Insider Trading?

#1
CSpindizzy

CSpindizzy

Five Star Recruit
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
11,351
Likes
542
#1
Durbin cashed out during big stock collapse :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: News

I wonder if Durbin gets the same treatment that occurs in the private sector. My guess if the media even picks up on this he gets a slap on the wrist from Harry and the world moves on. Ironic how all this talk of the CEO's cashing out while the average American suffers - but yet Dick gets inside info and cashes out himself.
 
#3
#3
I'm back...took a long sabbatical from message boards. Time to rant again. I have a lot of catching up to do.
 
#5
#5
lawgator1 said:
Where's the story here?
Click to expand...

an elected official possibly used info given to him during a briefing to make a financial decision that saved him money when so many of his ilk were demonizing people in the financial sector for doing this very thing?
 
#6
#6
KB5252 said:
an elected official possibly used info given to him during a briefing to make a financial decision that saved him money when so many of his ilk were demonizing people in the financial sector for doing this very thing?
Click to expand...

Sounds like the Martha Stewart deal.
 
#7
#7
KB5252 said:
an elected official possibly used info given to him during a briefing to make a financial decision that saved him money when so many of his ilk were demonizing people in the financial sector for doing this very thing?
Click to expand...


He cashed out stock and bought another security and the info he allegedly based it on was public the next day. It was $90k. Did he save himself $500 by doing it one day early? If that case could even be made?

Weak.
 
#8
#8
lawgator1 said:
He cashed out stock and bought another security and the info he allegedly based it on was public the next day. It was $90k. Did he save himself $500 by doing it one day early? If that case could even be made?

Weak.
Click to expand...

Not sure if it qualifies as insider trading but the fact he may not have made much money doing it is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not a crime was committed.

Also, the fact that the info become public the next day doesn't disqualify it from being inside info the day prior.

I don't know if this qualifies but neither the subsequent public disclosure or potential small financial gains are arguments against insider trading.
 
#9
#9
volinbham said:
Not sure if it qualifies as insider trading but the fact he may not have made much money doing it is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not a crime was committed.
Click to expand...

if any GOP person did this, they would on the news every day for weeks. law doesn't care about the hyprocisy, as long as the dems are in power.
 
#11
#11
lawgator1 said:
He cashed out stock and bought another security and the info he allegedly based it on was public the next day. It was $90k. Did he save himself $500 by doing it one day early? If that case could even be made?

Weak.
Click to expand...

He cahsed out based on privileged info given behind closed doors. It was info given to him in private. This info gave him time to take advantage of this. In the business world "the next day" is quite a long time. Had those who lost money on this had the same privilege, they would not have faced losses as well. This man used his office and access to government inside info to profit off of it.

I guarantee you if the D was an R, you'd be weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth. Amazing how ethics becomes one sided in politics.
 
#12
#12
joevol320 said:
if any GOP person did this, they would on the news every day for weeks. law doesn't care about the hyprocisy, as long as the dems are in power.
Click to expand...


If it were a member of the GOP and it was the kind of money we are talking about here, I wouldn't give a crap.

Besides, why anyone would think it took a briefing from the Treasury Secretary to note that banks were in trouble is just mind numbingly stupid to me.

Did the briefing influence his decision? Maybe. But again, we are talking such a small amount of money in the guy's personal holdings, I just don't see it as all that meaningful.
 
#13
#13
lawgator1 said:
If it were a member of the GOP and it was the kind of money we are talking about here, I wouldn't give a crap.

Besides, why anyone would think it took a briefing from the Treasury Secretary to note that banks were in trouble is just mind numbingly stupid to me.

Did the briefing influence his decision? Maybe. But again, we are talking such a small amount of money in the guy's personal holdings, I just don't see it as all that meaningful.
Click to expand...

yet when a similarly small amount of money is spent on clothes for the VP candidate, most of which was returned, your side went nuts.
 
#15
#15
MG1968 said:
yet when a similarly small amount of money is spent on clothes for the VP candidate, most of which was returned, your side went nuts.
Click to expand...


Let's talk apples and apples. He didn't save the whole $90k, he saved whatever the loss might have been that day on the $90k. And again, it wasn't exactly breaking news that investments in banking stocks were at risk during that timeframe.
 
#16
#16
lawgator1 said:
If it were a member of the GOP and it was the kind of money we are talking about here, I wouldn't give a crap.

Besides, why anyone would think it took a briefing from the Treasury Secretary to note that banks were in trouble is just mind numbingly stupid to me.

Did the briefing influence his decision? Maybe. But again, we are talking such a small amount of money in the guy's personal holdings, I just don't see it as all that meaningful.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that had Durbin had loads more of money, the dollar amount would have been much greater. Or perhaps he knew what he was doing was shady and kept the amount low to throw off any claims of sketchy behavior.

So sketchy, unethical behavior doesn't matter to you unless it is in the millions? Corrupt elected officials abusing their power of office does not matter unless they've profited six figures or more?
 
#17
#17
volinbham said:
Not sure if it qualifies as insider trading but the fact he may not have made much money doing it is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not a crime was committed.

Also, the fact that the info become public the next day doesn't disqualify it from being inside info the day prior.

I don't know if this qualifies but neither the subsequent public disclosure or potential small financial gains are arguments against insider trading.
Click to expand...
it absolutely qualifies if he made the trade based upon privileged information prior the market having access to that information.
 
#18
#18
CSpindizzy said:
I'm sure that had Durbin had loads more of money, the dollar amount would have been much greater. Or perhaps he knew what he was doing was shady and kept the amount low to throw off any claims of sketchy behavior.

So sketchy, unethical behavior doesn't matter to you unless it is in the millions? Corrupt elected officials abusing their power of office does not matter unless they've profited six figures or more?
Click to expand...


I am so certain that it goes on all the time, and with members of both parties, that I'm so fatigued by it and therefore won't get perturbed unless its a large sum of money, yes.
 
#19
#19
lawgator1 said:
I am so certain that it goes on all the time, and with members of both parties, that I'm so fatigued by it and therefore won't get perturbed unless its a large sum of money, yes.
Click to expand...

Code for, I don't care if democrats do it, I only care when a Republican does it.
 
#20
#20
But wait. So you are saying both parties are guilty of this. Everything you've decried the GOP for doing the Dems are guilty of as well. But yet you harp on those GOP issues. If "both sides do it" is the bar you measure by, you need not "get perturbed" over the other posts you make. You've made the Right look flat out immoral and say nothing about the Left. But by your own standard and since both sides do all of these things, you don't need to get perturbed about the GOP at all.
 
#22
#22
Had Neil's issues been in this century, you'd have seen a different story. The atmosphere and the make up of the press now is much different than 25 years ago. Had this happened in the last 8 years, Neil would have faced a different fate.
 
#23
#23
CSpindizzy said:
Had Neil's issues been in this century, you'd have seen a different story. The atmosphere and the make up of the press now is much different than 25 years ago. Had this happened in the last 8 years, Neil would have faced a different fate.
Click to expand...

Lawgator would have certainly expressed outrage, faux or otherwise.
 
#25
#25
hatvol96 said:
Tell that to Spiro Agnew.
Click to expand...

So you're telling me the atmosphere between Agnew's situation and Neil Bush's situation is comparable? Between the Vietnam War, Pentagon Papers, Watergate conspiracies, etc. with the sitting VP and Neil Bush, we're dealing with two separate situations. The sharks in the media are far more interested in feeding on Agnew's situation over Neil Bush's. Again, the media atmosphere was much different between Agnew's time and Neil Bush's. Even within W's eight years, the media went from enabler to lynch mob.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top