
"The good news flipped by the bad news makes one wonder what Apple knew. It's not surprising for the SEC to come in and look afterward, given the pressure and publicity regarding their handling of a lot of cases."Yes, he's thinking of Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme, among others. Still this seems rather uncharted territory, and once again delves into just how much of a person's life, CEO or not, should be public knowledge. It would also be hard to prove exactly how much Apple knew. Of course, Steve Jobs is a unique case, with his near-cultish following.
|
I think the SEC is setting a very bad precedent, getting involved with things they shouldn't be. Unless they can show exactly how much *actual* influence Jobs has to the companies bottom line vs. any other possible replacement CEO, they should butt-out. Anyone who actually thinks that Apple will fold without Jobs has probably already pulled out their money. The rest of the fluctuations are caused by people (and computer) pulling out everytime they see these health stories because they know that _historically that's when the stock price dives_. It has nothing to do with Jobs' actual value anymore. Eventually, everyone dies. If we keep going down this road, one day the SEC is going to be asking people at random companies if they *knew* their CEO was a smoker and if they tried to cover it up to the public. |