July 14 (Bloomberg) -- It may turn out to be the most important liver transplant in corporate history.

Ever since it became clear that Apple Inc. Chief Executive Officer Steve Jobs was more seriously ill than the company revealed, calls for more disclosure of his medical records have grown louder. There has even been angry debate about whether Apple was quick enough to make the information public.

At this rate, stock-market regulators will soon be insisting that every CEO’s health status be published regularly.

That’s crazy. There are all sorts of things that can go wrong with a company. Shareholders can’t be protected from every type of risk. And senior business people have as much right as anyone else to privacy on personal matters.

For the past six months, it has looked as if trading in Apple shares has been more dominated by the emerging news on the health of its CEO than what Nokia Oyj might be doing to counter the iPhone, or whether Google Inc.’s move into operating systems might threaten Apple’s computer business.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is still investigating how the information about Jobs’s liver transplant was released, and whether it was done in a timely fashion. No less an authority than billionaire investor Warren Buffett, 78, says Apple should have told the markets more than it did.

“Whether he is facing serious surgery or not is a material fact,” he said in an interview on CNBC last month. And material facts have to be disclosed.

Murdoch’s Health

The trouble is, there are plenty of business leaders whose health might be regarded as crucial to a company. Anyone holding shares in News Corp. might like to know how Rupert Murdoch, 78, is feeling each day. Investors in Viacom Inc. might be interested to see a doctor’s report on 86-year-old Chairman Sumner Redstone. The 74-year-old chairman of Banco Santander SA, Emilio Botin, who now controls one of Europe’s largest banks, might like to update us all on his health.

Buffett’s own shareholders in Berkshire Hathaway Inc. would probably also like to know how the grand old man of investment is shaping up in the mornings, even though he promises to disclose any significant news about his health.

In fairness, there is an argument that shareholders have a right to know anything that is likely to affect the price of the shares they own.

Corporate Hacks

Some companies are run by anonymous corporate hacks. You could trade in one grey suit for another and, apart from maybe their secretaries, no one would notice much. It wouldn’t make a big difference to the running of the organization. Others become so totally identified with the vision and personality of a single individual that it is hard to see the company carrying on without them. Shareholders would certainly take fright.

We also live in a world where information is out in the open. Many of us have Facebook Inc. pages revealing lots of private material. Even the new head of Britain’s MI6 foreign- intelligence service is on the social-networking site after his wife put family details there. Privacy isn’t a virtue that many of us take very seriously anymore.

The health problems of Jobs and other CEOs are still a personal issue and one that shouldn’t concern investors so much.

First, a company is never dependent on one person, no matter how it may appear. Assets, brand names and a corporate culture should prove durable even when the person who created them departs. If a company relies on the health of a single person, you should sell the shares right away. Nobody is immortal, so the equity is going to collapse one day.

Insulated From Risk

Second, there are all kinds of sudden events -- a terrorist attack, a new law, an innovative competitor -- that might hurt the future of a company. Shareholders can’t expect to be insulated from all such risks.

And where do you draw the line? If CEOs are made to disclose their medical records, why not reveal meetings with their therapist? Or their marriage counselor? Or personal coach? Aren’t those material as well?

It is a mistake to impose too many burdens on the people running public companies. They aren’t politicians, and they don’t need to be held to the same standards of disclosure. If the demands become too intrusive, don’t be surprised if the best companies start to drift away from the stock market. Ultimately, investors would be the main losers if that happens.

In the end, a share in a company gives us a claim on a portion of its future profits. That’s all. It doesn’t make us close family or confidants of the CEO, nor does it give us the right to know everything about their personal lives and health.

(Matthew Lynn is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.)

To contact the writer of this column: Matthew Lynn in London at matthewlynn@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: July 13, 2009 19:00 EDT