Steve Jobs, Cancer, and Public Disclosure

Should a public company have to tell its shareholders that its CEO has been diagnosed with a potentially life-threatening illness? In the case of Steve Jobs, a CEO who is arguably Apple's single most valuable asset, I think the answer is "yes."

In the latest issue of Fortune, Peter Elkind dredges up some old news about Apple and Jobs--the backdating scandal, a 2003 bout with pancreatic cancer--but he also adds a new twist to the latter: Jobs and Apple's board knew about Jobs' cancer for 9 months before they disclosed it to Apple's shareholders.

Elkind's story was titled "The Trouble with Steve Jobs," and he suggests Jobs was reckless about his cancer because he pursued a diet treatment instead of immediately rushing to get an operation. I have no issue with this: How a senior executive chooses to treat a serious illness is--and should be--entirely his or her business. Whether Apple shareholders should have been made aware of Jobs's cancer, however, is a different question.

The issue here is whether Steve Jobs' right to personal privacy takes precedence over his role as Apple's most valuable asset. Although it would be nice to be able to draw a hard line between the two, in this case you can't. For better and worse, Jobs-the-person is synonymous with Jobs-the-asset. And I think Apple shareholders have a right to know if one of their company's biggest assets might be impaired.

Fortune's Elkind says Apple's lawyers told Apple's board that they were not legally obligated to disclose the cancer. Perhaps, according to a strict legal interpretation, they weren't.
But look at it this way: If you were an Apple shareholder, would you want to know that Steve Jobs had cancer? I would have.

Comments

[WUC]

With so few choices cancer patients have... the choice should be theirs to disclose information. Great leadership will have sustainable solutions in place. The focus should be on leadership­..performa­nce not cancer...if you trust leadership for day to day operations..why not then with their choices relative to their own cancer? With escalating cases of cancer many of us can expect to face cancer as a stage of life ...The headline here is that cancer patients need to tell their own story..it is theirs to tell. So if your Steve Jobs or Patrick Swayze the only people that should be tell their story is them.

Bill Couzens, Founder Lesscancer.org

[DHeil]

This is a no brainer. Agreeing with Blodgett here. The law is clear: Companies MUST disclose
ANY material information that might have an impact on a business. A Senior VP who gets cancer probably doesn't have a material impact on a company, however, a CEO with what is widely believed to be a life-threatening illness does.

What if the cancer is slight or the CEO's prospects for recovery are great? Fine. Disclose those facts as well. What if the CEO is a poorly respected CEO whose personal demise might positively impact the company? The markets will work that out. Sure, any employee deserves privacy on family matters, but a CEO of a publicly traded company gives up that right whenever his/her lifestyle or personal circumstances have material impact on their company's investment with shareholders.

[Dem02020]

"If you were an Apple shareholder, would you want to know that Steve Jobs had cancer? I [Henry Blodget] would have"

Why?

Because if the man's health deteriorates, it might affect the price of Apple's shares that you hold so dearly?

Because maybe if the man dies a cancerous death, the several possible down-ticks of market value in Apple, might mean a purely paper loss to you?


You should sell your stock in Apple, if you feel this way... you should only buy stocks that rise on the increased diagnosis of cancer, and rise on cancer deaths.