If stocks are selling for $2.50 a share, then the stock’s value is $2.50 a share. Any prediction as to the stock’s value in 2 years is speculative. Romney could not have taken the stand and testified that the value was anything more than the market rate. Any speculation on the future would not have been admissible evidence.
If this is the worst they have on Romney, then he is as clean as a whistle.
My sense, too. Her problem with Romney is that Romney's testimony had to do with the value of the stock BEFORE it went public. I understand his estimate was about 2.50, an estimate he supported.
Her problem was that she sold low and saw her former stock rise in value. Being bitter that a stock you formerly held 500,000 shares of rose by 17 a share after you sold it is understandable. I'd be kicking myself in the butt, too.
However, she sold it. She did. She gambled and lost.