07-17-2004, 09:32 AM
|
 |
1 of 8,213,984,035
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 41.36N-81.32W
Posts: 21,538
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by maddy
I understand that she acted on the knowledge of some insider information in her stock transaction. But I also understand that with that knowledge she was not able to turn a profit, but rather a loss. So it would seem that her insider knowledge was either erroneous or not at all helpful in activing deviously to turn a quick profit.....
|
I do not follow this or “media hype topics” closely maddy, but my understanding is the profit was already made in this situation. She was a ground floor investor in something that had grown many time in value because of public information regarding the expected FDA approval that would allow the product to go to market. It was the unexpected failure to get the approval that was going to cause the loss when the information became public that she was accused of finding out about and trying to beat.
Regardless of the details, the concern is that sentence is influenced by the person as apposed to the act committed. 
__________________
 PANTIES
the best thing next to cuchie
"If God didn't want you to play with it, He would have put it between your shoulder blades,..... not at the end of your arm"
Except for speculation, we ONLY have NOW and EACHOTHER!
real world of cyber people ~ Pixies ~ real people of the cyber world
|