Slashdot Mirror
NYT Reports Steve Jobs' Exoneration
heyitsgogi writes "The New York Times is reporting that Apple has cleared Steve Jobs of any wrongdoing. From the article: 'In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Apple said that while its investigation revealed that the company's stock option procedures did not include sufficient safeguards to prevent manipulation, Mr. Jobs did not benefit financially from any questionable stock awards.' As a result of the internal investigation, Apple said it would record $84 million in expenses related to the options awards."
Rosie ODonnell says she's not fat. Geek says that the 10 gadgets hanging out of every pocket makes him look sexy. Linus says that Linux is the best OS ever. Ballmer says the chair threw itself. Pot denys that the kettle is black.
It's not like they are Nortel.....
The_Neck.
.
Ah, and I suppose that if Bill Gates ever left Microsoft, Microsoft's stock would be doing just fine? (Note that there was a recent story from CNet news in which Gates went out of his way to say that he wasn't quite leaving MSFT yet...)
Geez - it's not as if Steve Jobs is God or anything (zealots' assertions to the contrary, of course. IMHO the only reason Jobs' return to Apple was hailed so highly in the first place was because the people he replaced were as incompetent as Hell).
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Apple is no Enron. Sometimes they really didn't do it.
Laborare Est Orare
Clearly the Reality Distortion Field is expanding over time. This is the best evidence yet.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
An internal investigation by Microsoft has cleared Steve Ballmer of throwing any chairs.
What a relief... Apple has made a press release that an internal Apple investigation found no wrongdoing by its CEO. I am sure that is worth a lot to the SEC and is in no way damage control against the investor jitters since it was leaked that the SEC was investigating...
"It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
The internet is buzzing withspeculation that Steve Jobs may step down over reports that he profited $7.5 million in stock options by falsifying an executive board meeting. The financial times has a good overview of the unfolding story.
From the Article:
"Steve Jobs, chief executive of Apple Computer, was handed 7.5m stock options in 2001 without the required authorization from the company's board of directors, according to people familiar with the matter.
Records that purported to show a full board meeting had taken place to approve Mr Jobs' remuneration, as required by Apple's procedures, were later falsified. These are now among the pieces of evidence being weighed by the Securities and Exchange Commission as it decides whether to pursue a case against the company or any individuals over the affair, according to these people."
If my company caught me with an extra $84 million I would think they would expect to have it given back to distribute the proceeds with the shareholders, not just right it off. ..It's ok I guess that he takes so much from the company, after all, what daddy wants, daddy gets.
My Mom has cleared ME of any wrongdoing too!
Why is this news in the NYT, much less Slashdot?
Check out the documents Apple filed with the SEC Friday acknowledging that a grant of 7.5M options to CEO Steve Jobs with an exercise price of $18.30 dated 10-19-2001 was actually finalized on 12-18-2001 when the share price was $21.01. Apple goes on to note that approval for the grant was 'improperly recorded' as occurring at a special Board meeting on 10-19-2001 - a special Board meeting that Apple now admits did not occur. Apple takes a page out of Mark Hurd's I-know-nothing-playbook, insisting that 'There was no evidence, however, that any current member of management was aware of this irregularity.' Which begs the question: Don't any members of Apple management read those Proxy Statements they provide to investors and the SEC? In 2002 and 2003, Apple's Proxy Statements clearly stated that: 'in October 2001 the Compensation Committee recommended and the Board approved granting Mr. Jobs options to purchase 7,500,000 shares under the 1998 Plan in order to provide him with an incentive to continue to serve as the Company's CEO and maximize shareholder value.' Apple also points out in its SEC filing that Jobs did not receive or financially benefit from backdated options, apparently feeling that the 5M shares of restricted stock Jobs was given after 'voluntarily canceling' his underwater options grants in 2003 shouldn't count.
Couldn't he have still done something illegal but not benefited financially?
...New Zealand's 'Police Complaints Authority', which is supposed to investigate complaints made against police by the public. However, the PCA is the police, and so, amazingly, the police are cleared of wrongdoing every time.
Kind of confidence-inspiring, huh?
An internal investigation by the Clinton Justice Department found Algore did nothing wrong when he accepted gobs of soft money from the Bhuddist Monks at a "funraiser" due to "No Controlling Legal Authority" An Inconvenient Truth, Al?
..... then that's cool right? Perhaps. But am I the only one who has a bit of an issue with no third party (and by that I mean COMPLETELY outside Apple) oversight? It's not as if they don't have an interest in this right?
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
Because that's all this is: Apple saying Apple didn't screw up. Whoop-dee-fucking-doo.
All we need now is for Jobs to write a book called "If I played games with stock options".
The US Securities and Exchange Commission and Department of Justice have independently terminated investigations into Apple's reportedly irregular stock option grant activities. A DoJ spokesperson was quoted as saying "A superior jurisdiction has cleared Apple and Steve Jobs of all allegations, so we obviously have no grounds to pursue."
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
What about their CFO, Mr. Anderson? Even if Jobs doesn't go down the tubes, high-level people like the CFO resigning can still affect a company in a major way, and it looks like Jobs is trying to distance himself from the fiasco (not that I blame anyone for wanting to do that).
Of course Apple cleared Jobs of any wrong doing, who else is going to bail their ases out ?
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
I mean, god damn people, this isn't ENRON or WorldCOM. Apple sure as hell isn't collapsing like a house of cards. The facts remain: Apple is making shit tonnes of money. Worst Case Scenario out of this event: Apple gets a bit of bad press nobody cares about, they pay a fairly minor fine (compared to their Billions in Cash and liquid assets) of a few hundred million plus maybe some back taxes, and maybe, MAYBE a CFO and some other financial staff get forced into early retirement. That's it. You think the board of directors (let alone the Shareholders(!)) are going to cashier Steve "Reality Distortion Field" Jobs over 10 or so million? HA! Get a fucking life!
Seeds of Warren and 9/11 Commissions.
I know that the law views corporations as legal persons, but isn't this taking it a bit too far?
If this stands, its shitty news for anyone who holds stock. What this would essentially do is legalize corporate circle-jerking. In other words, it would be OK for top buddies to make deals that individually don't directly financially benefit the decision-maker, but such deals would be made with the mutual (oral/untraceable) understanding that the next deal by the next decision-maker would financially benefit the first decision-maker.
Enron II - here we come!
Steve Jobs was quoted today as saying, "I am proud to say that I have been exonerated by myself twice as fast as any previous corruption probe."
That Steve! Always the innovator, even when it comes to stealing from the shareholder. I'm feeling a strange sensation right now -- I think it's from the corruption-distortion field.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
I can't wait for Steve Jobs's new book: "If I did profit from backdating stock options, here's how I did it".
http://www.mhall119.com
Did anyone else read this as Steve Jobs Execution? Guess I've been looking at too many Sadam Hussein stories online today...
But am I the only one who has a bit of an issue with no third party (and by that I mean COMPLETELY outside Apple) oversight?
You mean like the SEC, to whom Apple directly gave the results and all details of their formal investigation to? And to whom they're legally obligated when carrying out said investigation, under penalties of perjury?
Now of course just because Apple finds these conclusions on its own investigation which is 'on the record', doesn't mean they're inherently innocent, the SEC will give their own ruling on the matter in the near future. However, if Apple did put anything misleading in this report, they'd be in far more trouble than they are now, not to mention the huge can worms in terms of stockholder lawsuits they'd open by willfully lying to the SEC this time around.
make world, not war
The grandparent's comment has context whereas yours is fingerpointing.
OK, let's get this straight.
Apple does an internal investigation, finds a problem, reports itself, and you're comparing this with Enron because they also say Steve Jobs didn't benefit from it?
I guess someone's activated an even more powerful reality distortion field than Steve's.
Well hey, at least it isn't Fox "Mark Foley is a Democrat" News. Anyway, why would you have any reason to doubt the veracity of this report?
If the New York Times says it, then it must be true -- NOT!
Are you saying that the NYT is incorrect, and Apple's own internal investigation did not clear Jobs? Or are you saying that somehow the NYT is biased in favor of Apple, and made up the entire story? Or are you actually talking about something completely unrelated to Apple, Steve Jobs, and the story at hand?
We all know that just because Apple cleared Jobs that doesn't mean there wasn't some wrongdoing on his part, but the NYT is merely reporting on what Apple found. Why do you think their reporting on this is innacurate?
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
...he already 'splained this, he just mispokerized which turned into rumors (spread by tarists) on the intartubes.
It was in all the papers...
Saddam Huessien just cleared himself of murder charges.
If it wasn't for the New York Times, half of the world's blogs would be empty.
On second thought, maybe that's not such a bad thing.
-- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
mafia clearing it's boss of any wrong doing? I'll wait for the investigation by a federal grand jury to decide if Jobs did anything indictable and judge and jury to decide his guilt.
The article says "As a result of the internal investigation, Apple said it would record $84 million in expenses related to the options awards.".
Is this from expenses incurred as a result of the investigation or are these expenses that were not recorded previously, but should have been?
Now, I can not attest to knowing anything about this ordeal, but it has been interesting to follow how the forum is handling it. I've noted that most of the posts on this forum largely fall into two catagories: flippint remarks, usually involving common cliches and tidbits from geek pop culture thrown in for good measure; and then fairly serious posts by people who actually READ THE ARTICLE, most of which exhonerate Mr. Jobs. Now, I expected quite a few posts that would attempt to clear him and settle the unrest it has caused... but I expected more in opposition by people who actually have something worthwhile to say.
Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
"Yeah, we found some problems. Some of them were with our boss. But he's clean. Trust us."
Sorry, fanboy. That's all this is. It might be true, it might not.
"It's the disposition of the offerer, not the size of the gift, that defines the difference between self-interest and charity. Selfish motives, especially vanity and its corporate cousin, PR, cheapen gifts. There's also a general sense among people that the gift should cost the giver. It ought to hurt a bit. And it ought to be done primarily out of a desire to help another. Giving away money you couldn't spend in a million years is not charity any more than giving table scraps to a dog is charity." Read it in context here.
And Ford granted a pardon to Nixon. I think you should take your own advice and sell off all your stock. Or just realize that laws have passed that makes this situation less likely. It is the timing of these things that makes this situation interesting.
This comment is guaranteed*
*not guaranteed
For those who won't RTFA or Google into the matter - Another piece of news says Apple acknowledges fake documents. From the article: "In the filings, Apple (Cupertino, Calif.) acknowledged that the company faked documentation to indicate that a grant of 7.5 million options to CEO Steve Jobs was recorded at a special meeting of the board of directors on Oct. 19, 2001"
If faking doesn't tantamount to fraud - then what does ? And if the CEO is not responsible for this - what I call as defraud - then who is ? Sure this is no Enron, but when it comes to corporate governance there's nothing like a small fraud.
I am DARTH MACINTOSH.
The 7.5mm Stock award was "given" to Steve Jobs in October 2001, hence details would have been disclosed re Senior Execs remuneration in documents suppled for that yeas AGM. Now we are being told that nobody noticed that there had been no board meeting to award that amount of Shares to the CEO. The CEO didn't notice his award wasn't ratifies by a Board meeting. The CFO didn't notice The Gen Counsel didn't notice The Head of HR didn't notice The internal Audit Dept didn't notice The external Auditors in their review didn't notice. The Board members didn't notice Only 2 people appear to have left Apple. And yet nonone else in the above list noticed this "small" item?
No. A stock option is worth $0 if expired. It has non-negative value if not expired, e.g. you can profit from owning an option even if the underlying price never reaches the strike price (that's called delta hedging.)
Yeap, all you'd have to do take out an option to sale while the stock is high.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Of course Apple cleared Jobs of any wrong doing, who else is going to bail their ases out ?
Ah but Apple wouldn't of had to do any covering or bailing out their asses if Apple never reported the backdating to begin with. If Apple had kept it's mouth shut none of this would have happened, the only reason it's out in the open is because Apple reported it to the SEC to begin with, then started an investigation.
FalconShould there be a Law?
The sad part is so many people put him above reproach and the good guy in contrast to Gates in the great computer wars. Yet in comparing personal lives, Gates gives away more money than Jobs makes, and Jobs is not poor, yet he does very little as a philanthropist short of giving Apple computer discounts to schools to get more market share.
I guess you haven't heard how Jobs has worked with Bono and is working on AIDS amoung other things. Yea you could talk about how Gates gives away more than Jobs makes but then again Gates makes a lot more than Jobs. And how can you give away more than you make? Only by getting others to donate like how Buffet gave most of his fortune, about US$31 billion, to the Gate Foundation.
FalconShould there be a Law?
"It might be true, it might not."
Where precisely did I say otherwise? The message I replied to was entitled:
You think Enron would have reported itself?
No, Enron didn't report itself. Not only didn't Enron report itself, Enron's whole operation was based on fraud and coercion, from the top down to the folks like "Bob" twisting the arms of power plant operators in California to create an artificial energy shortage to drive up prices, careless of the fact that the blackouts they triggered led to injuries and deaths.
Not only are the actions completely the opposite of what you're trying to imply (Apple reported the results of their internal investigation... the original report, that is, the one you seem to consider trustworthy despite the fact that it's from the same mob you're now dismissing), but even if every single overblown rumor about this were true it would be nowhere near what Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling were up to their armpits in.
But the bottom line is that blowing the whistle on yourself is not normally seen as part of a coverup operation. Trying to smear Apple and Jobs by drawing parallels with Enron and Lay is insane.
That about sums it up then. Nothing to see here. Move along.
Maybe he didnt. Fortunately (for Jobs), the story doesn't end here.
l e1214598.ece
From a more independent news source:
"Apple says Mr Jobs' option was subsequently cancelled and resulted
in no financial gain, but while the options were cancelled in 2003,
Apple granted Mr Jobs five million shares in exchange."
http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/artic
well....we don't know enough from what we know..... First off he got 5 million in restricted stock... and we don't know how they did that.... if they gave him 5 million restricted stock vesting at the same time as the 7.5 in options he exchanged then Job's has the advantage of paying tax on the stock at the price when it vested and paying lower cap gains when he sells at the higher current price..... so exchanging the option for restricted price has a big tax advantage for jobs..... Or if he got the 5 million shares at some higher price he still may see tax advantages while insulating him from future declines in share value...... in this case i see only advantages to Jobs in exchanging regular for restricted stock.