Bob Nardelli is living on borrowed time as CEO of Chrysler.

Rick Wagoner is quitting as chief executive of General Motors, after the White House forced him out as a condition of the latest round of corporate bailout money. Chrysler, too, is set to get its share of loans from the government, but, thus far, Nardelli isn’t being asked to leave.

True, there are differences between Wagoner and Nardelli. Wagoner has led GM since 2000, while Nardelli took over Chrysler after its Cerberus-backed buyout in August 2007. And GM has been in much worse financial shape than Chrysler.

But Nardelli will be on a very short leash, and look for Congress to question his every move.

You see, he has a compensation problem.

When Nardelli resigned as CEO of Home Depot in 2007, he was essentially run out as a result of his pay. Not only that, he was criticized by shareholder activists for ignoring investor concerns about his pay. Indeed, at a May 2006 annual meeting, he refused to answer questions from shareholders and gaveled the meeting to a quick close, ignoring shareholders who wanted to exercise their rights by asking questions and making comments to the board. Nardelli and Home Depot would later apologize for the spectacle.

When Nardelli quit Home Depot in 2007, he drew more ire by walking away with a $210 million golden parachute – even though his tenure did little to boost Home Depot’s stock price.

In fact, House Financial Services chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass., was critical Nardelli back then, calling the severance package “out of control.”

Frank’s words back then echo now in the controversy over bonuses paid to AIG executives and any compensation going to CEOs of financial-services companies that have taken federal bailout dollars.

Perhaps Nardelli has learned from the experience. He was, after all, the first of the Big Three auto execs to agree to take just $1 in pay.

How Nardelli structures his future compensation will judge how hard a time the government gives him – and Chrysler – in the coming months. Already, the government has suggested that Chrysler isn't viable and its future lies with  Fiat as a partner, not as a standalone company. That doesn't speak well to Nardelli's turnaround skills.

Given the public outrage over outsized compensation and taxpayer fatigue with bailouts and stimulus, Nardelli shouldn’t expect the government to give him the benefit of the doubt.

"Profit and earning ratios are starting to get to the point where buying stocks is a potentially good deal if you've got a long-term perspective on it."

Sage advice from a Wall Street market strategist?

Hardly.

That was direct from the mouth of President Barack Obama.

Traditionally, presidents don't comment on the markets. They know it's a path that usually leads to no good. Presidents are not stock pickers. And their words can move markets. Indeed, stocks recovered somewhat from a midday slump after Mr. Obama made the comment, in a media availability with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

Yet, given the market selloff over the past several months, might it not be a good idea to cheerlead stocks? Don't extraordinary times call for throwing out the rulebook?

Here's why the answer is no. The President needs to stay out of the markets for the markets to operate efficiently. Even at a time when it seems the government is as inolved in stocks as it has ever been, it's still a bad idea for the head of the nation to guide people in how to save or invest their money. People respect the office, and follow the advice, and the president should not have the responsibility to guide private citizens' nest eggs. It is beneath the Office of the President.

Plus, he could well be wrong.

Look at it this way: There were plenty of folks who pull down paychecks who called the bottom in the fall. And in December. And in January. And now.

In fact, looking at P/E ratios to guide overall market valuation is more of an art than a science. Some see an oversold market now. Others still see more selling yet to come. And market history has shown us that we can go through long periods where stocks barely move at all.

One last point: For all his appeal, charm, charisma and success, President Obama doesn't do the stock market for a living. If he did, he would be as hesitant as everyone else to recommend someone increase their stock allocations.

After all, many of those who offered that advice over the past year are now out of jobs.

Now that's a problem worthy of the president's time and attention.

Steve Jobs is too sick to serve as CEO. At least for now.

Leave it to Apple to snatch shareholder-rights defeat from the jaws of victory. Not too long ago, we were praising Jobs for coming clean and admitting, amid gobs of speculation, that Jobs was ill. He referred to his sickness as a "hormone imbalance" that caused him to lose weight. He also said that treatment was fairly simple and he expected to recover by late spring.

Unfortunately, Jobs said Wednesday that he needs to step aside as CEO of Apple to undergo treatment.

But, yet again, it was the way Apple disclosed the news that was problematic for those looking for honest, straight-forward answers from the company.

First, Apple disclosed the illness in a letter from Jobs himself, where he first lamented that the "curiosity over my personal health continues to be a distraction." Only after complaining about all this speculation -- which was A) fueled by Apple's stubborn resistance to address it in the first place, and B) true -- did he say that "during the past week I have learned that my health-related issues are more complex than I originally thought."

Jobs is taking medical leave until the end of June. Tim Cook will run the company in the interim.

But Apple did leave a big question unanswered -- one that plays into the potential volatility of the stock: Is this indeed still just a hormone imbalance, or is it something deeper, perhaps related to his pancreatic cancer? There is no mention of the nature of his illness, or what made it more complex than he originally thought just a week ago.

That will be the source of much speculation over the next few months. Apple would be well-served giving updates on what hopefully becomes a full recovery.

Apple today released a letter from CEO Steve Jobs that lays out the state of his health. In a nutshell, Jobs is ill, but with what he describes as a "hormone imbalance that has been 'robbing' me of the proteins my body needs to be healthy." That is what has driven his weight loss over the past year.

Treatment is simple, Jobs says, and he expects to recover by late Spring.

Most important for investors: he will remain Apple's CEO during that time.

Apple had been criticized, even here, for not disclosing the state of Jobs's health, amid legitimate questions over his fitness to lead the company. Apple had declined to address the issue, saying they would "let us know" if he were unable to serve as CEO.

That approach only fueled more speculation, and, in some cases, wild rumors -- which accelerated over the past few weeks. Jobs, after all, is a rare survivor of pancreatic cancer.

Now, Apple can put those rumors to rest. Jobs is indeed ill, but with something that is highly treatable. His illness is not expected to interfere with his role. Those are details vital to shareholders, despite Jobs still saying his health is "very personal." 

Good for Apple for finally addressing the issue.

Put aside the rumors about Steve Jobs' health, which FOX Business Network covered Monday and Gizmodo picked up on today.

There is a real question about transparency and corporate governance that needs to be addressed.

I hope Steve Jobs is well. Really. He is a legend in both technology and business, an innovator and someone who has created a great deal of value of shareholders. He is irreplaceable, and shareholders in Apple just have to get used to that.

But...

Apple has to get used to the idea that Steve Jobs' health is a legitimate issue for the company and should be addressed as such. When shareholders -- or, yes, even the media -- ask, it is not for some morbid, sordid reasons, or as an inappropriate invasion of privacy, but because there is real shareholder value at stake. So, it is not entirely the private matter Apple executives say it is.

The answer the company gave to FBN's Shibani Joshi Monday, and repeated Tuesday, isn't appropriate: "If Steve or the board decides that Steve is no longer capable of doing his job as CEO of Apple, I am sure they will let you know."

That tells investors nothing about his current ability to run the company, nor certainly his future ability to do so. And, if the worst is true and he isn't well enough to fulfill his duties as CEO to the full extent shareholders expect, Apple has a legal responsibility to tell the investing public. Shareholders-rights attorneys would salivate at the idea of Apple keeping material information from the public. If -- God forbid -- he died tomorrow of a disease he had been fighting for weeks or months, the SEC would have a real case to bring against Apple for withholding material information.

Apple can learn a good lesson from McDonald's. In 2004, Charlie Bell was named CEO in April after the sudden heart attack and death of Jim Cantalupo. A month into the job, Bell disclosed he had been diagnosed with coloreactal cancer. He had surgery, was released, but then disclosed he would need chemotherapy. By November, Bell decided the treatment would take away from his focus as CEO, so he resigned to concentrate on treatment. He died two months later.

Obviously, it was a rocky time to be a McDonald's shareholder, given the death of two CEOs within a year. But shareholders were at least kept informed. They knew the succession risk because the company, while respecting Bell's privacy by withholding details, at least made sure the investing public knew the course of both the disease and treatment. The company disclosed material details all along the way.

And that was for a company that was not so closely associated with its CEO, as Apple is now.

So the questions are legitimate. And the response from the company and the board needs to be legitimate, too.

In truth, it may not be an issue at all. Jobs may indeed be healthy, with his hand on the tiller. But, right now, shareholders can't know for sure...and that's Apple's fault, not the rumor mill's.