Warren Buffet Piles On Steve Jobs About Secret Transplant
5:10 pm, June 24th, 2009, Leander Kahney
Warren Buffett has criticized Apple for keeping Steve Jobs's liver transplant a secret. Illustration by MacBlogz.
Joining other experts, billionaire investor Warren Buffet says Apple might have violated the law by keeping quiet about Steve Jobs’s liver transplant.
The head of Berkshire Hathaway said Jobs’s life-saving operation was a “material fact” that Apple was legally obliged to report to investors. The Securities and Exchange commission requires public companies to report material facts to shareholders. Failure to do so is in breach of the law.
“It’s a material fact,” said Buffett on CNBC on Wednesday. “Whether he is facing serious surgery or not is a material fact. Whether I’m facing serious surgery is a material fact. Whether (General Electric CEO) Jeff Immelt is, I mean, so I think that’s important to get out. They’re going to find out about it anyway so I don’t see a big privacy issue or anything of the sort.”
Buffett joins other experts, such as marketing professor Paul Argenti, who say Apple violated the law by keeping Jobs’s declining health a secret.
However, both Jobs and Apple have insisted that Jobs’s health is a private matter. Jobs reportedly undertook the transplant while on medical leave, and wasn’t actively running the company on a day-to-day basis.
Buffett, however, seems unconvinced.
“If I have any serious illness, or something coming up of an important nature, an operation or anything like that, I think the thing to do is just tell the American, [or in my case] the Berkshire shareholders about it,” Buffett said. “I work for ‘em. Some people might think I’m important to the company. Certainly Steve Jobs is important to Apple.”
Buffett is famously plainspoken, and, as no doubt someone will note in the comments, a close friend of Bill Gates. Buffett, 75, has pledged 85% of his Hathaway stock to five foundations, most of it going to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
But as MacBlogz points out, Jobs and Buffett share many similarities: The two billionaires live simple lives in modest houses; hold liberal political views; and both are very closely associated with the companies they run. MacBlogz: Warren Buffett & Steve Jobs: 10 Similarities.
Posted by Leander Kahney in Apple, News, Steve Jobs | Comment on this article
If you enjoyed this article:
Subscribe via RSS or email, or follow us on Facebook and Twitter
Why are we asking CEO’s and Marketing professors about this? Shouldn’t we be asking lawyers, particularly ones who specialize in HIPAA and/or SEC law?
Scott, on June 24th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
I agree it’s a questionable call, but the chances that SteveJo didn’t check this out with a couple of fairly good lawyers beforehand is a bit slim. I’m sure a risk / benefit assessment was done regarding the pros and cons of releasing the info, and it was decided that the benefits to not disclosing outweighed the risks.
JAYnLA, on June 24th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
Oh the apple soapopera!
Eric, on June 24th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
“Jobs and Buffett share many similarities: The two billionaires… hold liberal political views…”
Now I understand why every Mac comes with only liberal news sites bookmarked in Safari.
John, on June 24th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
Buffett needs to mind his own business. Buffett needs to give us the details regarding his last Postrate exam. America really needs to know!
Paul, on June 25th, 2009 at 3:24 am
“billionaire investor Warren Buffet says Apple might have violated the law by keeping quiet about Steve Jobs’s liver transplant.
The head of Berkshire Hathaway said Jobs’s life-saving operation was a “material fact†that Apple was legally obliged to report to investors.”
Kahney is a tool here. Buffett said he considered it a material fact that aapl should have disclosed BUT never said that aapl “violated the law” or “was opbliged to report.” More dishonest “journalism” if you can even call it that.
Bill, on June 25th, 2009 at 4:35 am
This pisses me off. However, it also pisses me off that you folks are covering it. Leave the trash in the garbage. Just because your plate is empty, supper doesn’t get better because you put trash on the plate; it just makes the rest of the food unpalatable.
Ryan, on June 25th, 2009 at 11:35 am
Buffet’s best buddy is Bill Gates, and has always been a Microsoft sympathizer, recommending it as a buy when it’s been a turd. Shame on Buffet.
Bill, on June 26th, 2009 at 5:45 am
Enough already with the Steve asskissing.
FACT: He is the head of a PUBLICLY TRADED company and, as such, is answerable TO THE PUBLIC.
FACT: Whether rightly or wrongly, his well being is tied to APPLE’s percieved worth.
FACT: His health, ie. the worth of APPLE, was in grave danger.
FACT: APPLE did not disclose this data.
As much as an APPLE fan as I am, what is, is.
APPLE broke the law — BIG TIME.
What difference does it make if a marketing professor, a CEO, a SEC lawyer, a pizza delivery guy, *whoever*, says it ?
I have to be a carpenter to say “Screws work better *with* the the grain.” ?
CaryMG, on June 26th, 2009 at 9:37 am
Actually CaryMG, many lawyers disagree with you. Interpreting the law is considerably less simplistic than turning a screw. I’ll agree that Apple has no right to disclose medical info on anyone because of HIPAA, but Jobs must obey the SEC rules. Fortunately for him, they are very specific. Thus it’s left to interpretation by the courts. You may be right or you may be wrong. Also, SEC never stated when he needed to disclose the info. It’s been disclosed so I guess he has fulfilled his SEC obligation. He even authorized his doctors to make a statement, which in fact told that hi prognosis is good… good for what, who knows about that too. ALso, he was on leave which may nullify the need for disclosure, although he did state that his illness was more serious than initially expected, or something like that. Feel free to interpret the law any way you wish, but so can the rest of us, and I disagree with you. But dammit Jim, I’m a doctor not a lawyer.
Peace Bro
Bill, on June 26th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
I’m just glad they didn’t say a thing – stock prices would have plummeted, and undeservedly so, instead, just look at their latest results.
I would argue that if Apple had of revealed Jobs’ liver transplant, that THAT could be construed as being illegal because the board would have done so knowing full well there would be a negative impact on share price, staff morale, & supplier / creditor relations. Think of the unavoidable uncertainty among investors. (Sadly, people would ideate themselves into a frenzy about the impact, and this would inevitably have a negative effect).
Johnathan, on July 22nd, 2009 at 1:07 am