Ohhh I see if a company is losing money their stock should be valied at $0. Thanks for the lesson in market pricing. Value of a stock is based on the current earnings not the perception of what the future cash flows might be.


/sarcasm

Is it me, or does Bill look like Newt Gingrich in that picture?

Anyway, isn't this more or less par for the course? Don't we already know the Clintons have all kinds of shysty business deals going on for the last couple of decades? Non story, IMO.

I'll be back later, I have to go be indignant about the latest Obama-Rezko developments.

Wow. Washington Times. Not surprised they came out with a Clinton hit piece, just the timing.

Jubeebee
I'll be back later, I have to go be indignant about the latest Obama-Rezko developments.

Umm... yeah. The Rezko thing is one area the Hillary campaign should definitely keep their mouths shut on...

If there's one newspaper that knows about holding value at toilet paper level, it's The Washington Times.

And no one else in Washington has ever gotten a sweet deal. If it weren't for Clinton, the whole US government would be pure and lily-white.

/B-b-but everyone else!

This supports the theory that the Clinton's aren't hiding anything by not releasing their tax returns...Yep.

patrick767:
Umm... yeah. The Rezko thing is one area the Hillary campaign should definitely keep their mouths shut on...

But Rezko is from Chicago and was involved in Chicago politics. Obama is a Chicago politician from Chicago. Therefore, there is a massive scandal between Obama and Rezko.

At least, that's what I keep hearing.

Jubeebee: patrick767:
Umm... yeah. The Rezko thing is one area the Hillary campaign should definitely keep their mouths shut on...

But Rezko is from Chicago and was involved in Chicago politics. Obama is a Chicago politician from Chicago. Therefore, there is a massive scandal between Obama and Rezko.

At least, that's what I keep hearing.

that does about sum up the argument

Jubeebee: patrick767:
Umm... yeah. The Rezko thing is one area the Hillary campaign should definitely keep their mouths shut on...

But Rezko is from Chicago and was involved in Chicago politics. Obama is a Chicago politician from Chicago. Therefore, there is a massive scandal between Obama and Rezko.

At least, that's what I keep hearing.

Also, they bought property next door to each other! THE HORROR!

if this were george bush senior this entire thread would be about "typical republican neocon corruption"

albo: if this were george bush senior this entire thread would be about "typical republican neocon corruption"

if this were about george bush senior, i'd be questioning why we give a fark.

mattbin: And no one else in Washington has ever gotten a sweet deal. If it weren't for Clinton, the whole US government would be pure and lily-white.

/B-b-but everyone else!

Just because other politicians have done it does not excuse the act. There is also the question of just how much of this questionable money that is being earned by Bill is finding its way into Hillary's campaign (which is why people want to see their tax returns).

albo: if this were george bush senior this entire thread would be about "typical republican neocon corruption"

As opposed to "typical Clinton power-leveraging corruption"?

Is 41 a neocon? I thought he was more Reagan flavored.

Code_Archeologist: Just because other politicians have done it does not excuse the act.

Yes, though this seems far less shady than many of the things I've heard about in the last, oh, seven years or so.

There is also the question of just how much of this questionable money that is being earned by Bill is finding its way into Hillary's campaign (which is why people want to see their tax returns).

Absolutely no argument from me, here. Though given the scrutiny Bill's Christmas card list got from the senate in the 90s, I understand their reticence.

Wow, that never happens. And Steve Jobs didn't backdate millions of options.

This is not a story.

Like a NYC cop at the crucifixion, "Nothing to see here, move along."

mattbin: And no one else in Washington has ever gotten a sweet deal. If it weren't for Clinton, the whole US government would be pure and lily-white.

/B-b-but everyone else!

Yes she the fact that Mrs. Obama's salary was raised to $1 million raise when her husband became a US senator was just a fluke as well.

It's all the Clinton's being sleazy. No one else has ever used their community contacts and influence to get a sweeter deal.

Jubeebee: Is 41 a neocon? I thought he was more Reagan flavored.

No one on Fark knows what "neocon" means.

This sort of looks like the company that paid him for the speech could wind up with some securities problems, but in general, I think this is a fairly common way for smaller companies to do financing.

NightOwl2255: This is not a story

yes, it's a story because he's the spouse of a potential president. it certainly would be a story if it were cindy mccain or michelle obama

filth: No one on Fark knows what "neocon" means.

ummmm... Is it an acronym?

Nuke Everyone - Oil Companies Only Needed.

/Did I win?

valloned: This supports the theory that the Clinton's aren't hiding anything by not releasing their tax returns...Yep.

My thoughts exactly!!

madmann: /Did I win?

Now and forever.

Jubeebee: Is it me, or does Bill look like Newt Gingrich in that picture?

Looks a bit more like Ted Kennedy in that picture to me.

Mr. Clinton had gotten the nonpublicly traded stock from Accoona Corp. back in 2004 as a gift for giving a speech at a company event. He landed the windfall by selling the 200,000 shares to an undisclosed buyer in May 2006, commanding $3.50 a share at a time when the company was reporting millions of dollars of losses, according to interviews.



If anyone else had done that, they'd be in jail for money laundering.

Weaver95:
If anyone else had done that, they'd be in jail for money laundering.

You're silly. Laws don't apply to politicians or celebrities.

I work for Accoona so I'm getting a kick out of these replies

/wait a second...

Weaver95: If anyone else had done that, they'd be in jail for money laundering.

You mean like George W. Bush did on his failed business that were bought out for much more then it was worth?

What jail is he in?

Weaver95: Mr. Clinton had gotten the nonpublicly traded stock from Accoona Corp. back in 2004 as a gift for giving a speech at a company event. He landed the windfall by selling the 200,000 shares to an undisclosed buyer in May 2006, commanding $3.50 a share at a time when the company was reporting millions of dollars of losses, according to interviews.



If anyone else had done that, they'd be in jail for money laundering.

How exactly is this illegal?

The Trifecta of Clinton, Walmart and China.

As vgacolor pointed out at the beginning of this thread, future cash flow potential, along with other factors, such as market penetration, management, emerging technology, and so on, guide stock prices .... not what the company is earning today.

Additionally, since this is not a publicly traded company, it is more difficult to even determine what a fair market value should be for this stock. Maybe Bill sold it at a discount, for all we know.

And the fact that I am even giving some semblence of a defense to something Bill Clinton has done makes me want to go home and take a shower.

Is anyone in power ever going to NOT be a shady fark?

nowhere does the article mention the share price, and a subsequent google search pulled nothing as well

this headline is full of speculation and fail

superandy: nowhere does the article mention the share price, and a subsequent google search pulled nothing as well

this headline is full of speculation and fail

Mr. Clinton had gotten the nonpublicly traded stock from Accoona Corp. back in 2004 as a gift for giving a speech at a company event. He landed the windfall by selling the 200,000 shares to an undisclosed buyer in May 2006, commanding $3.50 a share at a time when the company was reporting millions of dollars of losses, according to interviews.

She will be president, and we will bow to her. She is unstoppable and unsinkable. She is the Dick Nixon of our time.

She won't be gone until she's giving her final waive on AF1 after impeachment charges are brought halfway through her second term.

FriarTuck: She will be president, and we will bow to her. She is unstoppable and unsinkable. She is the Dick Nixon of our time.

She won't be gone until she's giving her final waive on AF1 after impeachment charges are brought halfway through her second term.

Oh well, at least then we can all say "I told you so"

Gwendolyn: Yes she the fact that Mrs. Obama's salary was raised to $1 million raise when her husband became a US senator was just a fluke as well.

Source? The only information I find on Wikipedia is that Michelle Obama's 2006 tax returns showed $273K in salary from the University of Chicago Hospitals with a total household income of around $990K include Barack's salary, book royalties, payments for being on a board of directors, etc. Nothing that really seems that outlandish.

atlanta_ufo: superandy: nowhere does the article mention the share price, and a subsequent google search pulled nothing as well

this headline is full of speculation and fail

Mr. Clinton had gotten the nonpublicly traded stock from Accoona Corp. back in 2004 as a gift for giving a speech at a company event. He landed the windfall by selling the 200,000 shares to an undisclosed buyer in May 2006, commanding $3.50 a share at a time when the company was reporting millions of dollars of losses, according to interviews.

the headline:

Bill Clinton gets 200,000 shares of stock from Internet company for giving a speech, sells it for $3.50 a share although at that point each share was at toilet-paper value. Nope, no special deal here

now where does it mention the share price (if, say, i had wanted to buy it) in the article?

/Bill Clinton is in the pocket of Big Tobacco.
//He is personally responsible for the cigar boom of the 90s.
///THink about it.

Gwendolyn: mattbin: And no one else in Washington has ever gotten a sweet deal. If it weren't for Clinton, the whole US government would be pure and lily-white.

/B-b-but everyone else!

Yes she the fact that Mrs. Obama's salary was raised to $1 million raise when her husband became a US senator was just a fluke as well.

It's all the Clinton's being sleazy. No one else has ever used their community contacts and influence to get a sweeter deal.

Umm, not quite THAT sweet, I'm afraid.
The numbers I read were that she more than doubled her salary - for the same job - when
her hubby got connected via election. That's smelly enough - you don't have to exaggerate
it by a further factor of four to make it sound worse than it is.

//Yes, Obama and Rezko were "chummy". Just as Hill and Webster Hubble were.
//Rezko was a big-time influence in Chicagoland politics, and Hubble was Hill's
//boss (and "rabbi") at her law firm. I don't think EITHER of them can afford throwing
//corruption-by-association charges at the other's glass house in this election.

Slick!

/how do you think he got that nickname?

superandy: atlanta_ufo: superandy: nowhere does the article mention the share price, and a subsequent google search pulled nothing as well

this headline is full of speculation and fail

Mr. Clinton had gotten the nonpublicly traded stock from Accoona Corp. back in 2004 as a gift for giving a speech at a company event. He landed the windfall by selling the 200,000 shares to an undisclosed buyer in May 2006, commanding $3.50 a share at a time when the company was reporting millions of dollars of losses, according to interviews.

the headline:

Bill Clinton gets 200,000 shares of stock from Internet company for giving a speech, sells it for $3.50 a share although at that point each share was at toilet-paper value. Nope, no special deal here

now where does it mention the share price (if, say, i had wanted to buy it) in the article?

Private companies are tough to evaluate. But in 2004, they valued the shares at .66 cents a share, and two years later, after millions in losses, shares valued at $3.50 a share. Not bad, over 5 times value with a company only losing money.



Before calling off a plan to raise money on the stock market last year, Accoona said in a detailed prospectus filed with the SEC that it had issued 200,000 shares of common stock in 2004 for what it called "marketing services," valuing the deal at 66 cents per share. The documents do not name a recipient.

When Mr. Clinton's foundation sold its 200,000 Accoona shares in 2006, the transaction was worth $3.50 per share. The IRS document doesn't name the buyer, and officials did not respond to a request for more information about the transaction.

There is no established market price for the stock because the company is private. But records show that the company posted at least $60 million in losses during the period from 2004 to 2006.

atlanta_ufo: superandy: atlanta_ufo: superandy: nowhere does the article mention the share price, and a subsequent google search pulled nothing as well

this headline is full of speculation and fail

Mr. Clinton had gotten the nonpublicly traded stock from Accoona Corp. back in 2004 as a gift for giving a speech at a company event. He landed the windfall by selling the 200,000 shares to an undisclosed buyer in May 2006, commanding $3.50 a share at a time when the company was reporting millions of dollars of losses, according to interviews.

the headline:

Bill Clinton gets 200,000 shares of stock from Internet company for giving a speech, sells it for $3.50 a share although at that point each share was at toilet-paper value. Nope, no special deal here

now where does it mention the share price (if, say, i had wanted to buy it) in the article?

Private companies are tough to evaluate. But in 2004, they valued the shares at .66 cents a share, and two years later, after millions in losses, shares valued at $3.50 a share. Not bad, over 5 times value with a company only losing money.



Before calling off a plan to raise money on the stock market last year, Accoona said in a detailed prospectus filed with the SEC that it had issued 200,000 shares of common stock in 2004 for what it called "marketing services," valuing the deal at 66 cents per share. The documents do not name a recipient.

When Mr. Clinton's foundation sold its 200,000 Accoona shares in 2006, the transaction was worth $3.50 per share. The IRS document doesn't name the buyer, and officials did not respond to a request for more information about the transaction.

There is no established market price for the stock because the company is private. But records show that the company posted at least $60 million in losses during the period from 2004 to 2006.

i sit (and type) corrected

TFA: Sheila [blah, blah, blah] said even though the law doesn't require former presidents to disclose donations and stock transactions to their foundations, they should do so to avoid the appearance that money was buying special access.

Herein lies the rub. We don't have to worry about, for example, Jimmy Carter taking "donations", 'cause he no longer has access to sell.

President Clinton has all sorts of access to sell...namely, to a very-well-known Senator, and possibly, the next President.

Ugh...

superandy:

np. Private companies are tough to find value.

filth: This sort of looks like the company that paid him for the speech could wind up with some securities problems...

I don't even think that. According to their now-abandoned prospectus, it looks like the company was valuing itself at $3.50/share at the time -- that was the strike price of options awarded then, a resigning executive exercised options at that level (indicating he thought they were worth more), they raised capital (tons of it) at that price, etc. I couldn't tell you what the company is or was worth, but the company itself sure thought it was worth exactly $3.50/share.

Now, the political wisdom of taking a couple of hundred grand from a Chinese-connected company after all his (and Sen. Clinton's) political problems with donor connected with China, I'll let someone else defend. But the values seem to be right.

Manfred J. Hattan: filth: This sort of looks like the company that paid him for the speech could wind up with some securities problems...

I don't even think that. According to their now-abandoned prospectus, it looks like the company was valuing itself at $3.50/share at the time -- that was the strike price of options awarded then, a resigning executive exercised options at that level (indicating he thought they were worth more), they raised capital (tons of it) at that price, etc. I couldn't tell you what the company is or was worth, but the company itself sure thought it was worth exactly $3.50/share.

Now, the political wisdom of taking a couple of hundred grand from a Chinese-connected company after all his (and Sen. Clinton's) political problems with donor connected with China, I'll let someone else defend. But the values seem to be right.

My speculation was that he had a guaranteed repurchase price on common shares that wasn't available to other shareholders. That's the only potential problem I saw. I'm with you; this doesn't look fishy, at least from Clinton's perspective, and I generally think of him as a giant crook.

MisterBill: Gwendolyn: Yes she the fact that Mrs. Obama's salary was raised to $1 million raise when her husband became a US senator was just a fluke as well.

Source? The only information I find on Wikipedia is that Michelle Obama's 2006 tax returns showed $273K in salary from the University of Chicago Hospitals with a total household income of around $990K include Barack's salary, book royalties, payments for being on a board of directors, etc. Nothing that really seems that outlandish.

In 2006, the Chicago Tribune reported that Mrs. Obama's compensation at the University of Chicago Hospital, where she is a vice president for community affairs, jumped from $121,910 in 2004, just before her husband was elected to the Senate, to $316,962 in 2005, just after he took office.

Let's see: Bill Clinton got paid for giving a speech.

And the illegal-ness is...where?