Lazard CEO Bruce Wasserstein felt little push-back from investors after he recently issued a short but poignant message, stating that he was hospitalized for an irregular heartbeat. "His condition is serious," the note said, "but he is stable and recovering."
It was a very different approach from the one taken at Apple early this year. In January, after months of rumors with no public response, Jobs ceded control of day-to-day operations. He returned to work in June after receiving a liver transplant.
In a new report from The Wall Street Journal, Michael Corkery examined the effect differing levels of disclosure had on the stock prices of both companies. His conclusion: "Openness can be healthy."
"The computer makerâs shares see-sawed when investors worried that the company was being less than forthcoming about the health of CEO Steve Jobs," the report said.
Appleâs secrecy surrounding the health of Jobs has had a major effect on Apple's stock price, while the open stance of Lazard resulted in a 1 percent drop. Throughout Jobs' career, Apple has been notoriously tight-lipped about the health of its chief and has always rebutted any questions about his health as being a "private matter." The report suggested that Wasserstein's more forthcoming approach was to his company's benefit.
"A CEO doesnât want his company's stock price to go up when he gets sick because it means investors donât consider him a critical asset," Corkery wrote. "But he doesnât want it to tank either. By being straightforward about Wassersteinâs illness, Lazard is enabling investors to decide for themselves about the possibility of a leadership change at the storied firm."
Jobs began to buck his secrecy trend at the beginning of this year with his open letter to Apple fans about his apparent weight loss and failure to show at the Macworld keynote. When he returned to the stage at Appleâs annual music event in September, Jobs acknowledged his health.
"So, Iâm vertical, Iâm back at Apple and loving every minute of it," he said, "and working with some talented teams to come up with some great products for the future."
78 Comments
I dunno. It's 2 different industries. Jobs has always had a higher profile; heck, I didn't even know what this 'Lazard' was, much less who its CEO was. I don't think you can really compare the two.
Plus Apple has more of a cult-like following, rather than a business-like following. So I can see the paranoia more about Apple's CEO than most other companies.
What's the difference? Geez, I dunno, is Lazard CEO Bruce Wasserstein considered an icon for his industry? When people think investment firms, do they immediately picture Bruce Wasserstein? No offense to Mr. Wasserstein, and I truly hope he recovers, but the comparison is (forgive the pun) Apple and oranges...
I dunno. It's 2 different industries. Jobs has always had a higher profile; heck, I didn't even know what this 'Lazard' was, much less who its CEO was. I don't think you can really compare the two.
Plus Apple has more of a cult-like following, rather than a business-like following. So I can see the paranoia more about Apple's CEO than most other companies.
Totally disagree, the point was that Apple caused bigger drama with Steve illness, then what was required and this could have been handled much better. As shareholder, I was dismayed at THE lack of information and secrecy behind his illness.
Btw:Lazard is BIG investment firm that handles a LOT of money for private investors and Bruce Wasserstein (he is one of the LEADER in investment industry http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...6/b4048007.htm) is main driver of the investment decisions. By telling the investors of his illness and that it maybe serious, but he is stable, it stops panic and people pulling their funds from the firm.
Steve has to be more upfront with his illness, especially since he is driving force of Apple and it is BUSINESS!
Apple need to have heir-apprant in wings that can take over, if anything happens to Steve. That Cook guy did very well, but not sure if he has the same innovation qualities as Steve.P.S. Steve will know Bruce Wasserstein very well and vice versa, they both Billionaires (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Wasserstein) and very succcessful business men!
Bruce who?
Really?
Is there any comparison between Jobs --fountainhead of a company that makes innovative products appreciated around the world-- and Lazard/Wasserstein --a corrupt, influence peddling financier? iCool vs. i-bank? Seriously?
For the uninformed, see: yield-burning scandal, fraud, kickbacks, etc.