to print, essentially, the same story just a few days before Apple announce their results?
None of the previous stories I have read or have which have been posted here mentioned an actual ongoing SEC investigation. They discussed the potential issues only. This is the first I've heard that the SEC is in fact looking into this. So this is news (to me), and not a rehash. And consequently all of the previous discussions here have been mainly about whether the SEC rules might cover disclosures about the health of a CEO. Many argued vehemently that the rules could not possibly cover this. Turns out the SEC believes it can. That was my only point.
At the time of the transplant, he was reportedly the sickest person on the waiting list.
Why tell us, it was OBVIOUS from the last updates Apple gave us he was this severely bad
This whole thing is B.S. as far as I'm concerned. Once it was announced that Steve Jobs had cancer, we knew all anyone needed to know because anyone who has had any type of cancer is always subject to relapse and the type of cancer Steve had is particularly virulent. Everything announced (or not announced) since then is trivial and incidental because any investor who felt an absence of Steve Jobs was a risk to their investment should have already factored that in once the cancer was announced. The specifics don't matter once the risk was defined.
Unfortunately you assume all the humans involved were knowledgable and rational - THEY WEREN'T since a large majority were KOOL AID drinkers - the last People on earth who would accept their immortal god - Jobs - cancer would RETURN, that his health and prognosis would be so severe that he would need such a life effecting, risky transplant procedure + outcome)
Furthermore, most CEOs are type A personalities and are therefore subject to stress releated illnesses such as heart attacks and strokes. I'm amazed that Ballmer hasn't had a heart attack yet - he's both overweight and flies into rages.
In addition, since most CEOs travel extensively, they are also at risk for travel accidents.
And even if Steve was100% healthy, he could pick up and quit at anytime, just as other CEOs have.
Yes but all those risks U state are considered + accepted when buying stock - NOTHING can be done to warn about these events beforehand unlike with a progressive long term TERMINAL illness eg the cancer victim's ability to perform their role/job/duties they do usually do regularly - stock holders can be warned LONG in advance.
My best guess is this , Steve might have known how serious his medical condition was , but he did not yet know the specifics of his prognosis and treatment . At the same time , he is torn between revealing too much of his medical condition or none at all because he was worried that if he told the board and the media that he was seriously ill and might need a transplant or whatever treatment options that was offered to him , Apple might be financially hurt both in the short and long term and might not be able to recover from the financial hit that hysterical as well as vengeful analysts and fearful investors might bring to the company . That was the reason why he gave a very vague answer to his diagnosis , he was protecting his privacy and at the same time protecting Apple .
Oh so of course its perfectly moral for Jobs + Apple to break rules and regulations everyone else has to abide by + deceive and manipulate stockholders and customers AS LONG as it saves Jobs + Apples skin. No problems that by doing so they cause more OVERALL suffering and/or loss of money than the demise of Jobs and his Apple EVER would in the first place....Same old same old deceit from Jobs + Apple as throughout their history to save their SELFISH,HEARTLESS + GREEDY necks
Apple Shareholders would be better served if the SEC completed their work on controlling Short Selling rather than worrying about Jobs' health 6 months ago. Apple's stock is costantly manipulated and the Hedgefunds have large short positions. The SEC should spend their time working on a good up-tick rule and better enforcement on naked short selling.
Not really since thats all subjective clap trap from your highly fcuked up Jobs/Apple cultist mind.
Steve Jobs is back now and trying to attach blame on a health issue is pointkess.
Only pointless if it has potential to shake the beliefs of Kool aid drinkers.
Hes hardly "back" in the capacity he left EVEN in the winter is HE? Or do you know of superhumans that can deal with advanced malignant cancer AND THEN highly COMPLEX,TRAUMATIC major central organ transplant and not be a practically inert shadow of their former selves so soon after the events? Don't think apple will be allowing any new pics of Jobs to be taken in the near future - a 50wk old exumed corpse would probably look like it had more life in it and chance of survival that Jobs current appearance/movement
Hey, have some investors been screwing around illegally with the shares of high-flying Apple, Inc., a superstar of the investment scene?
Apparently, the Securities & Exchange Commission is suspicious this may be the case and has kicked off an investigation into the trading in Apple's securities both here and abroad. This is revealed in a series of documents it recently fired off to the brokerage community.
I have obtained copies of those internal SEC documents from a regulatory contact. Interestingly, the nature of its interest shows that the commission is not investigating, as is usually the case, the trading that occurred in a specific time period, but rather, in this instance, in four specific time periods. This suggests the SEC could be looking into more than one potential violation in the trading in Apple shares.
What the agency is seeking in its queries to the brokerage community are the names of its clients who specifically bought and sold Apple's securities in those four time periods and whether anyone did so with a knowledge of non-public, inside information.
What's it all about? The SEC, as usual, declined comment, and Apple refused to respond to calls seeking comment. Wall Street sources, however, speculated that the agency's investigation likely centered on possible trading that may have been based on the illegal use of inside information involving three particular Apple-related developments. In effect, they raise specific questions:
--Whether anyone got an illegal lead on precisely how sales were faring on key items in Apple's highly successful Ipod product line.
--Whether anyone was given a precise insight into the health of the company's co-founder and CEO, Steve Jobs, a cancer survivor who took a six-month leave of absence last January and then received a liver transplant. Subsequent questions about the viability of his health then led to a great deal of volatility in Apple's shares.
--Whether anyone had exact knowledge of when specific releases would be made by the company with regard to Jobs' health or Ipod sales and pretty much of an awareness, as well, as to what those announcements would say.
Judging from "some uncanny trading" that he saw taking place in Apple, one hedge fund trader told me "it almost looked at times like the buyers and sellers were working at the company."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-do..._b_272159.html