Bloomberg Anywhere Remote Login Bloomberg Terminal Demo Request


Connecting decision makers to a dynamic network of information, people and ideas, Bloomberg quickly and accurately delivers business and financial information, news and insight around the world.


Financial Products

Enterprise Products


Customer Support

  • Americas

    +1 212 318 2000

  • Europe, Middle East, & Africa

    +44 20 7330 7500

  • Asia Pacific

    +65 6212 1000


Industry Products

Media Services

Follow Us

Bloomberg Customers

Apple CEO Bit into Temptation

Steve Jobs should share the blame for the computer maker’s mishandling of stock options. Pro or con?

Pro: Dubious at the Core

Does Steve Jobs deserve some of the blame for the options backdating at Apple (AAPL)? Of course he does. The seriousness of the accounting shenanigans at Apple, not to mention basic fairness, demands it. Accounting irregularities seem to have occurred nearly routinely at Apple after Jobs’ return in 1997; the company admitted to more than 6,428 separate instances between that year and early 2003. And one massive 7.5 million share grant in 2001 to Jobs himself was backdated, making it one of the most glaring examples of potential CEO self-enrichment in a scandal that has engulfed more than 200 companies.

Based on these facts alone, there’s no way to give him a hall pass on this when so many other CEOs have paid with their jobs for less-troubling situations. To be clear, I’m not suggesting Jobs deserves to get the boot from Apple. That truly would be nuts, in that it would hurt the countless investors who’ve benefited from the 1,000% increase in the value of Apple shares under Jobs’ expert leadership since 2001.

And I’m not calling Jobs a crook. Based on the facts so far, it looks as though he did what many hyper-competitive tech executives did in the pre-Sarbanes-Oxley era: He ordered his company to make aggressive use of stock options, and relied on high-priced lawyers and accountants to prevent it from crossing any legal lines. If we really want to assign blame, I think those advisers deserve far more of it than they’ve gotten. Instead, they’re making hay on the scandal by advising companies on how to clean up the mess.

Still, blame is being doled out to executives, and Jobs deserves his share. For starters, difficult factual questions have arisen in recent days—particularly in connection with the Securities & Exchange Commission complaint on Apr. 24 against two of Jobs’ most trusted former lieutenants, former Apple Chief Financial Officer Fred Anderson and chief counsel Nancy Heinen.

While Jobs was not charged, Anderson, who settled the charges the same day without admitting guilt or innocence, issued a statement claiming he explicitly warned Jobs about the accounting complications if Apple issued a grant to top executives in early 2001 at anything other than the fair market value of the stock on the day the grant was finalized. This flies in the face of the account issued by Apple’s board last December, which exonerated Jobs of any intentional misconduct in part because he did not “appreciate the accounting implications” of backdating.

One Apple insider denies Anderson ever gave Jobs such a warning, and that may well be true. But that wasn’t the only troubling incident. There’s also that huge 7.5 million share grant to Jobs that the SEC says was finalized in December, 2001—and then backdated by two months to October 19 by Heinen, who is charged with creating false documents to suggest a board meeting occurred on that fictitious grant date.

Heinen’s reasoning, according to the complaint: She wanted to secure a stock price closer to the lower price initially approved by the board that August, before a four-month tiff erupted about the vesting schedule by which Jobs could cash in. If the terms of the grant were the subject of so much debate, wouldn’t Jobs have been apprised of the final grant date? If so, wouldn’t he have known that no board meeting actually occurred that day?

We won’t know the whole truth until Heinen’s trial (unless she settles), and it’s possible Heinen never told him about any forged documentation or about accounting charges that should have been taken in connection with the grant. Even so, some experts say Jobs needs to take responsibility for a company where such a fraud allegedly occurred. “I think the CEO needs to be the first one held accountable—because it is he who sets up the culture,” says Lynn E. Turner, a former chief accountant of the SEC who now runs research at investment advisory firm Glass, Lewis & Co.

So what’s the right allotment of blame? I say Apple should do what it should have done from the start: Come clean with all the details of Jobs’ involvement. Also, Apple should ask Jobs to pay back the $20 million the company has assumed to cover the expense had he been able to exercise his backdated shares (in the end, the board let him trade in these underwater options in exchange for restricted shares worth $75 million). Having pocketed billions upon selling his Pixar Animation Studios to Walt Disney (DIS) in early 2006, Jobs can well afford it, and it would serve as a public acceptance of responsibility and a penalty commensurate with the alleged crime—and do so in a way that wouldn’t harm Apple’s shareholders and customers.

Con: Stop with the Sourness

How many different ways can Steve Jobs be found completely innocent of any and all wrongdoing in the backdating of stock options before the doubters among the public at large will let him off the hook?

Jobs certainly would be a juicy target for regulators. A household name, widely credited with rescuing Apple from the brink of oblivion following his return to the company in 1997, he’s one of just a few technology company executives with sufficient cultural weight to be made fun of regularly on Saturday Night Live.

First, the company and its outside directors, having conducted their own investigation, using an outside law firm, exonerated him. Then the Securities and Exchange Commission, the government regulatory body responsible for enforcing these matters, implicitly exonerated him by suing two former executives, former CFO Fred Anderson and former general counsel Nancy Heinen, but not Jobs. Anderson settled, and Heinen’s lawyers have promised a vigorous defense.

Steve Jobs is not now, and has never been, either a lawyer or an accountant. Hence Apple employed a chief financial officer and a general counsel whose job descriptions presumably included advising the CEO on the finer points of many business issues that fall within the areas of their given expertise. If they felt at any time the stock options grants in question were even slightly improper, they should have clearly advised Jobs of their opinions.

In a public statement issued through his lawyers on the heels of his settlement, Anderson claims he did just that, advising Jobs that in the case of one of the disputed grants, the date of the board approval and the date of the grant for pricing purposes would either have to match up, or be expensed if the grants were “in the money.”

Relying upon statements by Jobs, Anderson assumed that Jobs and Heinen were making sure that grant was being handled properly, and that the appropriate board approvals had been secured, when in fact they had not. However, now that he feels compelled to blast Jobs in public and shell out $3.5 million to get the SEC off his back, one wonders why he didn’t feel strongly enough at the time to go out of his way to ensure the options were handled properly in the first place, and if it proved to be the case that they weren’t, threaten to resign?

Something similar could be said of Heinen. The SEC’s complaint against her portrays her as caught in the middle of a lengthy negotiation between Jobs and Apple’s board over the vesting period of his 2001 options package. And her attorneys have said in public that actions taken by Heinen to get the grant approved took place with the full knowledge and understanding of the board of directors.

That may turn out to be the case, as the full extent of her defense against the SEC’s charges hasn’t come to light. Yet if at any point Heinen felt there was something improper taking place related to the granting of any of these options, it would have been her duty to call it out to those higher up in the chain of command. If anyone instructed her to do something improper, be it a CEO or a board member, she could have refused.

There’s a reason chief executives often try to stay out of compensation discussions and leave those issues to a committee of directors. Jobs, though a director, has never served as a member of the compensation committee squarely responsible for making decisions and recommendations to the full board. If anyone is to blame for anything that may have been amiss at Apple during the last several years, it is those directors, and the Apple employees who advised them.

Opinions and conclusions expressed in the BusinessWeek Debate Room do not necessarily reflect the views of BusinessWeek,, or The McGraw-Hill Companies.

Reader Comments

Firozali A.Mulla MBA PhD

I had heard an Apple a day keeps the doctor away. But the burning chips have brought the surgeons, hospitals, and SEC to Steve Jobs


What do you want him to do? Slit his wrists or give back his $1 salary? Seriously, what do Apple shareholders have to complain about? The stock is up 10% in the last couple of months. Profits are up.

The scandal is an attempt at sabotage by Microsoft. Yahoo!

The Invisible Hand

Mr. Jobs is no saint, but he is a very astute businessman. Is that a crime now in America? Did Mr. Jobs violate any U.S. securities laws in effect at the time? Did Mr. Jobs truly violate a fundamental fiduciary duty owed to shareholders? Please answer yes or no.

Throw da' bum out

He may be an astute businessman, but he also appears to be a thief. The gains from the options that he had arranged to be issued at the most attractive moment belong to the shareholders. He stole them just as if he had written himself an unauthorized check from the company's bank account. And the directors who have abetted his thievery are ignoring their duty to shareholders and should be asked/forced to step down.


This is another example of the moral bankruptcy that has infected the vast majority of our society. Simply because Jobs hasn't been convicted of a crime, his actions are assumed to be perfectly fine. We'll see how forgiving the shareholders are if at some point the stock goes down (as all stocks do in time) and he continues these quasi-legal practices.


This whole brouhaha about Jobs and his role in the options backdating is fueled by Jobs' silence. Backdating was an industry-wide practice. So, just state the facts, pay the fine, and move on. All we need is accountability.


Well, I thought the principle here would be that as CEO, he either knew or should have known. Either way, he is responsible. However, if no law was broken, it then is a matter for the stockholders to decide. The stockholders can now be considered fully informed. He is still there and likely to remain so, so what is the fuss all about?


Steve did a wrong thing. Hiding behind reasons like other companies were also doing it, the rules prevalent then were different, it was done in the interest of Apple, etc. does not befit a person of his stature and position in the company and industry in general.

Everybody makes mistakes. I would really appreciate it if he would apologize and step down. People worried about returns on stocks are acting as though everything is fair in love and war. No, it isn't.

Some things are more important than profits, and ethical behavior and leadership is one of them.

Bill Odum

As a Mac owner since 1984 and a stockholder (average price $8), I find little reason to expect Steve Jobs to do more than he has regarding the options infractions. From the very beginning, he has had to rely on technical, financial, and legal assistance to run Apple, and I'm sure Apple has paid very well for that assistance. In this instance, he was not served well by his chief legal council or CFO, who should, if need be, have put their jobs on the line to say no. As anyone should know, the computer business is fiercely competitive, and in 2003, the question was, will Apple survive ? Since then, options have been taken more cautiously; Apple has changed policy. Steve Jobs won't do any more until the SEC is finished. Unless the negative thinking is from competitors, wait, wait, wait.


All I hope is that Apple doesn't forget about computers. Good, bad management...hmm, are they losing their core ideas for the bottem line?


I can't stand when people are stupid even when their stupidity affects mainly themselves. Look at it like this people: Your government steals--pardon, takes away--35% or more of your (usually) hard-earned dollars, saying that it has a moral right to. So now Steve Jobs, who founded Apple, made the company great, and gave you your iGod (I mean iPod), is not even the biggest shareholder of his own company; he owns 1% to 2% of it, compared with the 35% your government just takes. Conclusion: Stop whining about someone getting his fair share; start counting you own cash.

Join the Debate


Participate More!

Please send us your ideas for new Debate Room topics. If you're an academic, association officer, or other industry expert and would like to write a Debate Room essay, send us a query. Questions? See the

BW Mall - Sponsored Links

Buy a link now!