I'm not sure that the smartest investment strategy for Jobs would be to sell lots of stock in order to reduce his risk, given that the most likely reason for Apple's stock price to experience a significant and long-term drop is the death of Steve Jobs. As long as Jobs is running Apple, the market will trust their ability to make a great comeback (and with good reason).
> given that the most likely reason for Apple's stock price to experience a significant and long-term drop is the death of Steve Jobs.
Isn't that an argument he should sell now, while he is sure he is alive? How does Jobs benefit from holding onto $5b of stock while he's alive until he dies at which point his estate sells it off for $1b or whatever? Jobs's risk of dying is not insignificant; besides the fact that it intrinsically goes up each and every year, he has had health issues, shall we say?
I won't run the numbers, but he plausibly doesn't have too much longer (he's 55) and the drop in value would be significant (by half or more?); combine that with the usual discounting of future expenditures (2-8%), and if we believed he was holding onto his wealth solely to grow it for future charitable spending, then we must also believe that Jobs expects massive growth in the future.
Comments
I'm not sure that the smartest investment strategy for Jobs would be to sell lots of stock in order to reduce his risk, given that the most likely reason for Apple's stock price to experience a significant and long-term drop is the death of Steve Jobs. As long as Jobs is running Apple, the market will trust their ability to make a great comeback (and with good reason).
> given that the most likely reason for Apple's stock price to experience a significant and long-term drop is the death of Steve Jobs.
Isn't that an argument he should sell now, while he is sure he is alive? How does Jobs benefit from holding onto $5b of stock while he's alive until he dies at which point his estate sells it off for $1b or whatever? Jobs's risk of dying is not insignificant; besides the fact that it intrinsically goes up each and every year, he has had health issues, shall we say?
I won't run the numbers, but he plausibly doesn't have too much longer (he's 55) and the drop in value would be significant (by half or more?); combine that with the usual discounting of future expenditures (2-8%), and if we believed he was holding onto his wealth solely to grow it for future charitable spending, then we must also believe that Jobs expects massive growth in the future.