posted on October 9, 2002 07:33:55 AM new
Old news...and a pretty weak condemnation of the investment bank's IPO bribe acceptance by Meg, Pierre and others.
Of course, the Mercury News depends on big local firms to buy advertising, so what do you expect? Now that we're talking about it, how about the common newspaper practice of keeping editorial hands-off the companies that buy the most advertising? If that isn't a quid pro quo, what is?
posted on October 9, 2002 07:59:59 AM new
I think it could be another Martha Stewart-type scandal in the making. When the pressure heats up there is usually some underappreciated toady that is set up for the blame but these types tend to turn on their masters and tell all to a federal grand jury. That's Enron all over again. It takes months for the scandal to brew and the wheels of justice to churn. Meg may be in Martha's shoes soon.
posted on October 9, 2002 08:48:29 AM new
The editorial explains "spinning" and suggests a parallel between eBay execs and WorldCom. The investigation is ongoing. Fluffy, short of a picture of Meg in handcuffs, what more do you expect?
This isn't a news article. It's the editorial opinion of the San Jose Mercury, a popular Silicon Valley newspaper. And it is a strong indictment. I think after this, eBay will probably reconsider advertising with the Mercury.
posted on October 9, 2002 09:54:28 AM new
Unless someone buys the story that the IPO gifts didn't have anything to do with getting the banking business, someone is going down.
It angers me to no end that these billionaires are heaped with yet more unearned wealth, while most people couldn't get in early on an IPO by any means.
I hope they get the cuffs and disgorged of their ill gotten wealth.
posted on October 9, 2002 10:43:04 AM new
I read the Mercury News every day and have rarely seen any ebay advertising in it anyway. Their advertising budget is spent elsewhere. These scandals always start out very small and like a snowball rolling down a hill, they grow and pick up speed quickly.
Meg may have to step down to quell the coming rebellion. I hope any new CEO is an honest person and not a greed mongerer like Meg. Of course, Martha Stewart has survived her mess so far but she's a big shareholder of her own tainted empire.
posted on October 9, 2002 11:51:02 AM new
This was mentioned on 60 Minutes this past weekend. In return for investment banking fees, these ceo's and other key personnel were given these ipos. The average return was over 175%, usually in one day. Meg was among the recipients. The district attorney of NY is the one bringing these to court. The SEC, up until now, had done absolutely nothing and had turned a blind eye to this matter. Due to the pressure of the DA, they have finally decided to cooperate and are working together to go after these brokerage houses. Solomon, Smith, Barney, will be hit with a huge fine, rivalling the $100 million that Merill Lynch had to pay.
posted on October 9, 2002 02:14:07 PM new
"It angers me to no end that these billionaires are heaped with yet more unearned wealth, while most people couldn't get in early on an IPO by any means."
posted on October 9, 2002 02:17:25 PM new
[i]The editorial explains "spinning" and suggests a parallel between eBay execs and WorldCom. The investigation is ongoing.
Fluffy, short of a picture of Meg in handcuffs, what more do you expect? [/i]
Outrage would be nice. This is outrage?
"Whether the special favors clouded the judgment of execs is a matter that investigators would do well to probe."
No, this is tame.
I live in Redwood City, BTW. You don't have to explain to me what the Murky News is (or how it got that name).
Try _The Wall Street Journal_ instead. The journalism is far superior and far more timely. They've been covering this developing story for weeks.
posted on October 9, 2002 06:26:44 PM new
Fluffy, we're neighbors. I live in Mountain View. Yes, the editorial was a little tame, but since the investigation is ongoing, I think the editorial was appropriate.
posted on October 9, 2002 08:22:59 PM new
In a few months from now people will be saying they read about the scandal a little here and there months ago and but now it is all they talk about as Goldman Sachs and ebay try to limit the severe damage.
posted on October 9, 2002 11:20:51 PM new
I think I read about this a couple of weeks ago. I find it discusting that people with wealth have to go and do underhanded things to become more wealther (I hope that's a word) They aren't through with Martha Stewart yet. There is more to come on her.
I would truly be ashamed of myself if I was worth 500 million and still needed or wanted more. I think it is only greed and guess who is paying for it. You and I. As we try to get ahead in life or maybe survive there are people who are greedy and need more and more......It will never end...
Their advertising budget is spent elsewhere. These scandals always start out very small and like a snowball rolling down a hill, they grow and pick up speed quickly.