It’s all a matter of perspective, dontchanknow. One man’s crime is another man’s perk of office.
2 Likes
And you could buy candy for a penny. And the movies cost A nickel.
3 Likes
I don’t know what happened in this case, but non-public shares can have a discount on them, because they are illiquid.
That doesn’t rule out favorable behavior. Most non-public shares are either hugely risky or very hard to get. The desirable shares, such as those in a company expected to have a successful IPO, generally are parceled out to favored parties – such as those who invested in the company in earlier rounds of funding.
1 Like
And we died from the flu! At least I did.
5 Likes
I can remember the sound of a stocker putting the price stickers on the lids of all the cans in a carton of canned vegetables (remember those?).
2 Likes
And the patent pending dickCheenee answer will be ‘So?’
1 Like
And the Youngblood singing over the PA.
2 Likes
Again…do we think this is a SURPRISE that they wanted to get rid of the Office of Congressional Ethics?
3 Likes
He also said this let’s hope they dump him
“How do you pay somebody $15 an hour to scoop ice cream? How good could you be at scooping ice cream?”
7 Likes
If this were an isolated incident, one might be willing to swallow the idea that it was just a coincidence. But…
…Price traded more than $300,000 in health care stocks while he had jurisdiction over the health care industry and sponsored and advocated for legislation regulating it.
In other words, this kind of conflict of interest is Price’s stock-in-trade.
When I worked for Uncle Sugar as an IT guy, I was prohibited from owning any tech stocks, despite the fact that I had absolutely no ability to do anything that would have benefited any particular tech company. Yet the political appointees above me, who really did have the ability to influence how Federal dollars were spent, were often given waivers. Pissed me off no end.
In the Trump era, it appears we’re going to see the complete disappearance of the very concept of “conflict of interest.” After all, if you can’t profit from public service, what’s the point, eh?
6 Likes
Aren’t you starting to think that having blatant conflicts of interest is a prerequisite for being a PeePee nominee?
It sure does appear that way…
4 Likes
It seems that way
2 Likes
Dammit
I forgot about him
Ty
2 Likes
With something like this on the horizon, one can already see Mr. Chafetz ginning up another house investigation . . . of the Clintons.
3 Likes
From the New York Magazine article linked by @darcy:
“Mr. Puzder has spent his career rigging the system against American workers by opposing the overtime rule, opposing the minimum wage, and underpaying his own workers," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement.
I doubt that there are three GOP senators who disagree with any of Puzder’s positions so he should coast through the confirmation process. Same with the domestic assault allegations, i.e., putting the little lady in her place.
3 Likes
Holy Shit ! …
I was completely unaware …
(going in now for a good self flogging… will start trying to respect elders …)
1 Like
Haven’t we discussed that ? ? … refresh my memory —
1 Like
Well there were these blonde ‘identical twins’ who ran for president…
1 Like
Yay Chuck! Good for you! Nail the bastards!!v
1 Like
A company that is publicly traded can issue shares in a secondary offering at a price that is less than the trading price on the stock market. Say Acme, Inc. needs additional capital and its shares are trading at $X on the market. If Acme makes a secondary offering at $X an investor has no incentive to buy the shares from the company, the investor can get the same deal on the open market. So Acme offers the shares at below market pricing.
A company can also issue discounted shares to key employees or other “important people” as an incentive or reward. All perfectly legal within reasonable parameters.
2 Likes