Comments on: SEC review of Apple disclosure now more complex?

The federal inquiry into whether Apple made misleading statements over CEO Steve Jobs' health is ongoing, according to a Bloomberg report.

[The_happy_switcher]

Much ado about nothing.

-William Shakespeare

[shycelticwitch]

agreed!

[hockeymass]

It's not "much ado about nothing". Publicly traded companies have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to disclose information that could have a material effect on their stake in the company. Jobs dies, AAPL stock tanks, it's a fact.

[Vegaman_Dan]

I'm not sure I'd call a liver transplant or pancreatic cancer 'nothing'... I would think Steve Jobs thinks strongly enough about his health to have taken action.

You can continue to hide your head in the sand if you want, but the rest of the world... and the SEC wants answers.

[kharris]

At the end of the day, Steve Jobs is a person with rights. Stockholders are not the be-all end-all of the world. They don't get to know everything about someone just because he is the CEO of a company. You buy stock in a company not in a person. If you think otherwise, they YOU have made a mistake.

[hockeymass]

kharris, the SEC clearly disagrees with you.

[Renegade Knight]

@kharris

At the end of the day, companies are run by people. Those people have an impact. Becasue they have an impact investors actually need to kinow when they won't be "doing their job". An investor may not need to know about the Janiter, but they do need to know about Executive Managment. As the company owners it's mateiral.

It's not about knowing everthing. IT's about knowing if a person can do the job. I don't care that he had a liver transplant. I still don't care. I do care that he was gone for 6 months and potentially longer, and had a certain potential of not coming back.

Oh and while you buy stock in a company, you would be a moron if you didn't pay attention to who's running the show. They are the ones who make the decisions that either make a company do well or drive it into the ground.

[ralfthedog]

HIPA law trumps the SEC. The only questions I have are, "Have the people at the hospital who released information about Job's health been fired?" and "Is the FBI investigating the HIPA violation at the hospital?"

[dpeters11]

ralfthedog: It's not a HIPAA violation if Jobs consented to the release of the information. All reports I saw when it was announced said that it was with his consent. So there would be no need to discipline or fire anyone.

[Vegaman_Dan]

"The SEC has not accused Apple of lying or misleading the public, but it is trying to determine just how much the company or its board members knew, and when. "

That line alone casts enough doubt into the integrity and professionalism of the company to cause investors to take heed and carefully think about what they are investing in.

This could be quite damaging for Apple's reputation and their financial situation when it comes to the SEC. Don't tick off the SEC. They don't like that.

[shycelticwitch]

As an APPL shareholder, I am not worried. One person does not a company make, and smart shareholders know this. Apple is a team of people who create these wonderful technological advances. It is not done by a single CEO that the rest of the world likens to a god. If we were dumb enough to believe that then we wouldn't have been smart enough to make the investment, and mine has doubled twice since I bought it. It saved my butt from total wipeout last year. Sure there are a few "koolaid" drinkers out there, but I bet it would be safe to guess that few of them have invested in the company. Those of us (probably 95%) who did not by Macs just to be "cool" are laughing all the way to the bank.

Apple has weathered far worse than this inquiry so I am not going to lose any sleep over it.

[Renegade Knight]

@shycelticwitch

Just don't forget to sell your stock the week before Steve Jobs leaves Apple lest you learn how much it does mean in this case.

[shycelticwitch]

Point noted, and dismissed as irrelevant.

[Vegaman_Dan]

@Shycelticwitch:

If Steve Jobs is irrelevant to the company he works for, then why does the company employ him as their leader?

Apple seems to think having him as the CEO is fairly important- it would be a wise investor to know this as well. A responsible investor would want to know all the facts instead of blindly tossing money in a pile hoping it will generate more without knowledge of how the process works.

[Perry_Clease]

I have to ask this again. What are the legal requirements in this situation? Yes the SEC is investigating, but is there a regulation that specifies what medical conditions of a board member or CEO must be revealed?

[Renegade Knight]

Material Facts need to be disclosed to shareholders. It's not the medical condition but the resulting 6 month absence and risk that he wasn't coming back.

[a3th3r]

The SEC does not state that a company must disclose an executives health condition. The issue that is being investigated here is whether or not Apple intentionally released false or misleading information to the public. If Apple (Jobs) had said nothing back in January there would not be an investigation now.

[myles taylor]

People need to let this go. Steve Jobs took a leave of absence for his health and said he would return in June. He took a leave of absence and returned in June. What happened while he was gone shouldn't matter. Why does it matter if he had the flu or a liver transplant, as long as he's back and fine. He didn't lie at all. He didn't disclose everything but I still fail to see why it would have made any difference. He was gone and now he is back. He said he was leaving and would be back. Grow up people.

[hockeymass]

If he had died, then he wouldn't have been back. The health of a CEO is of material importance to the success of a company, and as public figures, their constituencies (the shareholders) have a right to know. I'm not sure why this is proving to be a difficult concept for people to grasp.

[shycelticwitch]

That doesn't answer the question Perry_Clease asked... what specific FEC regulation says they have a right to know?

[Renegade Knight]

@shycelticwitch

That would be the part where they need to disclose material facts. You know those things that Enron didn't disclose and thereby cost their shareholders a lot of money?

As a smart investor yourself you should know what a material fact is. Even if it's with 20/20 hindsight since you wern't told up front.

Apple may survive the lost of Job's. However His importants to Apple and perhaps specificly to the Share value can't be understated. That's where the material fact comes on. Warren Buffet "gets it" Apple and perhaps Jobs don't.

[ralfthedog]

The Health Information Privacy Act says that Jobs can't be compelled to give any information about his health. It can't be shared without his consent. It can't be sold. It can't be published unless he gives permission. The information is his property. No one else has claim to it.

If the SEC were to try to compel Jobs or Apple to release some or all of that information or punish them for not having done it, the SEC could find themselves in quite a bit of trouble.

[monkeyfun14]

@ralfthedog

Then Apple shouldn't be giving any info at all.

Give either truthful information or none at all.

Lying to shareholders in any way is a crime.

[The_happy_switcher]

@Vega: Are you an Apple shareholder? If not, why do you even care? I am and I don't care because as some previous posters have stated one man does not make a company.

[ralfthedog]

"Well if your a Apple user you should be used to this. lmao..."

Monkeyfun, I don't think you know what that means. LMAO stands for Laughing My Anatomical reference Off. It is to be used when someone says something funny.

[ralfthedog]

I commented on the wrong comment.

Monkeyfun, that is something worth laughing your anatomy off. Humor, I know it's hard.

[Seaspray0]

I don't own any stock in any tech company. So what if I don't? Atleast I have no pretentious reason to be biased towards any of them because of that.

[shycelticwitch]

@Seaspray... I would be careful about portraying yourself as "non-biased". Don't forget people can click on your profile and read the REST of your comments from other posts. It's o.k. that you like Windows better. So does 90% of the world. I just happen to be one of the 10% who does not. And I am not afraid to admit it.

: )

[Seaspray0]

And I should listen to someone who not only owns the stock but is in the #1 spot when googling this phrase?

"Windows is.... A 32-bit extension to a 16-bit graphical interface, sitting on an 8-bit operating system, originally written for a 4-bit processor by a 2-bit company without ONE BIT of common sense."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You are anything but unbiased.

[setgo]

Yes Vegman. The government knows what's best for us. That's why this country is in such a good place right now. Yah government!

[monkeyfun14]

"The government knows what's best for us."

Well if your a Apple user you should be used to this. lmao...

[m.meister]

Sigh -- apparently you weren't paying attention. This country is in "such a good place right now" because banks and insurance companies were left completely unchecked. The only reason the gov't is involved with those is because to let them completely fail right now would make the Great Depression look like a mild recession in comparison.

[Seaspray0]

I keep telling myself before I board the plane, "I'm being protected by the department of homeland security." Kinda scarry, isn't it.

[Perry_Clease]

See this story on the requirement to disclose the health information of a CEO

http://www.startribune.com/business/48798452.html

"Nothing is required to be disclosed unless the health issue affects his ability to steward the company appropriately,"

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gT2mWvUsz13Ck4nYvSG05Whb-OtgD9902U680

"She said the SEC rules lack specific guidelines regarding executive health disclosures, which means corporate directors have discretion over what kind of information they decide to tell the public."

"From a legal standpoint, Apple doesn't have to disclose a thing."

[Seaspray0]

""Nothing is required to be disclosed unless the health issue affects his ability to steward the company appropriately,"

Ok. So is there anything other than a liver transplant that would affect his ability to steward the company?

[hockeymass]

If he died he probably couldn't steward the company appropriately.

[Seaspray0]

@hockeymass. "If he died" is not a medical condition you can diagnose until it happens. From what I see, apple hasn't broken any letter of the law because they stated from the beginning he would be gone for 6 months for medical leave. The only way I can see a violation is if the reason for the liver transplant wasn't for a hormone imballance (as stated by apple) and was for something else that was diagnosed. Then the statement that it was for a hormone imballance would be a lie. Maybe this is why the SEC is investigating.

[m.meister]

While the SEC may be investigating this, it does not mean anything was inappropriate.

It may well be that the initial diagnosis was "hormone imbalance" and a few weeks later, it was decided that Jobs should take some time off to help with that and only after he was on sick leave did the doctors realize the situation required more drastic option.

In that scenario, everything that Apple presented was accurate at the time it was presented. While we can look at it with hindsight and think they knew more, the facts may be that did gave the best info they had available at the time.

[Seaspray0]

The timing was too perfect. His medical leave is exactly the time he needed to recover from a liver transplant. I beleive the liver transplant was in the works prior to his announced 6 mo medical leave.