Poor Steve Jobs can’t get sick without an SEC investigation. Actually the investigation revolves around the company disclosure of his health as the stocks rise and fall. Personally I don’t believe Jobs or the Apple Board did anything to mislead anyone, this is his health, and updates can change day to day, as trips to the doctor reveal additional information. Is the SEC going to want his medical records too?
Perhaps as the article states here it is more of an effort to save face over the fact that the Madoff case was over looked for so long. Perhaps if the SEC had invested in some Apple software and hardware to electronically monitor Madoff and the likes of Wall Street instead of all the manual processes, perhaps we could have had a a jump on some of this before it came crashing down. I think it is becoming much more difficult to ignore the white elephant in the middle of the living room as developments occur, where are the electronic audit trails, are they nowhere to be found? The software and hardware to do such auditing has been around for years and has been used by companies, especially banking, for years. BD
NEW YORK (Fortune) -- Apple and its CEO-on-leave-but-still-active-sort-of Steve Jobs practically forced the Securities and Exchange Commission to look into the adequacy of the company¹s disclosures about Jobs's medical problems. But the investigation may have less to do with Jobs's health than with the SEC's.
The SEC, trying to reestablish its credibility after years of ignoring explicit and apparently dead-on warnings that Bernard Madoff was running a massive Ponzi scheme, could hardly afford to ignore Apple's latest in-your-face flip-flop concerning Jobs's battles with a rare form of pancreatic cancer, a subject that Jobs and the company's board have generally considered Jobs's personal, private matter and none of investors' business.
Pancreatic cancer in Steve Jobs has to get a you awfully close to the trigger point, one would think. (The securities laws make no explicit exception for privacy rights. While most lawyers assume that officers of public corporations do have some legitimate privacy concerns that enter into this analysis, those concern don't trump investors' right to know what¹s going on.)