• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Stock option back-dating. A crime?

Prosecute executives for stock option back-dating and other accounting tricks?

  • Hell yes!

    Votes: 13 68.4%
  • Yes, in many cases.

    Votes: 3 15.8%
  • I don't think so.

    Votes: 2 10.5%
  • Hell No!

    Votes: 1 5.3%

  • Total voters
    19
POLITICS, n.
--------------
A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of
principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage.

the devil's dictionary sums it all up
 
ntula said:
POLITICS, n.
--------------
A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of
principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage.

the devil's dictionary sums it all up

+1
 
notfromcali said:
If you are ok with having thousands of people getting their lifetime savings ripped out from underneath them and being left with nothing, you should have no problem with what Jobs did.

Wow, way way off man, this is nothing like Enron's premeditated criminal debacle. Thats not how stock options work. Enron encouraged it employees to invest their actual retirement cash in Enron stock, meanwhile bullshitting the stock higher than it should, thus when reality hit and the stock price tanked, employee's lost their actual retirement money along with it. The shit Jobs did could only affect one year's financial statement from Apple, and has nothing to do with anyones retirement. You can't even point at any hard cash being lost or gained, its all on paper until the options are exercised, which never happened.

Typically an option price is set a little higher than the current stock value

Not in my experience. All the options I was ever issued were set to closing market price on the day of issue. It sounds like Apple was whiting out the issue date and filling in a different date, to make the options more valuable to the owner. Its a stretch to say that could hurt the company or employees financially, its more of an ethics concern, which the SEC watchdogs, and punishes as it sees fit.

That adds up to about half a billion dollars the guy was trying to suck out of the company.

Dead wrong. No offense, but you don't seem to know how stock options work.
 
notfromcali said:
That adds up to about half a billion dollars the guy was trying to suck out of the company.

a. It was 84 million over four years.
b. The options were granted to former executives, not Steve Jobs. The SEC acknowleges this.
c. This money is not "sucked out" of the company. It theoretically dilutes the price of the stock, which is 7 times greater than Jan 04 anyway. At worst, it is bad bookeeping which is why the SEC does not necessarily consider it illegal.
 
Last edited:
Poxy said:
b. The options were granted to former executives, not Steve Jobs.

This is not true, and I'll post this again, along with more from the article to explain exactly what is going on here, since some are not reading the article:

In its regulatory filings Friday, Apple disclosed that a 2001 award of 7.5 million options to Jobs was recorded as having been approved at a special board meeting that never actually took place. The company also acknowledged that documents connected with the grant were falsified to make it look like the required board approval had occurred.

Roth also noted that Anderson was not a member of the board of directors at the time of the 2001 option grant to Jobs and knew nothing of any impropriety.

On the 2001 options award to Jobs, Apple said it found no evidence that any current member of management was aware of the false board records.


So, there was at least one grant to Jobs that is illegal, due to the fact that it was not approved by the Board of Directors, and records were falsified to state that it did have Board approval.

Apple's position is that none of the current management was involved in the falsification of records. The former CFO left as soon as the preliminary findings were released, and the former General Counsel left before the probe started. Looks to me like damage control, the CFO is "falling on the knife" to save the higher-ups.

Poxy, I'd be interested to see your source concerning the SEC's statement that no grants to Jobs were suspect. According to all information I can find, the SEC isn't issuing any comment at all on the matter, since they've not yet decided if they're going to pursue legal action at this point.

<edit>

Poxy said:
At worst, it is bad bookeeping which is why the SEC does not necessarily consider it illegal.

Falsified documents are not "at worst, bad bookkeeping".
 
Last edited:
Back
Top