Both if you ask my opinion

Post #47,779 by orion 8/1/02 6:16:16 PM Reply	Both if you ask my opinion what about the CEOs that sell at least 30% of their stock prior to the company going under? They knew that it was going under, the ran the company and had the numbers in front of them from accounting that the public didn't see (before the books got cooked). Then they can claim that they lost 70% of their stock when it became worthless. Not enough enough stock value to cash in a buy a Snickers candy bar. But their 30% netted them $700M USD that they can take to the bank and use until their retire. WTF is wrong with this picture? *I am free now, to choose my own destiny.*
Post #47,798 by static 8/1/02 11:17:38 PM Reply	Corporate blunders Down Under. We had some, I believe, historic judgements a few weeks ago in that arena. Telephone company One.Tel had some spectacular financial mismanagement and Those In Charge got charged with various Corporations' Laws violations. One guy got ordered to personally repay approx $7 million. Hopefully the US will start doing this to their ill-gotten gains. Wade. "Ah. One of the difficult questions."
Post #47,801 by tablizer 8/1/02 11:43:13 PM Reply	Not an easy one The problem with such insider trading accusations is that it is hard to say what motivated the sell. You have to second-guess the reasons for decisions. Laws based on guessing motivation are often bad ideas IMO. IOW, "neural legistlation". I don't know what the fix is, though. Perhaps tie CEO's pay directly to the current stock price rather than issue him/her stocks? ________________ oop.ismad.com

Welcome to IWETHEY!