Dave wrote:
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 19:06:46 -0500, Jeff Morris
said:


You have an odd definition of insider trading. The truth is that on
June 7 1990 Bush was told his company would shut down on July 1 if they
didn't get new funding. On June 15 he was advised that selling stock at
this time would be viewed as insider trading. On June 22 he sold over
$800,000 worth at $4. By the end of the Summer it was down to $3, at
the end of the year it was $1.25.


So did they get new funding? When? If they got it, when was it announced?
Did the stock rise or fall on the announcement? What other factors were
likely to have been affecting the stock from June to December of 1990?

These things don't lend themselves to the kind of simplistic analysis the
political scandal sheets like to push.

Sure it does. The ups and down of the stock following the event are not
relevant. Actually they are relevant, since it appears to be part of a
classic "pump and dump" scheme. But that's another scandal you probably
don't want to talk about.

Bush was told his company was tanking. Bush sold is stock. This is
called "insider Trading," not "squeaky clean."

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 19:06:46 -0500, Jeff Morris
said:

You have an odd definition of insider trading. The truth is that on
June 7 1990 Bush was told his company would shut down on July 1 if they
didn't get new funding. On June 15 he was advised that selling stock at
this time would be viewed as insider trading. On June 22 he sold over
$800,000 worth at $4. By the end of the Summer it was down to $3, at
the end of the year it was $1.25.

So did they get new funding? When? If they got it, when was it announced?
Did the stock rise or fall on the announcement? What other factors were
likely to have been affecting the stock from June to December of 1990?

These things don't lend themselves to the kind of simplistic analysis the
political scandal sheets like to push.

Dave

And besides, Mr. Poodle is an expert when it comes to double-talk.



--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

Dave wrote:
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 20:09:37 -0500, Jeff Morris
said:


Are you really trying to claim that
when the president of a company sells a large block of stock a week
after being told that the company may fold in two weeks is not the very
definition of "insider trading"?


I'm telling you that you have to know more of the facts before making
wild-eyed accusations. For example, suppose that he learned just before the
sale that the company had just received a commitment for a large financing
on very favorable terms, and that when the financing was announced after he
sold, the stock took a big jump up.

Dave
We have to know more? Like the Enron style fake company manipulations?
Like the generous loans to officers forgiven? Like the stock sales at
40% discount? Oh yes, this is a "squeaky clean" operation!

You're cracking us up Dave! Maybe next you'll explain how Nixon was
not a crook!

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 20:09:37 -0500, Jeff Morris
said:

Are you really trying to claim that
when the president of a company sells a large block of stock a week
after being told that the company may fold in two weeks is not the very
definition of "insider trading"?

I'm telling you that you have to know more of the facts before making
wild-eyed accusations. For example, suppose that he learned just before
the
sale that the company had just received a commitment for a large financing
on very favorable terms, and that when the financing was announced after
he
sold, the stock took a big jump up.

So you're saying that it's only "insider trading" if he makes a profit on
it???

Wow!

CM

"Dave" wrote in message
But hey, don't let legal technicalities like what the SEC had to prove get
in the way of a rant.

I never do Dave... I never do...

CM

Dave wrote:
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 21:06:23 -0500, Jeff Morris
said:


We have to know more? Like the Enron style fake company manipulations?
Like the generous loans to officers forgiven? Like the stock sales at
40% discount? Oh yes, this is a "squeaky clean" operation!


Please try to focus a bit more, Jeff. The words "squeaky clean" are not
mine.

So? That was the comment I was addressing. Try to stay focused, Dave.

The only issue I addressed was the claim that a specific stock sale
violated the SEC's rules against insider trading.

You mean the violation he was admitted he was guilty of?

Other stock manipulations,
if they existed, have nothing to do with that issue. Forgiveness of loans to
officers, if they occurred, have nothing to do with that issue. Sales of
stock at less than the market price have nothing to do with that issue.

You're right. Those were different crimes that the SEC did not pursue.



Since you seem to know nothing about corporate finance, I will point out
that sales of stock in an offering that isn't registered under the
Securities Act of 1933, whether to insiders or venture capitalists, are
almost universally made at a substantial discount from market price, because
the purchaser can't sell the stock for at least a year (in limited amounts)
and, in the case of non-insiders, after two years in unlimited amounts.

Blah, blah blah. Are you referring to anything in specific or just
making jaxian rantings? BTW - the 40% discount affair occurred at the
same time shares were registered. But you wouldn't want reality to get
in your way, would you

Try to stay focused, Dave. Its pretty clear that you've just conceded
my original point and now you just babbling to make a diversion.

Dave wrote:
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 15:48:52 -0500, Jeff Morris
said:


On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 21:06:23 -0500, Jeff Morris
said:



We have to know more? Like the Enron style fake company manipulations?
Like the generous loans to officers forgiven? Like the stock sales at
40% discount? Oh yes, this is a "squeaky clean" operation!


Please try to focus a bit more, Jeff. The words "squeaky clean" are not
mine.

So? That was the comment I was addressing. Try to stay focused, Dave.


No, Jeff, you're trying to pull a fast one here. What you were responding to
was my "We need to know more." Presumably that's why you quoted it. As I
pointed out, the words "squeaky clean" were not mine. If you intended to
respond to those words, I suggest you should have quoted the author of those
words, not me.

So you didn't really have any point at all in your first comment? That
figures.




The only issue I addressed was the claim that a specific stock sale
violated the SEC's rules against insider trading.

You mean the violation he was admitted he was guilty of?


So far as I know, the only violation admitted to was the late filing of Form
4. As I pointed out before, that's not part of the rules against insider
trading.


Yes he admitted to the failure to report the sale. He also admitted to
the sale itself. When the president of a company sells a large block of
stock a week after being informed that the company may have to shut down
in two weeks, its is considered by many "insider trading." It is no
surprise that you consider it a wise move.



Other stock manipulations,
if they existed, have nothing to do with that issue. Forgiveness of loans to
officers, if they occurred, have nothing to do with that issue. Sales of
stock at less than the market price have nothing to do with that issue.

You're right. Those were different crimes that the SEC did not pursue.


Neither forgiveness of loans to insiders nor sales of stock at less than
market are crimes, Jeff. In fact even if they were civil wrongs they aren't
even civil wrongs the SEC has any authority to pursue.


What's your point?



Since you seem to know nothing about corporate finance, I will point out
that sales of stock in an offering that isn't registered under the
Securities Act of 1933, whether to insiders or venture capitalists, are
almost universally made at a substantial discount from market price, because
the purchaser can't sell the stock for at least a year (in limited amounts)
and, in the case of non-insiders, after two years in unlimited amounts.

Blah, blah blah. Are you referring to anything in specific or just
making jaxian rantings? BTW - the 40% discount affair occurred at the
same time shares were registered. But you wouldn't want reality to get
in your way, would you


So you're claiming that the resale of the shares sold to management at a 40%
discount were registered under the Securities Act of 1933? I don't think
so. I presume they did have a class of securities registered under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, but that's entirely irrelevant to the
discussion of whether shares sold to management could be immediately resold.

Really, Jeff, the securities laws are fairly complicated. You ought not to
get into discussions in an area you know nothing about.

Why? Your only point has been that some of the sleazy practices Bush
engaged in can't be prosecuted under particular laws. Your argument has
been totally irrelevant to my original comment, which is that Bush is
far from being "squeaky clean." In fact, you've demonstrated exactly
the attitude that makes 49% of the country think that Republicans and
lawyers are crooks.

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message

In fact, you've demonstrated exactly the attitude that makes 49% of the
country think that Republicans and lawyers are crooks.

So what does that mean? That the other 51% think that Democrats and lawyers
are crooks? I guess that means 100% of us believe that lawyers are crooks.
At least we agree on something. G

Max

"Jeff Morris" wrote
In fact, you've demonstrated exactly the attitude that makes 49% of the
country think that Republicans and lawyers are crooks.


Somewhat of a mis-statement. 49% of voters think that Republicans &
lawyers are crooks. Actually more than that, a lot of people I know who
voted for President Bush think that Vice President Cheney is
*definitely* a crook and that Bush most probably is too, but swallowed
all the hate-spew against libby-rulls & faggots.

Maxprop wrote:
So what does that mean? That the other 51% think that Democrats and lawyers
are crooks? I guess that means 100% of us believe that lawyers are crooks.
At least we agree on something. G


Well, it's probably that a small percentage of lawyers don't think they
themselves are crooks. It's almost impossible to find anything that's
100% in this world.

DSK

Dave wrote:
Interesting observation when you consider that major funding for the Dems
comes from the trial lawyers.


Actually I'd be surprised if the split of trial lawyers money was very
uneven. Of course, trumpeting that those darn lawyers are funding those
darn libby-rull Democrats is a play-book call, isn't it.

But look at the facts.... you're a lawyer (or claim to be) and look at
*your* personal politics. Do *you* give money to the Democratic Party?

DSK