[Mrjinglesusa]

In today's conference call to report Apple's earnings, questions were raised concerning Jobs' health. In response, Oppenheimer said "Steve loves Apple and serves at the board's pleasure. He has no plans to leave Apple and Steve's health is a private matter."

What do you think? Do investors have a right to know if the CEO of the company they hold stock in is having health issues? Especially a CEO like Jobs who drives Apple's product lines and is such an integral part of the company? Would Apple be worth $165/share if Jobs (God forbid), died tomorrow?

I can think of no other company with a CEO as influential as Jobs. So the question is: does Apple have an obligation to its investors to disclose information about Steve Jobs health?

EDIT: Secondary question for CURRENT OWNERS of Apple stock - if Steve held a press conference tomorrow and said his cancer has returned and he is undergoing chemotherapy and that is why he has lost weight, would you sell off your stock?

[Big Mac]

I'd agree with you. Shareholders are entitled to a certain level of information on the subject. And that's not a very reassuring answer they provided.

[Zeeb]

No, its nobody's business but his. If he started talking openly about his health every time he sneezed the stock would plummet anyway. They also said he has no plans to leave Apple, if he were seriously ill at this point would they say that?

[OldManMac]

As long as the job gets done, it's no one's business. If it hinders his performance, it's no different than if you call in sick frequently; somebody's going to talk to you about your frequent illnesses. That's between the board and Steve, period.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by Zeeb 

No, its nobody's business but his. If he started talking openly about his health every time he sneezed the stock would plummet anyway. They also said he has no plans to leave Apple, if he were seriously ill at this point would they say that?

Of course they said he has "no plans" to leave Apple. Even if he were critically ill, I doubt he would "plan" on leaving Apple. And yes, if he were seriously ill, they would say that.

And this isn't a question about people talking about his health every time he sneezes. According to the New York Post, sources who have met with him recently and even dined with him expressed concern about how he looked. Now I've had the flu before, but I don't remember losing so much weight that people comment on it.

This is not a healthy looking man:


Compared to him:


Or even him:

[turtle777]

God help the AAPL stock if Steve gets seriously ill.

IMO, the question if it's a private matter or not is just philosophical.

The market will react to any news (or lack thereof), and for sure, Steve's health has a huge impact (positively or negatively) on Apple and AAPL.

I don't read too much into the answer from Oppenheimer, since this was an earnings call, and that kind of question just doesn't belong there.

-t

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

Would Apple be worth $165/share if Jobs (God forbid), died tomorrow?

No, not until the new CEO demonstrated he could justify a 30+ P/E.

[GSixZero]

Well he's not dead, and Apple's stock is under $150 in after hours trading.

[alligator]

His health is a private matter if we believe someone else can step in and provide the level of products we have come to expect from Apple. If for some reason Apple's product offering will suffer without him, then we have reason to show concern for his health. I guess the real question to ask is "Will Apple be the same without Steve?"

Personally, I think Apple' has peaked, if Steve leaves, Apple's influence and products will decline. He will be replaced by another "Steve" in another company and Apple will be written into the history books. For now, lets enjoy what we have and just wait to see what the future holds.

[subego]

I never noticed his mock turtlenecks have a seam down the front.

[lpkmckenna]

No one is irreplaceable. Jobs has mentioned that part of his job as CEO includes developing possible successors. Apple is not a one man band and will survive after Jobs.

Asking about Jobs' personal health at a shareholder meeting is asinine. If a company's success depends on the personal health of one man, that company is not in good health.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

No one is irreplaceable. Jobs has mentioned that part of his job as CEO includes developing possible successors. Apple is not a one man band and will survive after Jobs.

Asking about Jobs' personal health at a shareholder meeting is asinine. If a company's success depends on the personal health of one man, that company is not in good health.

You're missing the point.

The point is that while Apple may be healthy, the price of AAPL is extremely volatile, and any negative indicator to Jobs' health would drive that price down down down.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by Eug 

You're missing the point.

The point is that while Apple may be healthy, the price of AAPL is extremely volatile, and any negative indicator to Jobs' health would drive that price down down down.

Which is exactly why investors have a right to know if Steve if suffering from a serious health issue.

[Eug]

Is there an echo in here?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

Which is exactly why investors have a right to know if Steve if suffering from a serious health issue.

Useful to know != have a right to know

[mduell]

*BOOM* $15,000,000,000 in equity gone.

[scottiB]

His health is a private matter. If an investor is uncomfortable with Apple's fortunes being entwined with Jobs' health, then he/she should sell.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Asking about Jobs' personal health at a shareholder meeting is asinine.

-t

[Eug]

Originally Posted by scottiB 

His health is a private matter. If an investor is uncomfortable with Apple's fortunes being entwined with Jobs' health, then he/she should sell.

His health is not a private matter. It's no surprise Jobs choose publicly announce his status after a while, cuz he isn't stupid enough to think his health is a private matter.

I'd LIKE it to be a private matter, but the simple truth is that it isn't for obvious reasons.

[red rocket]

I don’t think it’s Apple’s responsibility to encourage speculation about Steve’s health amongst shareholders by feeding them details of his medical condition, no.

[Peter]

it is a huge issue if the CEO is ill from a large company and you're a share holder and you don't know about it
more so if the CEO is so iconic as SJ

[turtle777]

Just because it's a huge issue for the shareholders and AAPL does NOT make it a public matter.

-t

[OreoCookie]

SJ's health is his personal business. Shareholders may want to know more about his health and probably these speculations have an effect on the value of Apple shares, but that still doesn't make it a public issue. If he decides to come forward and disclose potential health problems, it's his decision to do so, but he is by no means obliged to do it.

Regardless, Apple is in a very good position today, the company is on solid ground (money in the bank, growing, etc.), so this will be more important in the long run than the health of its CEO.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

This is not a healthy looking man:

Come on... that photo has been specifically manipulated to make him look sicker than he might or might not be. Low contrast, low saturation. And taken at a very unflattering moment at the same time. Oh please...

[Dakar the Fourth]

It's none of your damn business.

[MacosNerd]

Of course its a private matter, it doesn't matter if you're the head of a multi-billion dollar corporation like Apple, a movie star or some politician. There are some things, that are none of our business.

On a related topic, I'm sure Apple has been grooming a replacement for Steve because nobody lasts forever and like us all, he is getting older. He's at the age where apple needs to think about life after steve.

[osiris]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

It's none of your damn business.

I would normally agree with this policy, however, being the captain of a ship has certain responsibilities. We must think about the future.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by osiris 

I would normally agree with this policy, however, being the captain of a ship has certain responsibilities. We must think about the future.

He must think of the future. It's up to everyone else to decide whether they trust him to leave with a plan in place or not.

[osiris]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

He must think of the future. It's up to everyone else to decide whether they trust him to leave with a plan in place or not.

So the entire future of a multi-billion dollar corporation rests in the hands of one (possibly sick) man?
As a stock holder and board member, I would think twice about accepting that.

[scottiB]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

He must think of the future. It's up to everyone else to decide whether they trust him to leave with a plan in place or not.

My guess is the executive team and the BOD already have succession in place--particularly after Steve's cancer. Tim Cook seems to be the next CEO, and he's not an idiot, or Steve wouldn't have him as COO.

Cancer or not, Steve's not going to be at Apple forever.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by osiris 

So the entire future of a multi-billion dollar corporation rests in the hands of one (possibly sick) man?
As a stock holder and board member, I would think twice about accepting that.

You seem to have already accepted that. Wasn't that the reasoning for why he has an obligation to give you his very personal information?

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by osiris 

So the entire future of a multi-billion dollar corporation rests in the hands of one (possibly sick) man?

The present and past have as well. People have always accepted this.

Originally Posted by osiris 

As a stock holder and board member, I would think twice about accepting that.

And as I said, that's you're right.

I think those that have suddenly focused on his mortality are shortsighted. Apple was no less screwed by their dependence on him before. Now everyone is just freaking out because there might be a more solid timeline as to when he may leave.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

SJ's health is his personal business. Shareholders may want to know more about his health and probably these speculations have an effect on the value of Apple shares, but that still doesn't make it a public issue. If he decides to come forward and disclose potential health problems, it's his decision to do so, but he is by no means obliged to do it.

He's not obliged to come forward, but nonetheless it is a very serious issue. In fact, most of the Wall Street types feel that he waited far too long to come forward, that the delay wasn't really appropriate for a CEO of such a large company.

In that situation he could have died under the knife, but nobody knew he was even undergoing surgery, much less undergoing surgery for cancer.

Other CEOs might have disclosed the situation and stepped aside for the time being. The stock would drop, but at least it would be with full disclosure.

Steve Jobs (pg. 4) - Mar. 4, 2008

Ralph Whitworth, an activist institutional investor, served as chairman of Waste Management when its CEO was stricken with a fatal brain tumor. He says the issue is "a very tricky one," but Apple should have disclosed Jobs' illness promptly after assessing his situation - whether legally required to or not. "Good governance has nothing to do with following the minimum standards," says Whitworth. "Executives should announce before they're going into major surgery. Yes, your stock will go down. [But] how would the shareholders have felt if they said he died on the operating table? "

Former SEC chairman Levitt agrees. "It's a difficult personal decision," says Levitt. "But clearly if a CEO is going in for major surgery, that's a disclosable item."

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by Eug 

He's not obliged to come forward, but nonetheless it is a very serious issue.

That's all that needs to be said.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

That's all that needs to be said.

It's a very serious issue... that needs to be disclosed whether he's legally bound to or not.

If you don't want the scrutiny, then don't be a CEO of a large publicly traded company.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by Eug 

It's a very serious issue... that needs to be disclosed whether he's legally bound to or not.

Needs? Why?

Originally Posted by Eug 

If he doesn't want the scrutiny, then don't be a CEO of a large publicly traded company.

I haven't heard about whether he likes the scrutiny or not. But if you don't like the fact that CEOs are mortal, maybe you shouldn't invest in the company.

If Jobs really has some sort of idea on his life expectancy, doesn't that make Apple a better company in the long run as he is more likely to set a future plan into motion?

[BRussell]

Maybe there's just nothing for Apple to say? The discussion of Jobs' health is based solely on some people playing armchair doctor and saying "he sure does look thin."

[Eug]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Maybe there's just nothing for Apple to say? The discussion of Jobs' health is based solely on some people playing armchair doctor and saying "he sure does look thin."

I'm not talking now personally.

I'm talking previously, when he had the surgery. Disclosure happened after the fact, which I personally consider inappropriate.

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

If Jobs really has some sort of idea on his life expectancy, doesn't that make Apple a better company in the long run as he is more likely to set a future plan into motion?

Huh? Stop trying to confuse the issue.

Here's the scenario. He was going in for a Whipple procedure for possible pancreatic cancer.

Basically... He had a 1/25 chance of dying simply by going into the surgery. And that's not even counting the possibility he might have a bad cancer.

P.S. I find it odd that so many think he doesn't need to disclose anything... when Jobs himself felt it necessary to disclose it. It's just that Jobs has a different idea than most as to when disclosure is necessary. Most investors (as does the former SEC chairman) felt it should have happened before the surgery. Jobs felt that disclosure was appropriate after surgery.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Huh? Stop trying to confuse the issue.

I'm not trying to confuse the issue. I find the "issue" confusing.

Originally Posted by Eug 

P.S. I find it odd that so many think he doesn't need to disclose anything... when Jobs himself felt it necessary to disclose it.

We think its his choice. By extension if he chooses to disclose it it, we think its his choice as to when to disclose it as well. Jeez.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

We think its his choice. By extension if he chooses to disclose it it, we think its his choice as to when to disclose it as well. Jeez.

Legally you're right. However, there is a movement to have better rules in place to outline what needs to be done.

Most CEOs and investors seem to feel that disclosure is necessary, as a responsibility to a public company's investors, and I agree with this sentiment. I also agree with the idea that disclosure should be done prior to major surgery, because of the high risk of the procedure and post-operative course, as well as other implications of the surgery.

Would it make any difference to you as to the risk? It certainly does to me. There is something like a 0.003% risk of death for colonoscopy. Do I think a CEO needs to disclose he's undergoing that procedure for his age 50 screening? Nah.

There is something like a 4% risk of death for a Whipple procedure. Do I think a CEO needs to disclose he's undergoing that procedure? You bet his life I do, especially considering that most of the time it's for serious cancer too. Further, even if someone doesn't die of a Whipple procedure, there often can be serious sequelae that would prevent the person from doing his/her job effectively.

And for the record, I was NOT invested in AAPL when Jobs had the surgery, nor am I invested in AAPL now.

[BRussell]

You guys better start working on getting those mandatory health disclosure laws passed then.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

You guys better start working on getting those mandatory health disclosure laws passed then.

People are already working on guidelines my friend.

Personal Facts About Executive Officers: A Proposal for Tailored Disclosures to Encourage Reasonable Investor Behavior

JOAN MACLEOD HEMINWAY
University of Tennessee College of Law

This paper argues for an enhancement of federal disclosure rules as they relate to personal facts about executive officers of public companies. The paper first summarizes significant existing requirements for disclosure about executive officers. Then, the paper argues that the existing federal securities law regime applicable to public company executive disclosures of personal facts is deficient in three respects. Specifically, existing disclosure requirements place too much discretion in the hands of executives, cause pressure on important individual rights, and tend to cause investors and markets to overreact. As a response, the paper proposes limited federal securities rule changes designed to more effectively and efficiently manage the public release of personal facts about public company executives.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Legally you're right.

That's not what I was trying to achieve, however. I presume this thread to be a question of privacy versus business rights. I side on the right of privacy, even at the cost of business. Now, if companies want to start creating clauses in contracts for disclosure, or as you mention laws get passed changing this, so be it, however, I will heartily decry them as an invasion of privacy.

Originally Posted by Eug 

Would it make any difference to you as to the risk? It certainly does to me. There is something like a 0.003% risk of death for colonoscopy. Do I think a CEO needs to disclose he's undergoing that procedure for his age 50 screening? Nah.

There is something like a 4% risk of death for a Whipple procedure. Do I think a CEO needs to disclose he's undergoing that procedure? You bet his life I do, especially considering that most of the time it's for serious cancer too. Further, even if someone doesn't die of a Whipple procedure, there often can be serious sequelae that would prevent the person from doing his/her job effectively.

This just reminds me of why gas prices are out of control. Speculation, speculation, speculation.

Originally Posted by Eug 

And for the record, I was NOT invested in AAPL when Jobs had the surgery, nor am I invested in AAPL now.

Noted, but unimportant. I always believe you argue your honest thoughts, Eug.

[Eug]

Let's argue some extreme examples.

Let's say our beloved CEO was a drunk and had checked himself into a detox clinic for the 2nd time in 2 weeks. Would I want to know if I were in an investor? You betcha.

Let's say our beloved CEO was found in a dark closet somewhere bleeding profusely because he had slit his wrists. Would I want to know if I were an investor? You betcha.

Let's say our beloved CEO was diagnosed with mad cow disease. Would I want to know if I were an investor? You betcha.

These are all private matters, but when it's a CEO of a public company, it matters to people outside the company.

The matter of when and how such information (and how much) is disclosed is very difficult. But disclosure is IMO necessary, and I applaud the attempt by some to come up with reasonable guidelines.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Let's argue some extreme examples.

Let's say our beloved CEO was a drunk and had checked himself into a detox clinic for the 2nd time in 2 weeks. Would I want to know if I were in an investor? You betcha.

Let's say our beloved CEO was found in a dark closet somewhere bleeding profusely because he had slit his wrists. Would I want to know if I were an investor? You betcha.

Let's say our beloved CEO was diagnosed with mad cow disease. Would I want to know if I were an investor? You betcha.

These are private matters, but when it's a CEO of a public company, it matters to people outside the company.

The matter of when and how such information is disclosed is very difficult. But disclosure is IMO necessary, and I applaud the attempt by some to come up with reasonable guidelines.

Wouldn't the board step in if these things started occurring?

[Chuckit]

The question is not "Do I want to know?" Lots of people want to know things they haven't any right to. The question is, do you feel obligated to offer your personal information to complete strangers just because they want to know it?

[Zeeb]

If laws are passed requiring CEO's to disclose their health issues I imagine policies requiring rank and file workers to disclose their health issues to their employers to be not far behind. What a wonderful world that would be.

[scottiB]

Let's say our beloved CEO like to parasail (motorcycle race/mountain climb/America's Cup), should he disclose it?

Let's say our beloved CEO likes unsafe sex from many partners, should he disclose it?

Let's say our beloved CEO like to eat blowfish, should he disclose it?

This entire notion is laughable. The idea that the CEO is bigger than the company or can affect it that much is ridiculous. That's why there are boards of directors to provide a balance. All companies have contingency plans for death at the executive level.

[freudling]

I started another thread as this one begs the question of...

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Zeeb 

If laws are passed requiring CEO's to disclose their health issues I imagine policies requiring rank and file workers to disclose their health issues to their employers to be not far behind. What a wonderful world that would be.

That's how I see it. And what about other matters than health? Maybe I'd rather not have business dealings with people who do certain things in private. Do I have a right to know about these things? If we assume that privacy goes out the window anytime somebody wants to know a piece of information in order to make a business decision, privacy is pretty much moot.