The New York Post reports that concerns remain over Apple, Inc. (NASDAQ: AAPL) CEO Steve Jobs health after he appeared thin at recent developers conferences. This is making investors nervous since it's not likely that anyone can do as good a job as Apple CEO. And Apple's board may have a duty to report on Jobs' health if he can't perform his duties.

I became familiar with this legal requirement two years ago when questions were raised to me about the health of Lazard Ltd. (NYSE: LAZ) CEO, Bruce Wasserstein. The basic requirement for a board is unclear. As I wrote: "it appears that there are two conflicting points of view on the topic. On the one hand, the illness of the CEO -- particularly one as highly regarded as Wasserstein -- is material information under Regulation Fair Disclosure (FD) that could cause an investor to sell if it was disclosed. On the other hand, laws such as The Health Insurance Portability Act (HIPAA) protect the privacy of employee medical records."

In 2003, Jobs had a bout with pancreatic cancer. He recently appears to have lost a significant amount of weight according to the Post. In the case of Jobs, he seems to be appearing in public and doing his job, but the prospect that he might soon be out of Apple's developing picture does not bode well for investors. The lack of comment from Apple seems ominous to me. Meanwhile, Apple is expected to report EPS of $1.08 on revenue of $7.36 billion, according to First Call estimates.

Peter Cohan is President of Peter S. Cohan & Associates. He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter. He has no financial interest in the securities mentioned.

Carrying on in its heralded tradition of misguided editorials, The Wall Street Journal (subscription required) published a real doozie today. According to the piece:

Reading about the covert blogging of Whole Foods CEO John Mackey, we were reminded of a New Yorker Cartoon from some years ago featuring two mutts and a computer. "On the internet," one says to the other, "nobody knows you're a dog."

Apparently U.S. financial regulators don't get the joke. They're responding to Mr. Mackey's anonymous blogging by treating him like a dog -- or more precisely a potential violator of U.S. securities laws, with the bonus goal of scuttling Mr. Mackey's attempted purchase of Whole Foods competitor Wild Oats. The SEC is leaking (as usual) that it has opened an "informal" enforcement probe. Sure, "informal."

As Gary Weiss pointed out, the issue wasn't his blogging, which he didn't do anonymously. He was caught posting on Yahoo!'s message board for Whole Foods (NASDAQ: WFMI) without identifying himself. And his posts appear to have been pretty misleading: He talked down competitor Wild Oats (NASDAQ: OATS) while his company was pursuing its acquisition. It has also been reported that Mackey made predictions about the future stock price of Whole Foods, which is completely inappropriate.

The issue here is that Mackey's posts seem to fly in the face of Regulation FD and in defending him, the Wall Street Journal (or more specifically, its editorial page editors) is taking on that regulation. Shame on them.

This post is written as part of AOL Money & Finance's Best & Worst 2006. Cast your vote for the most overused buzzword.

Thanks to Regulation FD (for "fair disclosure"), average investors have won the right to listen to the often torturous dance between Wall Street analysts and publicly traded companies during earnings season. When things go right, there are shouts of "great quarter guys," but when someone asks a particularly long-winded or controversial question, they usually say that they will "take it (their answer) offline." Executives promise to get back to the analyst "offline" if they don't feel like answering their questions. Like most buzzwords, this phrase doesn't say what the speaker really means.

Unfortunately its popularity seems to be skyrocketing. I mean, look at this search on the SeekingAlpha site. My theory is that some PR or IR person told a CEO: "Look, you may think the analyst is a moron, but calling him a moron is counterproductive in the long-run." Analysts have found it more useful to say "I'll take it offline" rather than "I wonder what load of bull you will give me to this insightful question."