I love this. It concerns
I love this. It concerns a "stock lockout letter" that Bush signed in April of 1990, agreeing to delay sale of his Harken Energy Corporation stock until at least six months following a planned public offering of that stock. Bush sold his shares two months later.
Even though that public stock offering never happened, even though such letters are often formalities, the claim of a single Houston attorney seems to make this into an "item" of some sort. The lawyer, Thomas R. Ajamie, is part of a firm that is currently advising companies that did business with Enron, and in the past has represented shareholders in stock fraud cases. And, whoops! Among the clients of Schirrmeister Ajamie, LLP is a little company called Halliburton. Which means nothing in and of itself, of course. The site doesn't say what the firm did for Halliburton or when. But it is interesting that Ajamie is trying to skewer Bush while his firm has represented the company that's giving Cheney such headaches at the moment.
According to Ajamie's bio,
"He is sought after as an authority by the media and has been quoted in The Wall Street Journal, Forbes, BusinessWeek, Newsweek, Texas Lawyer, Houston Business Journal, and in the book FOOLS' GOLD: THE MAKING OF A GLOBAL MARKET FRAUD."
Just so.
But wait! Carr Bettis, an Associate Research Professor in Arizona State University's Finance Department and an expert on insider trading, is quoted as saying that stock lockout letters are no big deal--executives can get permission to sell even after signing such letters. Certainly, the mere fact that Bush signed one and then sold his shares does not constitute an ethical lapse, which seems to be the suggestion raised by whoever is waving that particular piece of paper around. According to Bettis' bio,
"He is frequently cited as an academic and industry expert on insider trading in popular business press such as the Wall Street Journal, Fortune, Smart Money, Dallas Morning News, The Economist, CNN, CNN-fn and CNBC, MSN/Money, and ThomsonFN.com."
So, take your pick. A lawyer who represents shareholders in stock fraud cases while working for a firm associated with Halliburton or an academic economist tucked away in the desert.
All of this quoting and hemming and hawing gets especially funny when you know that Bush sold his stock for $4 a share on June 22, 1990, and that the stock price rose to over $8 a share in 1991. So, even though he sold before the stock dipped to $2 at the end of 1990, if had waited a bit he could have cleared $1.6 million. Surely a savvy insider would have known that, don't you think?
I'm beginning to fail to see the problem, here.
