A "Fool"'s argument - Steve Jobs' liability

One fine Motley Fool’s editor is writting:

“Will Apple be the same without Steve Jobs? Certainly not. Will it enjoy the same phenomenal heights of success? Maybe. But would it be governed by calmer, stronger, more responsible people, whose behavior suggests they hold far more shareholder-friendly philosophies? Absolutely.

In short, feel free to retire any time, Steve. The company will be in good hands without you — and so will your investors’ money.”

There’s only one hidden detail around here and it reads: shareholders never want anything but money. They never think; they’re not managers, visionaries or good engineers. They are simple John Does who only need to see their bank account growing bigger every day.

There should never be any relation between a manager and a shareholder, or between charisma and money. This guy over here might want to say “from shareholders perspective, Apple will go on even without Steve”. This is exactly the same thing as saying “from a mathemathical perspective, we’re just fine without literature”.

Of course the shareholders need transparency and liability from a CEO, most of the time. They can do nothing with “huge success” or “future”. But that’s precisely the main argument for a shareholder to shut up and let somebody capable of providing those other 2 things besides money.

We’re living times when it’s more important to stay alive than to have a lot of money in your accout for one day. I hoped “Fools” got that already.

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2010/06/18/steve-jobs-apples-greatest-liability.aspx?source=ihpsitota0000001&lidx=6