'Too'에 해당되는 글 3건

  1. 2009.05.02 Steve Jobs: Nobody Loves Me by CEOinIRVINE
  2. 2008.12.20 Ford Will Need Help, Too by CEOinIRVINE
  3. 2008.10.20 A Legal Scramble over Egg Prices by CEOinIRVINE

Steve Jobs: Nobody Loves Me

IT 2009. 5. 2. 02:31

Steve Jobs: Nobody Loves Me

William P. Barrett, 04.23.09, 05:00 PM EDT
Forbes Magazine dated May 11, 2009
image

Steve Jobs, adulated gadget hero, was feeling underappreciated not too long ago.

Steve Jobs, the man rolling out iPods, iPhones and cool computers to millions of adoring customers, once felt he wasn't getting enough respect--from his own board of directors. That, at least, was what he told the Securities & Exchange Commission while explaining his actions in the Apple option-backdating scandal that broke in 2006. The scandal, which was part of what caused Apple then to take an $84 million earnings writedown, raised questions about whether Jobs had helped set advantageous grant dates for options for himself and other executives.

The secretive Jobs, 54, who was treated in 2004 for pancreatic cancer, has been out since January on a medical leave originally attributed to a hormone imbalance. Questions about his health and ability to return full-time--in June, Apple ( AAPL - news - people ) says--occasion much Silicon Valley gossip, especially among investors who consider him the main reason for the company's 1,000% stock rise since 2001.

sec lawyers grilled Jobs last year as part of a backdating lawsuit against Nancy R. Heinen, Apple's ex-general counsel and Jobs' longtime colleague. Without admitting anything, she paid $2.2 million to settle charges that she had backdated option grants for Jobs, herself and others, and ginned up bogus paperwork to hide the backdating, including minutes of a nonexistent Apple board meeting.

After a Freedom of Information Act battle, this magazine got a copy of Jobs' sworn examination. (Although Jobs and Apple were part of a separate shareholders derivative suit settled for $14 million, both avoided litigation.) The 119-page deposition, taken on Mar. 18, 2008 at Apple's Cupertino, California headquarters, offers a rare look at Jobs.

At some point in 2001 Jobs went to his board and asked for a big option grant. In the deposition Jobs said he had simply wanted a pat on the back. "It wasn't so much about the money," The Forbes 400 member told an sec lawyer. "Everybody likes to be recognized by his peers. … I felt that the board wasn't really doing the same with me." With all of his prior stock options underwater from the dot-com bust, "I just felt like there is nobody looking out for me here, you know. … So I wanted them to do something, and so we talked about it. … I thought I was doing a pretty good job."

Wouldn't it have been nice, he was thinking, if the board had come to him and said, "'Steve, we got this new grant for you,' without me having to suggest anything or be involved in anything or negotiate anything. … It would have made me feel better at the time."

Jobs testified that the board had approved an option on 7.5 million shares at an August 2001 meeting, when the share price was $17.83, but that he had continued to argue with directors about whether the options should vest immediately or over a staggered schedule. The debate helped cause Apple to miss deadlines for filing notifications with the sec and its own auditors.

On Dec. 18, 2001, according to the sec, Jobs and the Apple board finalized the terms of the grant to Jobs. Apple's price (not adjusted for subsequent splits) was now $21.01, but, the sec said, the grant was backdated to Oct. 19, when the share price was $18.30. The earlier date put him $20 million ahead. Jobs later swapped the options for restricted stock of lesser value.

After the Dec. 18 action, the sec said, minutes of the Aug. 29 meeting were doctored to say the board hadn't yet okayed anything, and then minutes were created of a phantom Oct. 19 meeting approving the grant that day. The sec suggested that date had been picked because the stock price was close to Aug. 29's. Jobs testified he hadn't ordered any paperwork fabrication--which Heinen specifically denied doing, although much of it bore her name--and hadn't even learned about the sketchy board meeting until years later when the scandal surfaced.

Backdating an option is not illegal, but failing to disclose it can constitute securities fraud. There are also adverse tax consequences from a federal law requiring that big executive compensation be performance-based, which the awarding of in-the-money options would not be. Asked if the Apple board discussed option accounting treatment around this time, Jobs answered, "None that I recall."

He said an earlier 2001 grant to other Apple executives of 4.8 million options--also backdated--had been needed to retain top talent. "I was very concerned because Michael Dell ( DELL - news - people ), one of our chief competitors, had flown Fred Anderson, our CFO, down to Austin … to try and recruit him," Job testified. He said other Apple executives were also being wooed. Sued by the sec with Heinen in 2007, Anderson paid $3.3 million to settle, also admitting nothing. In a statement then, his lawyer said Jobs knew more about the backdating than he and Apple had let on. (Anderson is now a managing director at private equity firm Elevation Partners, which has a stake in Forbes Media.)

Jobs was not asked directly about the Anderson statement at the deposition. He acknowledged Heinen had sent an e-mail on Feb. 1, 2001, when Apple shares closed at $21.13, saying, "Steve agreed to go with Jan. 17," when the price was $16.81. That $4.32 swing put $20 million into the pockets of Apple executives. Jobs testified he had wanted to issue the options in early January, when the shares were trading at $14.88, but delayed because buzz from the upcoming Macworld Expo on Jan. 9 might bump up the stock price and he wanted to avoid criticism. Jobs said his "guess" was that Jan. 17 had been chosen because it was closer to the pre-Macworld price.

Overall, Jobs depicted himself as a bit of a rube when it came to accounting. Asked if he had a "general understanding" about Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, he answered, "Not really." To many questions Jobs simply responded he didn't know or couldn't recall. One hint about his health came near the start, when the sec lawyer said he had been told Jobs was "not feeling well." Replied Jobs, "I'm fine." At the end, told that the three-hour deposition was over, Jobs said, "Thanks. Thank you. My body thanks you."






Posted by CEOinIRVINE
l

Ford Will Need Help, Too

Business 2008. 12. 20. 14:13
, Ford Motor Chief Executive Alan Mulally sat shoulder-to-shoulder with the bosses of General Motors and Chrysler like a line of delinquent schoolboys.

But now that the Bush administration has agreed to lend GM and Chrysler $17.4 billion to stave off bankruptcy, Mulally is running as fast as he can from those other guys. "We're in a different place," says Mulally, whose company had $19 billion in cash on Sept. 30 and isn't seeking an immediate cash infusion.

Article Controls


Don't be so sure. Ford, which lost $8.7 billion through September, may yet need taxpayer money. It is burning more than $2 billion a month and has asked for a $9 billion line of credit as a safety net in case industry conditions worsen. And it's looking more and more like Ford will need it.

Ford's financial projections are based on a rosier industry sales forecast--12.5 million vehicles (including heavy trucks) in 2009 and 14.5 million in 2010--than most industry experts predict. JD Power & Associates is forecasting 11.4 million light-vehicle sales in 2009 and 13.6 million for 2010.

IHS Global Insight is even more pessimistic. It now forecasts sales of 10 million to 10.5 million light vehicles for 2009, and 12.5 million units for 2010. GM's best case scenario is 12 million units in 2009 and 14 million in 2010, though its business plan is based on more conservative estimates. Last year, the industry sold 16.1 million light vehicles.

If Ford's assumptions prove too optimistic--as is likely--it too will be approaching Uncle Sam for help. "All automakers, including Ford, are going to need government money," says IHS Global Insight analyst Rebecca Lindland.

Self-interest required Mulally to stand up for his weaker competitors. A collapse of one or both would hurt suppliers and could potentially bring down Ford as well. But in the meantime, Ford is shrewdly portraying itself as the healthiest U.S. carmaker and quietly stealing market share from its crosstown rivals. Ford gained 1.4 points of market share in November, while GM lost 1.6 points and Chrysler lost 2.3 points.\

Posted by CEOinIRVINE
l

Earlier this year, Steve Ribbing, who runs a family-style restaurant south of Buffalo, got fed up with the growing dent in his company's bottom line. The culprit? Egg prices, which have jumped nearly 50% over the past two years. Ribbing griped to his attorney, an act that ultimately led to a lawsuit against more than a dozen egg producers and the industry's trade group.

Critics say the price jump since 2006 was not particularly mysterious: egg producers, the plaintiffs contend, conspired to restrict supply as part of a broad scheme to boost prices. Ribbing's complaint moved from his lawyer to a large national firm, finally becoming a sweeping lawsuit that recently gained class-action status on behalf of restaurants, grocers, and other direct buyers nationwide. The litigation's targets include 13 of the nation's biggest egg producers, including Cal-Maine Foods (CALM), Pilgrim's Pride (PPC) and Rose Acre Farms, as well as a Georgia-based industry association, the United Egg Producers (UEP).

Justice Dept. Is Investigating

The average retail price of a dozen eggs, which had been stable for the better part of a decade, soared to $2.20 per dozen in March, after climbing from $1.63 in 2007 and $1.30 in 2006, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Egg producers blame the increase on surging feed and fuel costs, although prices have retreated 15% since March, to $1.85 per dozen. The restaurant lawsuit filed three weeks ago in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia is one of six separate suits facing the egg industry. Some name a handful of companies while others, like the T.K. Ribbing's restaurant suit, target 16 major producers and interest groups. The suits generally allege similar schemes to raise prices, but the detailed Ribbing suit delves deepest and covers the broadest part of the industry.

The swift rise in egg prices has also caught the attention of the Justice Dept., which is "investigating the possibility of price fixing in the egg products industry," says DOJ spokeswoman Gina Talamona, declining further comment. All of the major egg producers either refused comment or didn't respond to BusinessWeek's requests for comment.

The producers all belong to the United Egg Producers cooperative, which in 2000 enacted an Animal Care Certified Program to improve hens' conditions by giving them more space in cages. Plaintiffs say the program was designed solely to lift egg prices by curtailing egg supplies. The total U.S. supply, which grew steadily from 7.1 billion dozen eggs in 2000 to a peak of 7.6 billion dozen in 2006, is down to 7.5 billion dozen this year, according to the U.S. Agriculture Dept. "The only portion of the program which they enforce are the ones restricting the total number of hens and production," says Jonathan Lovvorn, vice-president and chief counsel of the Humane Society of the U.S. "You violate that, they kick you out immediately." He says the co-op ignores "all kinds of other things you can do to animals—not providing proper veterinary care, letting animals die without proper food or water. Those are things we've seen."

UEP spokesman Mitch Head calls allegations that the welfare program was aimed at trimming hen numbers "ludicrous." "There's no provision for any farmer to not build more houses, add more conventional cages, add cage-free or free-range [hens]; they could've added as many as they wanted to," Head says. The program results in fewer hen diseases and lower mortality, and improves food safety, he said. "This is not what was better for the farmer. It was better for the hens and for our consumers."

Posted by CEOinIRVINE
l