Steve Jobs and Harry Fabian

The initial story out of the SEC decisions on two former Apple officers implicated in that company's backdating was relief. "[T]he fact that he wasn't named in this round is good news for him," said the LA Times, "he" and "him" being, of course, Steve Jobs. Apple's stock seemed to reflect this attitude, because it barely moved.

The story today is a little darker. Today's WSJ highlights the allegations by former CFO Anderson, who settled with the SEC, that Jobs misled him, and that Anderson helped Jobs "appreciate" the accounting implications of the backdating, Jobs' non-appreciation being his defense so far. Dealbreaker was on this angle yesterday.

Meanwhile the SEC is proceeding against former Apple gc Nancy Heinen. So far Heinen is denying she did anything wrong. One wonders if she, too, will have some interesting things to say about what Jobs knew once the screws start tightening on her.

All of this reminds me of the familiar noir plot in which powerful forces close in from every side on the protagonist. In my favorite version, Night and the City, Harry Fabian did his own version of backdating in the wrestling game, and ticked off some real ornery folks. He's finally chased down in a riverfront hovel where the underworld closes in.

In this case, Jobs' "non-appreciation" defense is likely to get more tenuous if people like Heinen, and possibly Anderson, start talking.

But here the plot is thicker, because the pursuers have their own problems. As Jobs goes, so goes Apple. And, more interesting, if Jobs doesn't go, and yet the evidence against him mounts, how do you distinguish all the other backdating executives? Is it just because Jobs is successful – what I've called the Apple rule?

Indeed, it may be that all this backdating stuff really is all about stock price. When the alleged backdating was going on at Apple, the stock was hovering at around 20. Under several more years of Jobs leadership, it's up over 90. Backdating could bring back to 20.

Comments

[Robert Schwartz]

"Forget it, Nancy. It's Chinatown."

["Is it just because Jobs was Successful?"]

And the definition of "successful" is...

"Is it just because Apple exists because of Jobs?"

or

"Is it just because Apple would lose 30% of its mkt cap if Jobs was removed?"

Pls give us a break and think clearly.