It's quite obvious that it is insider trading.cursedseishi said:Possible insider trading? Pleeeeaaaaaaaase! We know there was insider trading. We know that Mr. Pincus will do any and all sorts of con-artistry just to make a quick buck, seeing as he gladly admits its.
I swear, isn't this a little illegal? It has to be, considering it was just "perfect" timing for all the bigwigs to drop shares for a premium before the prices of it dipped to an all-time low.
captcha: I love you
Oh dear... I knew making that one comment about agreeing with captcha before would come back to bite me...
I'll earnestly be a little surprised if this Libor scandal doesn't end with someone getting strung up. Rich folks tend to be left out to dry when they are seen as a liability and that scandal is turning into one of the most remarkably nasty things I can think of in my lifetime (it may not seem like it but the ramifications are pretty bad).GAunderrated said:Yeah "illegal" only applies until you are worth a certain amount. The investors who shorted the financial bubble did so illegally and yet not a single one of them have seen jail time. A bit of a strawman I did there but my point is that these guys know how to play the game so well they are bragging about how they illegally shorted people by inside trading.
I think it's only considered "illegal" if you didn't hire Eric Holders law firm to handle your corporate business and/or domate a sizeable tithe to the Chicago Democratic machine.GAunderrated said:Yeah "illegal" only applies until you are worth a certain amount. The investors who shorted the financial bubble did so illegally and yet not a single one of them have seen jail time. A bit of a strawman I did there but my point is that these guys know how to play the game so well they are bragging about how they illegally shorted people by inside trading.Covarr said:Yeah. I'm no lawyer, but I'm like 95% sure this is illegal insider trading here. But with the bigwigs gone, I actually have hope that the company can somehow survive this and transform into an honest company no longer under the watchful eye of their scumbag overlord. I'm tired of boycotting Words with Friends.cursedseishi said:Possible insider trading? Pleeeeaaaaaaaase! We know there was insider trading. We know that Mr. Pincus will do any and all sorts of con-artistry just to make a quick buck, seeing as he gladly admits its.
I swear, isn't this a little illegal? It has to be, considering it was just "perfect" timing for all the bigwigs to drop shares for a premium before the prices of it dipped to an all-time low.
P.S. Thanks
No, they should blame the fact that their games FUCKING SUCKED.Zynga has blamed Facebook, a duff edition of Mafia Wars 2, softening repeat customer numbers and a mistimed purchase of Draw Something owner OMGPOP for its current financial troubles.
It was 38$ and it was the Bankers price not Zuckerbergs. His pricing of Instagram though should have told everyone that the stock should be avoided.DVS BSTrD said:Well it wasn't until Zuckerberg decided to open at $34 a share, cause that's a buying price right? I thought he was good with numbers.
Just an FYI, those executives are still in the same position in the company. They just got a payout by bailing right before the stock prices plummeted.Covarr said:Yeah. I'm no lawyer, but I'm like 95% sure this is illegal insider trading here. But with the bigwigs gone, I actually have hope that the company can somehow survive this and transform into an honest company no longer under the watchful eye of their scumbag overlord. I'm tired of boycotting Words with Friends.
P.S. Thanks
At least they're consistent with their business practices: they'll remain dicks to the end.Zachery Gaskins said:A true leader shares in his people's successes AND failures. This just smacks of a really long con.
Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs so..... Yes the ones that where involved in the Mortgage Backed Securities, but really how many bankers weren't involved?DVS BSTrD said:Which Banker? The one who thought it was a good idea to bundle mortgage backed securities with houses that were losing value?medv4380 said:It was 38$ and it was the Bankers price not Zuckerbergs. His pricing of Instagram though should have told everyone that the stock should be avoided.DVS BSTrD said:Well it wasn't until Zuckerberg decided to open at $34 a share, cause that's a buying price right? I thought he was good with numbers.