3 ms·

There was a story in NY magazine a few months ago analyzing the option back-dating scandal at Apple. The author of the piece concluded that because Jobs was so

There was a story in NY magazine a few months ago analyzing the option back-dating scandal at Apple. The author of the piece concluded that because Jobs was so important to the company's worth (the estimate was that if Jobs had to leave the CEO post b/c of legal trouble, the stock price would lose up to half its value in one day), he was not going to be prosecuted, and other executives would take the fall instead.

Sam_Odio 20y ago
You're right, by removing Jobs the SEC would be punishing the very people they claim to protect - the shareholders. However, the SEC doesn't seem to have a problem with this. After all, the massive fines they levy against companies (reducing future shareholder returns) accomplish the same thing. Regardless, just because Jobs is valuable to the company shouldn't mean he's above the law. It's my understanding that CEOs convicted of securities fraud can still serve their post, assuming their not in jail.
- ecuzzillo 20y ago
  It seems not entirely unreasonable for the SEC to enforce a situation where cheating means you and also possibly everybody else loses. It's a bit like a coach saying, if you don't shut up, everybody does fifty pushups; you're more motivated to shut up that way.
  - Sam_Odio 20y ago
    you're more motivated to shut up that way. You're not asking them to shut up. You're asking them to stop stealing from the shareholders. That's what options backdating is - stealing from the company's shareholders. And by fining companies, the SEC is hurting those shareholders. It's important for the shareholders (you and me) to realize that. It's like telling a thief: If the police catch you stealing: they're going to fine the victims as punishment. What kind of motivation is that?
    - ecuzzillo 20y ago
      Well, if it's a choice between that and not punishing cheating period, it might be better to do that. It's a difficult situation, but in general, I'd rather have a system that always punished cheating than one that didn't punish cheating when doing so would have collateral damage, because the latter system means basically that so long as you are important to the company, you're perfectly allowed to cheat.
      - Sam_Odio 20y ago
        You're definitely right. Like I said in my first post post, Jobs shouldn't be above the law just because he is valuable to Apple. But try to punish the cheaters, not those who are being cheated. Don't fine the company - fine and/or jail those committing the fraud.

Sam_Odio 20y ago

You're right, by removing Jobs the SEC would be punishing the very people they claim to protect - the shareholders. However, the SEC doesn't seem to have a problem with this. After all, the massive fines they levy against companies (reducing future shareholder returns) accomplish the same thing. Regardless, just because Jobs is valuable to the company shouldn't mean he's above the law. It's my understanding that CEOs convicted of securities fraud can still serve their post, assuming their not in jail.

ecuzzillo 20y ago
It seems not entirely unreasonable for the SEC to enforce a situation where cheating means you and also possibly everybody else loses. It's a bit like a coach saying, if you don't shut up, everybody does fifty pushups; you're more motivated to shut up that way.
- Sam_Odio 20y ago
  you're more motivated to shut up that way. You're not asking them to shut up. You're asking them to stop stealing from the shareholders. That's what options backdating is - stealing from the company's shareholders. And by fining companies, the SEC is hurting those shareholders. It's important for the shareholders (you and me) to realize that. It's like telling a thief: If the police catch you stealing: they're going to fine the victims as punishment. What kind of motivation is that?
  - ecuzzillo 20y ago
    Well, if it's a choice between that and not punishing cheating period, it might be better to do that. It's a difficult situation, but in general, I'd rather have a system that always punished cheating than one that didn't punish cheating when doing so would have collateral damage, because the latter system means basically that so long as you are important to the company, you're perfectly allowed to cheat.
    - Sam_Odio 20y ago
      You're definitely right. Like I said in my first post post, Jobs shouldn't be above the law just because he is valuable to Apple. But try to punish the cheaters, not those who are being cheated. Don't fine the company - fine and/or jail those committing the fraud.