Methinks you are missing the point

Post #225,924 by bepatient 9/22/05 9:53:23 AM Reply	Methinks you are missing the point Without any proof that information was shared, the decision he made to ask the trustee to sell (which, by the way, it took over 3 weeks to actually implement) can easily be explained as the man making a decent investment decision, all by himself. If anybody is going to know what a good value for the stock is at any point in time, it is going to be Frist and other family members involved in the business. His brother, by SEC rule, cannot trade the stock 30 days before or after a financial reporting date because he is actively working within the org. The Sen actually gave notice to sell on the day before that requirement...actually meeting the rules of the SEC for an insider. The only way they can convict him of insider trading is to have a recorded conversation with his brother saying "our finances suck and we're going to miss"...and even that may be hard to do if they have scheduled investor calls (many companies do) where they hinted at missing or having difficulty meeting targets. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #225,939 by JayMehaffey 9/22/05 10:48:41 AM Reply	And I think you are missing the point also The only way they can convict him of insider trading is to have a recorded conversation with his brother saying "our finances suck and we're going to miss"...and even that may be hard to do if they have scheduled investor calls (many companies do) where they hinted at missing or having difficulty meeting targets. I don't doubt that a conviction is unlikely. But being convicted in court is not the same thing as being guilty, which is not the same thing as being morally wrong. Also, keep in mind that Frist is not taking the "it was at a high point" defense, because that would violate his blind trust. His defense is that he got rid of the stock to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest, despite having gone to some length over the years to keep the stock. Jay
Post #225,950 by bepatient 9/22/05 11:36:03 AM Reply	But we started this with a "send him to Martha's West VIrginia Getaway" comment (she called it Yale, as opposed to jail according to her Letterman appearance). Thats what I thought funny. We have an "appearance of impropriety" that is difficult or near impossible to prove and we start with "throw him in jail". After all, he's a republican. "You guys are funny". If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #225,958 by tuberculosis 9/22/05 12:29:31 PM Reply	I say, that was a joke, son Definitely merits insider trading investigation - looks fishy and he's being evasive/lying about his reasons. Last celeb convicted of lying on insider trading suspicion was you know who. If in fact he did issue the sell order within the trading window, he's golden. If not, he's toast. Its that simple (or so I've been told - I'm subject to insider trading restrictions at my employer because I have access to lots of interesting numbers). "Whenever you find you are on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" --Mark Twain "The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." --Albert Einstein "This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses." --George W. Bush
Post #225,971 by bepatient 9/22/05 3:03:48 PM Reply	Depends on his access.. and the date of the order. It must be proven that he told them when the story says he did. The actual trade by the trustee was made well inside the blackout period...big no no...and it made this stink very badly, I agree. And I can't remember specifically...thought Martha ended up convicted in the trial...but not on the insider trading charge. I suppose I could look it up...but its not that big a deal. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #225,975 by Another Scott 9/22/05 3:13:54 PM Reply	Linky on Martha in #225806. ;-)
Post #225,976 by bepatient 9/22/05 3:15:37 PM Reply	Thanks. Thats what I thought Got the broker..couldn't prove it on her. Its really not an easy law to enforce. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #226,002 by broomberg 9/22/05 5:55:55 PM Reply	I seemed to recall her jail time was from lying to the Feds

Welcome to IWETHEY!