Conservative Spin Doctors Twist Reality Again...

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
There was no need to do it once the earnings statements were released because it made the ipo irrevelant, given the condition of the company and of the stock price.

You have no idea why the IPO was not issued. Companies don't issue public stock offerings *because their coffers are overflowing with cash*. Usually the point is *to raise cash* they feel is needed to maintain or grow. Contrary to popular opinion, Harken stock did not plummet because of their revised earnings statement shortly after Bush sold his stock. Within days of that disclosure it was right back at $3, where it was just prior to the revised earnings statement.
 

Miramonti

Lifer
Aug 26, 2000
28,653
100
106
Originally posted by: Corn
There was no need to do it once the earnings statements were released because it made the ipo irrevelant, given the condition of the company and of the stock price.
You have no idea why the IPO was not issued. Companies don't issue public stock offerings *because their coffers are overflowing with cash*. Usually the point is *to raise cash* they feel is needed to maintain or grow. Contrary to popular opinion, Harken stock did not plummet because of their revised earnings statement shortly after Bush sold his stock. Within days of that disclosure it was right back at $3, where it was just prior to the revised earnings statement.

Thats irrevelant and you're criticizing my conjecture, and discussing reasons for ipo's is another issue, however fyi Ipo's are often pulled when the investment in it becomes less favorable, whether due to change in the companies condition or the overall market condition.

The fact is that Bush did participate in insider trading and at the expense of shareholders since the stock significantly traded down, and his explanations are contradictory and without merit.
 

HiveMaster

Banned
Apr 11, 2002
490
0
0
Contrary to popular opinion, Harken stock did not plummet because of their revised earnings statement shortly after Bush sold his stock. Within days of that disclosure it was right back at $3, where it was just prior to the revised earnings statement.

If Bush sold the stock with prior knowledge about the revised earning estimate, he is just as guilty even if the price did not fall. Anytime someone high in the corporate food chain sells stock, you must study closely what happens to the company soon after.

Actually, my grammer is correct. Because you say it isn't, doesn't make it so.
I just plugged it into WORD 2000, and WORD said it was incorrect. I am no master grammarian.
 
Jul 1, 2000
10,274
2
0
You missed the point of the article entrirely...

The media lionizes hypocrites that further "their" agenda as courageous...

If the media does not like the hypocrite in question, they expose them ...

rolleye.gif
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
However, Bush broke the law by violating insider trading rules and could also have been held accountable to his agreement with his firm to not sell shares. None of these were priveledges and just because someone doesn't get held accountable (i.e. your dad hires your prosecutor - the SEC chairman), that doesn't mean he wasn't in violation.

I don't think that anyone disputes that Bush was in violation of the rules governing insider trading by not filing the form 4 in it's required timeframe. However, accountability should be a consideration regarding intent. Bush claims it was a mistake, and the evidence suggests this to be true. The SEC requires two forms to be filed for insider trades, the form 144 (intent to sell) and the form 4 (complete details of the sale). If Bush were trying to hide the sale of his stock, then why file the form 144 upfront?

The Facts About Bush and Harken

From the above link:

On the third question, whether the news of Harken's unexpectedly large loss hurt the company's investors, the SEC examined Harken's share price just before and just after news of the loss was made public. The announcement came at 9:34 A.M. on August 20, 1990. When the market opened that morning, according to the SEC, Harken's stock was selling at $3 per share. It stayed at that level until after noon, when it began a slow slide to $2.375 per share. The next day, however, it rebounded to $3 per share. If the loss announcement had been a bombshell, SEC investigators reasoned, the stock would most likely have fallen immediately and stayed down. "The conclusion of the Office of Economic Analysis is that, because the price of Harken did not immediately react to the earnings announcement and there is no news that explains Harken's return to its pre-announcement price of $3 on August 21, 1990, the earnings announcement did not provide investors with new material information," the SEC said. Furthermore, even though Harken stock moved down for the rest of 1990, it recovered its value ? and more ? the next year, when it hit $8 a share.

FORM 144 VS. FORM 4
In addition to the questions that have been raised about Bush's decision to sell his stock, there are also questions about when he informed federal regulators of the sale. Last week, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote, "Oddly, though the law requires prompt disclosure of insider sales, [Bush] neglected to inform the SEC about this transaction until 34 weeks had passed. An internal SEC memorandum concluded that he had broken the law, but no charges were filed. This, everyone insists, had nothing to do with the fact that his father was president."

The documents tell a somewhat different story. Although Krugman did not mention it, Bush was required to file two disclosure forms with the SEC. One, which was known as a Form 4, was due the month after Bush made the sale. The other, known as a Form 144, was due at the time of the sale. Bush filed the Form 4 several months late, but he filed the Form 144 on time. In the view of some experts, the Form 144 was the more important of the two.

Bush filed the Form 144, officially known as a "Notice of Proposed Sale of Securities," on June 22, 1990, the day of the sale. In the form, he listed, among other things, how many shares he intended to sell, when he had originally acquired them, how much they were worth, and which broker would handle the transaction. "The 144 is probably the more market-informative form," says Edward Fleischman, who was an SEC commissioner between 1986 and 1992. "It gives market-watchers an indication of what is coming." In contrast, Fleischman says, "The Form 4 is totally retrospective and was originated for a very different purpose, to keep track of dates and prices." If the purpose of disclosure was to make regulators and investors aware of Bush's insider sale, then the Form 144 was the more important document.


 

Desslok

Diamond Member
Jun 14, 2001
3,780
11
81
Everyone is jumping all over the Rep. for being in bed with big business. This is news to anyone? As bad as that made be, at least Dick Cheney is not calling up the Chinese and asking for money which is pretty close to treason in my book. Then a few months later we find a Chinese "spy" stealing warhead designs. To many closely related incidents for me to believe that they did not sell out the country for their own gain.



 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
Thats irrevelant and you're criticizing my conjecture......

I'm critical of your conjecture because you presented it as fact. Here's what you said:

There was no need to do it once the earnings statements were released because it made the ipo irrevelant, given the condition of the company and of the stock price.

Understand?

The fact is that Bush did participate in insider trading and at the expense of shareholders since the stock significantly traded down.....

My previous post already disproves that as a complete fabrication.
 

Miramonti

Lifer
Aug 26, 2000
28,653
100
106
Originally posted by: Corn
Thats irrevelant and you're criticizing my conjecture......
I'm critical of your conjecture because you presented it as fact. Here's what you said:
There was no need to do it once the earnings statements were released because it made the ipo irrevelant, given the condition of the company and of the stock price.
Understand?
The fact is that Bush did participate in insider trading and at the expense of shareholders since the stock significantly traded down.....
My previous post already disproves that as a complete fabrication.

My statement was conjecture but not baseless. You asked "why hold him to the letter" and I gave you a credible response. The likelyhood of pulling off a favorable ipo after earnings reports like that would have been slim to none. Most likely a company in a situation like that could get investment banking loans but not pull off an ipo.

As for which form he filed and when, thats irrevelant also. Often forms are even filed in advance of sales, and the transaction may not even be executed, but in either case, whatever was filed, late or not, was after the fact and doesn't justify the means.

The facts still remain, which somehow you concluded as complete fabrication (/baffled), was that he had insider information about Harkens financial position which wasn't public, which would most likely cause an adverse affect on the stock price (and it did) and then he sold his block of shares 2 1/2 weeks before this news was released. The stock traded down 20% then next day, even tho it rebounded, only to sell off more later.

The fact that the shares didn't plummet in the morning is irrevelant and often common in illiquid stocks to not sell off immediately. Whether it rebounded afterwards is moot also, especially since it continued to sell off later on. The insider information was still absolutely relevant to the share price of the stock and absolutely created an adverse environment for it. (i.e. insider trading)

What is insider trading?

"Insider trading" refers generally to buying or selling a security, in breach of a fiduciary duty or other relationship of trust and confidence, while in possession of material, nonpublic information about the security. Insider trading violations may also include "tipping" such information, securities trading by the person "tipped" and securities trading by those who misappropriate such information. Examples of insider trading cases that have been brought by the Commission are cases against: corporate officers, directors, and employees who traded the corporation's securities after learning of significant, confidential corporate developments; friends, business associates, family members, and other "tippees" of such officers, directors, and employees, who traded the securities after receiving such information; employees of law, banking, brokerage and printing firms who were given such information in order to provide services to the corporation whose securities they traded; government employees who learned of such information because of their employment by the government; and other persons who misappropriated, and took advantage of, confidential information from their employers.



 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
The facts still remain, which somehow you concluded as complete fabrication (/baffled), was that he had insider information about Harkens financial position which wasn't public, which would most likely cause an adverse affect on the stock price (and it did) and then he sold his block of shares 2 1/2 weeks before this news was released.

Prove it. Let's see these "facts" that "still remain". Let's see your evidence that Bush knew the complete scope of the losses prior to the sale of his stock. Bring it.

Again, you bring your own tainted and biased conjecture and present it as fact. Pathetic!
 

XZeroII

Lifer
Jun 30, 2001
12,572
0
0
How is this hypocracy? Have any of you smokers who quit ever spoke out against cigarettes since you quit? YOU ARE BASTARD HYPOCRITES, according to what's being said here. Bush took the loan back before any of this started. If he took a loan out now or in a week or something, then it would be hypocracy. Some people are idiots.
 

Miramonti

Lifer
Aug 26, 2000
28,653
100
106
Originally posted by: Corn
Prove it. Let's see these "facts" that "still remain". Let's see your evidence that Bush knew the complete scope of the losses prior to the sale of his stock. Bring it. Again, you bring your own tainted and biased conjecture and present it as fact. Pathetic!

Here's insight into proof that GW had adverse insider knowledge 16 days before he sold his shares.

A confidential Harken chronology, obtained by the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity, said that 16 days before he sold the stock, Bush was sent the company's "weekly flash report," giving "information provided by subsidiaries regarding estimated historical and projected earnings."
Asked about the document, a White House official said Bush thought the company was going to lose about $9 million in the quarter. That would have been four times as much as the company lost in the previous quarter but not nearly as much as it did lose. As it turned out, the company lost $23 million for the period, according to an earnings report made public two months after Bush sold.

I'm sorry I thought you knew this already...
 

Miramonti

Lifer
Aug 26, 2000
28,653
100
106
Originally posted by: XZeroII
How is this hypocracy? Have any of you smokers who quit ever spoke out against cigarettes since you quit? YOU ARE BASTARD HYPOCRITES, according to what's being said here. Bush took the loan back before any of this started. If he took a loan out now or in a week or something, then it would be hypocracy. Some people are idiots.

This whole discussion is about Bush's insider trading, not when he got the loan or when he paid it off. Thanks for your input on smoking tho.
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
This whole discussion is about Bush's insider trading, not when he got the loan or when he paid it off. Thanks for your input tho.

No it isn't you moron, read the damned first post in this thread. You've moved the discussion off topic.


I'm sorry I thought you knew this already...

LOL, look at your damn "fact". The stock price was not affected by the 9 million dollar loss that Bush might have been aware of, it was affected by a 23 million dollar loss that Bush was not aware of. Again, you present your "interpretation" of events to be fact, but the facts state otherwise. Thanks for playing.
 

Miramonti

Lifer
Aug 26, 2000
28,653
100
106
Originally posted by: Corn
This whole discussion is about Bush's insider trading, not when he got the loan or when he paid it off. Thanks for your input tho. No it isn't you moron, read the damned first post in this thread. You've moved the discussion off topic.
I'm sorry I thought you knew this already...
LOL, look at your damn "fact". The stock price was not affected by the 9 million dollar loss that Bush might have been aware of, it was affected by a 23 million dollar loss that Bush was not aware of. Again, you present your "interpretation" of events to be fact, but the facts state otherwise. Thanks for playing.

That would have been four times as much as the company lost in the previous quarter but not nearly as much as it did lose.

reiterate...."losses 4x as much as in the previous quarter."

And does the fact that they lost more negate the fact it was insider trading? Hehe, not. Not to mention he sold his shares at $4 and already screwed investors out of $1, or 25% of the share price, even before the news went public when it dipped below $2.50.
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
LOL, interesting....you present a White House Official "who said....Bush thought the company was going to lose about $9 million in the quarter.".....yet the fact is (as stated in this very article):

Quote:

The flash report Bush was sent 16 days before his stock sale, which was for the week ending May 31, 1990, projected losses for the second quarter of about $4 million.


The facts state the Bush knew for sure of a 4 million dollar loss. Interesting facts you've presented jjsole.....LOL



 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
Not to mention he sold his shares at $4 and already screwed investors out of $1, or 25% of the share price, even before the news went public when it dipped below $2.50.

Desperation has now entered your equation: LOL!!!!!!!!

If the stock lost value prior to the release of any priviledged information (which listed a loss that was 5 times greater than what was disclosed to Bush), that cannot be held against the seller at all. Bush screwed no one and you've proven yourself clueless and desperate.
 

Miramonti

Lifer
Aug 26, 2000
28,653
100
106
Originally posted by: Corn
LOL, interesting....you present a White House Official "who said....Bush thought the company was going to lose about $9 million in the quarter.".....yet the fact is (as stated in this very article):
Quote: The flash report Bush was sent 16 days before his stock sale, which was for the week ending May 31, 1990, projected losses for the second quarter of about $4 million.
The facts state the Bush knew for sure of a 4 million dollar loss. Interesting facts you've presented jjsole.....LOL
Thats interesting isn't it? He said he thought the company was going to lose more than 2x the flash report, a total of 8x the previous quarters losses shown in the flash report. What is this, a "guess" from GW? Apparently he knew even more than was even stated in the flash report. And this disparity lessens the credibility of accusations of insider trading???

Now that's funny.
 

Miramonti

Lifer
Aug 26, 2000
28,653
100
106
I don't mind responding to your thoughts Corn but you can take your flames and go fvck yourself with them till you run out of holes.
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
He said he thought the company was going to lose more than 2x the flash report, a total of 8x the previous quarters losses shown in the flash report.

I'm sorry, please point out where Bush himself said that he thought Harken was going to lose $9 million. Evidently you don't understand the difference between heresay and fact. LOL
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Aren't editorials/op-ed pieces sorta intended to spin the news? What makes this piece any different? Granted, it's a pretty lame argument the writer makes, but the style or substance of the argument is nothing new for the opinion pages.
 

Tominator

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,559
1
0
What America Thinks-Gallup poll.

Also only a few days after Bush sold his stock, the price almost doubled! He sold it too early. That DOES NOT sound like he had insider knowledge. He and the trade have been invertigated by the SEC and a Democrat ran the investigation. The investigation found NOTHING.
 

Format C:

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,662
0
0
Blah blah, blah blah blah blah, Buzz Buzzz Buzzzzzz, blah blah blah blah blah blah. Gore lost. Get over it.
 

HiveMaster

Banned
Apr 11, 2002
490
0
0
Blah blah, blah blah blah blah, Buzz Buzzz Buzzzzzz, blah blah blah blah blah blah. Gore lost. Get over it.

Read my sig.
And then kiss my ass.

Tell you what, when conservatives stop blaming Clinton for things that happen during the Bush administration's time in office, I will stop blaming Bush for what happens during his reign.

(Pretty safe making that statement! I will be able to keep bringing this stuff up for years...)
 

Tominator

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,559
1
0
Originally posted by: HiveMaster
Blah blah, blah blah blah blah, Buzz Buzzz Buzzzzzz, blah blah blah blah blah blah. Gore lost. Get over it.

Read my sig.
And then kiss my ass.

Tell you what, when conservatives stop blaming Clinton for things that happen during the Bush administration's time in office, I will stop blaming Bush for what happens during his reign.

(Pretty safe making that statement! I will be able to keep bringing this stuff up for years...)


No doubt since Clinton was the most unethical president in history.