Insider trading... again?

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
As I said, I believe that was it.

I believe you're wrong. As usual.

originally posted by: jtma508
So as everyone knows, the White House made a deal with Kodak to produce pharmaceuticals under the Defense Procurement Act. Not surprisingly, there has been some more than suspicious activity concerning Kodak stock. Over the month of July, Kodak has traded at between 52k to 215k per day. Last Thursday and Friday it traded 85k and 75k shares respectively. On Monday, the day BEFORE the deal was announced, 1,645,000 shares were traded. Over the last year the average trading volume was just over 236k shares. That's a 7-fold jump. So who knew of the deal and who made these prescient trades?

Kodak CEO

The financial industry is chock full of criminals.
A lot of what goes on there gets a free pass when it has to do with money.

Rob a bank and you can get filled with bullet holes and the nation cheers.
Become a bank and rob the people and you get bailouts and golden parachutes.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: jtma508

I also want to know who in Congress bought shares.

The SEC will investigate and prosecute the Kodak executives but for Congress it's not illegal. They should still be outed publicly.

I would support protesters and homeless people setting up tents on their lawns and #ting on their sidewalks.

originally posted by: jacobe001
I would support protesters and homeless people setting up tents on their lawns and #ting on their sidewalks.

Forget the sidewalks, on their dining room tables.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
As I said, I believe that was it.

I believe you're wrong. As usual.

As usual?

Bwahahaha

I would say nice try but that was weak, even for you.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
As I said, I believe that was it.

I believe you're wrong. As usual.

I did a little research. Apparently you are unable to do so but thats ok. Facts aren't for everyone.

I said I believed it was under the clintons that the particular law in question was passed. I said it with the qualifier "I believe" which, to a normal person, would indicate that I am not 100% sure it is correct but is to my recollection based in truth. In fact, the legislation predates the clinton administration. I was correct in its existence but wrong on the date of its inception.

I then mentioned the hillary cattle futures investigation where she used insider information to turn $1000 into nearly $100,000 in just ten months time. That was accurate and true.

I then reminded you that I said "I believe that was it" and invited you to take it as you will. You chose to take it as absolute fact - which you then stated was incorrect. Nice twist you put on that one...

I added that it was in 2011 that congress using insider trading was actually made illegal. That was correct. I stated further that in 2013 there was an effort to reverse that law, which was also correct.

So, the only thing I got wrong was the administration under which congress was exempt from prosecution for insider trading.

And to you that is "as usual".

I would like to take this opportunity to formally invite you to KMA. Your incessant whining and nitpicking has proven to be a detractor to this great site. Look at your posts on this topic. What have you brought to the discussion? I see nothing of value of any sort - as usual.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
I said I believed it was under the clintons that the particular law in question was passed. I said it with the qualifier "I believe" which, to a normal person, would indicate that I am not 100% sure it is correct but is to my recollection based in truth. In fact, the legislation predates the clinton administration. I was correct in its existence but wrong on the date of its inception.

So is this you saying you were wrong after I already knew you were wrong because you were too damn lazy to back up your comments with a link? Too funny.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
I said I believed it was under the clintons that the particular law in question was passed. I said it with the qualifier "I believe" which, to a normal person, would indicate that I am not 100% sure it is correct but is to my recollection based in truth. In fact, the legislation predates the clinton administration. I was correct in its existence but wrong on the date of its inception.

So is this you saying you were wrong after I already knew you were wrong because you were too damn lazy to back up your comments with a link? Too funny.

I said I believed it was correct. I was going on memory. I didn't bother to look it up because a normal person would understand what I said and know that the date isn't the important part, the legislation itself is. I did not take into consideration the blathering childish response I would have to endure for expecting more from the readers than you can offer.

Congratulations! You failed to prove anything. Something said I wasn't sure of turned out to be earlier than I believed it was. Wow. What a huge victory for you. Well, it would have been had you cited some reference. But you didn't.

In all of this you have not advanced the subject at all. Typical and true to form for you. Don't forget your participation trophy on the way out.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
Congratulations! You failed to prove anything.

I'm not the one who's making things up as I go, that's you. Not my fault you thought you'd get away with it.