July 29, 2008
Is health a private matter? Since the release of the new iPhone, Apple shareholders have been asking about Steve Job’s health. He looked gaunt at the announcement, which brought up initial concern. Do the shareholders have a right to know the status of his health?
According to a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, “Companies must disclose material information to shareholders. The SEC defines that as information ‘the reasonable investor needs to know in order to make an informed decision about his investment.’”
In fact, Steve Jobs, called New York times columnist Joe Nocera, who had called Apple PR repeatedly to answer looming concerns about Jobs’ health. Since he is widely viewed as a central figure to Apple’s succes, Nocera wrote that Jobs, “ought to feel some responsibility to tell shareholders about his health.” Jobs told the columnist, on the phone call, that his condition was not life threatening and further asked that the details he shared with Nocera remain off the record.
Comments | 7 Total
July 29, 2008 at 8:36am by Rachel King
While Steve Jobs is a phenomenal leader of Apple and has made the company what it is today, we all know he is not going to be in charge of the company forever. Thus, there isn't really a need to address the problem to shareholders as with the phenomenal success of the iPhone 3G, Apple is still doing well regardless of the situation.
I would assume that Jobs would pick his successor shrewdly, and we should wait for at least the announcement of Apple's next leader before losing faith in the entire enterprise.
July 29, 2008 at 3:00pm by Dorn Lynch
Health issues are an important concern for investors, particularly where the company's success is driven or strongly influenced by a single person.
Although it's an important concern, investors have no more right to individual medical information than do any others.
They do have a right to and should know the company's succession planning.
I can't think of a CEO who needs no succession plan, and in the absence of an immortal at the helm, a responsible investor should always assume that the worst could happen.
A company whose primary value rests in a single individual doesn't (IMHO) have much of a long-term primary value, but that reliance does not justify public medical disclosure.
July 29, 2008 at 6:57pm by Dan O'Dell
As a child, did Steve Jobs knock you down and steal your cheerios? You seem to have it in for all things Apple. And yet - there is nothing of real substance in your stories. Mostly speculation in a negative vein, all stuff you've seemed to decided to make the focus of your inquisition.
July 29, 2008 at 10:25pm by JERRY MENSAH
They have to help less fortunate people in society who struggling to make living
July 30, 2008 at 12:53pm by Ken Schneider
No shareholders do not have a "right" to know anything about an individual CEO's health.
They have the right to ask, and speculate, and assume.
The CEO has the right to answer or not answer any questions asked about their health.
Then the investor then has the right to act on that information.
If a CEO is doing their duty then certainly succession planning should be a top priority. We all know we are one silly mis-step away from disaster. So if a CEO is performing to their fiduciary duty, then succession has to be top of mind.
But there is no right to health information, only the right to act if you don't have all the information you feel is relevant to buying or owning a stock.
July 30, 2008 at 3:48pm by Jeff Eskow
This 'Big Idea' is 'Bad' Idea.
If the CEO has gone missing for weeks and is, in reality, dying at home…then the shareholders have a right to know.
Unfortunately, the liberal media is always chasing down the next conspiracy. If the CEO announces that he had a non-cancerous growth removed from his body, the media will right away question publicly if the CEO has cancer. Then the stock price drops. Then the public questions the CEO’s ability to lead for 5 or 10 more years. Then the stock price drops again. And in the end, the stock and the shareholder get hurt.
Bad idea.
August 4, 2008 at 8:46pm by Eric Parmater
Last time I checked Mr. Jobs was only charging $1/year for salary. If he were willing to forgo the $1 would he then be deserving of privacy?