[Lecie]

Why didn't you finish the paragraph ?

"By the end of that year, Harken's stock had indeed tanked, selling as low as $1 a share. But in the interim, Saddam Hussein had invaded Kuwait, Bush's father was mobilizing for the Persian Gulf War, and the only ace in the hole for Harken was an exclusive contract to explore for oil off the coast of Bahrain--in the heart of the war zone."

[liberallarry]

See post #19. Maybe he can help you.

[liberallarry]

You want to argue that the stock dropped to $1 because of events subsequent to Bush's sale. But the stock dropped to 2 and something with the release of info about the extent of losses - and then immediately rebounded for mysterious reasons. What reasons? Was there some reason, at the time, to believe the investment in Bahrein would be a good one?

[liberallarry]

From the 3/16/92 article cited in post #24;

Today, Harken is letting it all ride on one all-or-nothing bet. Two years ago, it won the rights to look for oil and gas off the coast of Bahrain, a coup that shocked the industry. The first of those wells came up dry last month, giving analysts new reason to wonder if Harken itself isn't a dry hole.

So in 1990 and 1991 investors would've had good reason to hope for a better outcome.