Steve Jobs’s health: a brief note.
This came from Robert Scoble over the Twitter wires a few minutes ago:
Amen.
MY health is none of YOUR business (but I’m hale and hearty — thanks for asking!).
YOUR health is none of MY business, unless you’re, say, flying a plane in which I’m a passenger.
STEVE JOBS’s health IS the business of Apple investors.
What I’m saying is hardly original — besides Robert Scoble, many others have said it. But the point is clear: Jobs is so very closely identified with Apple and its fortunes that it’s impossible that his health could be anything but a matter of concern.
There are a few other CEOs about whom I could say the same thing. Examples:
- Warren Buffett of Berkshire Hathaway . . . but he’s in his 70s, and has already announced that he has a firm CEO succession plan in place.
- Anne Mucahy of Xerox . . . but Ursula Burns has been her right hand and designated successor for years.
- Jeff Immelt of GE . . . but GE is famous for the depth of its management bench, so that even in the event of the unthinkable, one of its vice chairmen could easily step into the breach.
- A. G. Lafley of Procter & Gamble . . . but ditto everything I just said about GE.
- Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase.
- Michael Dell of Dell.
As vital as Dimon, Dell, et al. are to their respective companies, probably none of them are seen as being so vital to their companies’ futures as Jobs is to Apple’s. It’s a simple, albeit simplistic, equation: with Jobs around, Apple has kicked butt. When Jobs wasn’t around, Apple suffered. Add to that Jobs’s history of cancer and his current gaunt appearance, and you can understand the concern — the rightful concern — of Apple investors.
It’s not ghoulish. It’s financial risk management — and given Jobs’s apparently central (not to say megalomaniacal) role in Apple’s success, it comes with the territory.
~
Related post:
~
Category: Executives3 Comments so far
Leave A Comment
Subscribe to the RSS Feed
I agree without reservation that the health of a publicly elected official is the business of the electorate. I don’t need bone-crushing or off-putting detail, but we need to know the basics.
Not sure I entirely agree when it comes to an executive of a publicly held company. I agree with everything you, Scoble and others say: it is a material issue of great import to shareholders. However, SEC is very clear on what disclosures are required. It takes a very broad reading of those regulations to reach the interpretation that executive health is covered.
I’d argue that this is a classic case where the market can and will decide. Nobody’s forcing me to hold Apple stock (disclosure: in fact I don’t, in part because I would apply a high key-man discount in valuing the company due to lack of succession plan). If I’m unhappy with Steve’s lack of transparency, I can choose to invest elsewhere. I can say “I wish he would disclose” (and I do), but that is a different statement than “I believe he is obligated to disclose.”
Jobs’ actions around product convey that he believes things should be kept secret unless disclosure is either required or beneficial. He may be on to something given his results. It’s also spawned a mini-industry in reading Apple’s tea leaves at sites like appleinsider.com. I’m off to register the domain stevesmedicalinsider.com
Your comments about how the market will decide are spot-on, Russ — and I guess my real point is that the media are well within bounds to inquire about Jobs’s health in that it’s market-relevant information.
Russ, Tim, I see all sides of this but have to share the views of Tim and my colleague Mark Ritson - especially in cases where the founder is so critical to the brands success. Transparency and trust go hand in hand. Steve’s health situation can be handled better.
Mark’s points here: http://www.brandingstrategyinsider.com/2008/08/apple-when-ceo.html#more
Derrick