By Fraser P. Seitel
Let me ease into a difficult subject this way…
Some day, alas, I am going to die. All of us do, even, alas again, Steve Jobs.
But since I have life insurance, my ultimate demise, in the total scheme of things, frankly doesn't matter all that much. (Although I'm in no hurry!) However, in the case of Mr. Jobs, there are 300 billion good reasons why the fate of the ailing Apple CEO is a big deal.
And that's why, from a PR perspective, Apple once again is short-changing its shareholders, with $300 billion of equity invested in the company, by not disclosing the state of its founder's health. (Full disclosure: I own Apple stock.)
Steve Jobs, himself, of course, is a genius. He is also, by all accounts, as egotistically arrogant as the day is long and steadfastly more inclined to withhold rather than disclose information to shareholders.
In terms of "vision" and "product," there is no company superior to Apple. In terms of "transparency" and "forthrightness" and "public relations," Apple is the Goldman Sachs of Silicon Valley.
Apple's disclosure history on the illnesses of its chairman is legendary in its opaqueness.
• In 2004, when Jobs first was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, Jobs and Apple steadfastly refused to update the public on the CEO's health.
• In 2009, rumors circulated on the `Net that Jobs was dying, perhaps because his cancer had recurred. Apple said nothing to clarify. Eventually, after a particularly nasty interview with the New York Times, Jobs admitted to a "hormone imbalance." He was fibbing. Actually, as the Wall Street Journal later revealed, the Apple chairman desperately needed a new liver. So he was flown to Tennessee for a liver transplant that saved his life.
• Now in 2011, Jobs has taken another leave, saying only he's doing it "to focus on my health."
So much for full disclosure.
The question, of course, is: Does Apple have any obligation to go into detail on the
CEO's health? Is it really anybody else's business?
The answer: You bet it is.
The state of Steve Jobs' health moves markets more than any other living CEO, short of the President of the United States. So Apple has an obligation to investors to keep them posted on the fate of its chairman. Indeed, when Jobs' bombshell email was revealed this week, Apple's stock immediately dropped close to 10%.
On the other hand, if Steve Jobs doesn't want to share his confidential medical diagnosis with his shareholders, that's his prerogative. But … as shareholders, we need to at least know:
• Is it likely that Jobs will be back?
• If so, how long is he expected to be out?
• If not, what are the plans to succeed him?
• And where will Apple's creative vision come from?
Neither Jobs nor Apple has ever answered any of these questions. Nor has Apple's weak-kneed, hand-picked board of directors – including the CEOs of Avon and J. Crew as well as Al Gore – ever shown any inclination to honor its own disclosure responsibilities to the company's shareholders.
Ironically, one of the "best" things to happen to Apple – and this sounds terrible to say – is the fact that Jobs has been ill for so long, the talented cadre of subordinates who surround him have had to become more well known.
The fact that Jobs' periodic absences have forced impressive subordinates like COO Tim Cook and marketing director Phil Schiller to take center stage has helped save the stock in the face of CEO uncertainty.
What the company needs to do now – what its board should make sure that it does – is:
1) update the investment community on what ails its CEO – cancer, liver, whatever
2) discuss the likelihood of his return
3) review the company's plans in terms of continuing. |