What's your point? Don't you think he should have some privacy? The man might be extremely sick, and at worst could potentially be dying. Why does it matter if he's the CEO of a publicly traded company? What does that have to do with his right to privacy when he's ill?
The CEO of a publicly traded company has a legal obligation to disclose any matter that can impact the stockprice positively or negatively. This certainly falls in that category.
Also, for better or worse, part of being a public figure is living with the fact that your wellbeing impacts a lot of people, and these people have a right to know what that impact will be.
If he resigned he should have absolutely privacy, but since he hasn't the thousands of people that rely on him have a right to know where they stand.
He really has no such obligation. Do you have any idea how many things a CEO knows that might negatively impact the share price of an organisation?
He has the obligation to release certain specific information mandated by the SEC in a timely manner (details of his health are not on the list - it's largely financial) and there are certain things a company can not say (which basically boils down to honesty).
The SEC also say he and the company have to communicate in a particular way when information is shared (for instance so it's available to the whole market - no selective disclosure, and again it has to be honest and truthful and so on) and projections are heavily caveated.
The on top of that he has a general legal obligation to act in the best interests of share holders.
But there's no blanket reveal all, and nothing that specifically covers his health and I'm not sure why you think there is or where it comes from. Could you quote the specific authority or law in question?
No - the CEO has a legal obligation clearly spelled out by the SEC and other laws, I'm sure.
Given that the market is made up of humans, and that nobody can predict with certainty the public reaction to every move a company or person makes, it's absurd to think that insiders in a corporation are not entitled to privacy.
I agree that he should have some privacy but as the CEO of one of the largest publicly traded companies the state of his health is something investors need to know.
No, it's something they'd like to know, and would be useful to know, but there's a difference between that and need to know. So long as everyone (within reason) has the same information and that information is honest, then the market is fair because they're all in the same boat.
After all, where would it stop? "Jonny Ive has had a break up with his other half and is really down, he's meant to be working on the new iPhone but he's really off his game...". "Inform the shareholders!"
It's similar to the difference between "in the public interest" and "the public are interested".
I don't think anyone here is asking for his white blood cell count or wants to know the name of his doctors and what kind of medication regime he is on.
I would imagine everyone here agrees with his right to privacy on the details of his illness; however what some of the GPs are saying is simply that the overall status/summary of his health (i.e. he has cancer, or not) needs to be disclosed.
That much information would be basically useless. Saying someone has cancer could mean anything from "they're going to have a few hospital appointments but will be fine" to "they'll be dead within a month".
So that's useless to you (unless you're just being morbidly curious in which case you have no business here anyway) so you'd ask "well, what type?" and they'd usually say something pretty similar to the last answer so you'd go "what grade?" and they'd say something pretty similar again - probably narrower, but maybe not and certainly with very wide error bars which would cover both death in the short term and survival of 5 years plus (which for cancer is close to a cure).
So, still none the wiser, certainly in any way that would allow you to better judge Apple as a company, you'd say "how advanced is it?" and most of the time the answer would yet again be pretty similar but they'd say that different people respond to treatment very differently.
So then you'd need to ask "what the treatment protocol is he going to be on?" and they'd say the same and then you'd ask how's he's responding at which point you basically are asking for his white blood count (though I believe that's actually only used to judge whether a patient should have chemo at any given point in time rather than an indication of success / failure / health as far as the cancer goes).
He's clearly unwell enough to ask for an extended absence, it's not the flu. That's all you need to know.
I've been thinking about this problem and I think it should be up to the relationship between the company and the investors. A company may not be as open with investors as others and it's up to the investors to take that into account when evaluating the company. All things being equal that company would trade at a discount.
In a way, I think this is similar to Google refusing to issue guidance (not sure if they still do that) and the shareholders just needing to deal with it.
Yes, Apple stock prices are determined by whether Steve Jobs is getting a colonoscopy or whatever other procedures that might be coming to him. I think that there are some serious limits to the "CEO of a publicly traded company" line that nosey people keep spewing.
Well, seeing how Apple shares fell about 6-7% where they are traded today and this has been the only major announcement recently, I would say that yes, to a degree Apple stock prices are determined by whether Steve Jobs is undergoing medical treatment.
