THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Bill who wrote (17507)	7/15/2002 11:21:42 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (2) of 21057

the facts surrounding his ignorance of the loss are pretty well established, as are those about his motivation to sell and timing of the sale. His knowledge or ignorance of the impending loss are impossible to establish through documentary evidence. All that can be established was that the information was not delivered through official channels. Let's not be naive here, please. We all know how these things happen. Well connected insider serves on the audit committee of a corporation, and undoubtedly has associates among the corporation's accounting people. Over a private little lunch somewhere, an associate drops a little hint (well, in this case probably a big hint) that the current quarter is shaping up to be a big nasty. Well connected insider decides that maybe it's time to pay off that loan, and the associate is owed a favor. Is it legal? Well, no. Is prosecution possible? Unless the associate spills the beans (implicating self in the process), no. Does it happen? Oh no never, of course not, whoever would even think of such a thing.... Do you really think it doesn't happen? What makes you think it didn't happen in this case?

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next