Posted on 10/25/2012 7:31:05 PM PDT by Red Steel
CANTON, Mass. — Mitt Romney testified under oath in 1991 that the ex-wife of Staples founder Tom Stemberg got a fair deal in the couple’s 1988 divorce, even though the company shares Maureen Sullivan Stemberg received were valued at a tenth of Staples’ stock price on the day of its initial public offering only a year later.
At the time the Stembergs split, Romney suggested, there was little indication that Staples’ value would soon skyrocket.
Romney’s testimony in a post-divorce lawsuit brought in 1990 by Sullivan Stemberg was unsealed on Thursday in Norfolk Probate and Family Court at the Globe’s request. Sullivan Stemberg sued unsuccessfully to amend the couple’s financial agreement after Staples went public in 1989 and closed its first day of trading at $22.50 per share, 10 times the value she had received.
Stemberg left his wife in February 1987, and the divorce was finalized in July 1988. Before the official split, the couple negotiated an agreement in which Sullivan Stemberg got 500,000 shares of Staples stock, which Stemberg valued at $2.25 per share.
Sullivan Stemberg also kept the couple’s Dedham home, worth $690,000 at the time, and in February 1988 sold 175,000 shares of Staples stock at $2.25 per share to pay off the mortgage. She sold another 80,000 shares two months later, at $2.48 per share.
“In my opinion, that’s a good price to sell the securities at,” Romney, now the Republican nominee for president, testified in June 1991.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Uhhhh..............and?????????????? Idiots huh?
Helping keep mankind warm for 65 years.
It may be nothing, but just wait.... it’ll be the lead in story for most of the MSM tomorrow including “the view”....
OMG! Romney made a poor stock pick!
She chose poorly and that is the breaks of stock trading. The reality is that she blew 80% of her settlement on dragging him back into court and the ensuing defamation lawsuit brought against her by Tom Stemberg and his new wife.
Well, obviously Romney was not wearing his Genie hat. You know, the one that confirmed that staples stock would rise in a year, so don’t sell you dumb t*at!
This is desperation at its finest. No big ideas here. No cocaine use. No DUI. No perjury charges on the books.
Stupid.
Anything to take the focus off the Libya scandal.
Maybe she should have invested in cattle futures.
Who did she sell the stock to?
That’s the guy that made out.
I could be wrong, but would any kind of revelation to price, or advance knowledge of an increase in it’s valuation, be akin to insider trading??? I think Romney would be in deeper s**t if he actually did if he actually did make any kind of claim of an increase in value.
Wasn’t the IPO price of Facebook’s stock raised several times before it even hit the first day of sale? And where is it today?
look a squirrel
she should have bought cattle futures
She walked away with 5 million. She had nothing to do with Staples value then, or it’s later success. Typical.
But revenge is coming. Woman fill law schools, medical schools, and top corporate positions.
More often than ever, they marry blue collar guys. When men start getting payouts just for sharing a bed with someone who earns exponentially more than them,,watch for a sudden change in the laws.
Pre-IPO stock is given a nominal value, which Mitt gave. I worked for a company that gave me pre-IPO options at a dollar a share.
This will be spun big time as an example of the War On Women and how Romney conspired to defraud this poor waif of millions.
Facts won’t matter in a coordinated media rollout by the Rats.
How is it anyone else’s fault if she sold the stock early instead of holding onto it until the value went up?
She decided to sell a large block of a highly illiquid stock just months after the 1987 crash, rather than waiting until it was public, liquidly traded and in the midst of an eventual market recovery.
He was right - at that time, in those circumstances, she likely couldn't have done much better.
This is an interesting contrast to an earlier story that showed the exact opposite. Don’t know if it is just spin or if the FR thread was being typically positive.
Big Bird!
Big Bird!
Binders of women!
Damn, how would that be?
Huh?
The ditz could have asked for STOCK instead of CASH, why did she not do this?
Her shares would then have gone up, like everyone elses.
If Romney had testified stock was worth 10 times more...then Staple’s wife would have gotten 1/10 as many shares. She should thank him!
He was testifying in 1991 about the valuation of Staples stock in 1987. There's nothing even closely resembling "insider trading" when you make a statement (subjective or otherwise) about shares of stock in a company four years after the date of a transaction.
She was stupid and greedy. It’s Romney’s fault
There is no there there. sheesh, he doesn’t even need Trump for this one.
This woman got a 5 million $ settlement. Not bad compensation if you ask me. Oh, by the way, stock market values change. No one forced her to sell her shares immediately. Basically, she was greedy and wanted an immediate payoff.
Yeah, if they had overrvalued the stock, he could have made out better theoretically. If he had 2 million in “undervalued” stock and a million in other assets, he could’ve given her 75% of the stock to give her half of his wealth.
If they instead said his stock was worth 10 million, then he’d only have to give her 55% of the stock to account for half of his total wealth.
So he probably lost more shares in the early settlement than he would have if the settlement had happened after the IPO.
If Mitt undervalued it, presumably she then received more of it if the decree was about giving her a fair share. I presume the judge was awarding her a set dollar value. It would take more share of an undervalued stock to cover the award. She squandered Mitts generosity.
Facebook was valued at $38/share. How did that work out on IPO day. One cannot lie when one is guessing.
The point wasn’t to get the court records unsealed, the ex-wife wants the ban on her talking lifted so she can make sh*t up.
For example: If she got x amount of shares to = 1 million
At $1 a share she would get 1 million shares
At $10 a share she would get 100k shares
So when the price went up 10x a year later, would she be happier owning 1 million shares or 100k shares?
Am I off base here? Sounds like she should thank Romney.
har
Pre-IPO price a year earlier when company fundamentals were shaky. He or Bain didn’t buy all the stock he could have at the time either.
Nothing to see here Gloria, move along. Oh wait, you knew that....
Um, let’s see. She’s given the stock in the settlement valued at $2.25 a share. She then sells it at 2.25 a share. I don’t see that Mitt would have to be Karnak to years later determine that it was worth 2.25 a share when she got it. I could have done that! Don’t see where anybody forced her to sell at that price.
Romney had nothing to do with the value or the sale. Later the woman came back at her ex to claim more financial support based on her crappy decision.
Now allred is blaming Romney. Of ourse the media will love this.
She decided to sell a large block of a highly illiquid stock just months after the 1987 crash, rather than waiting until it was public, liquidly traded and in the midst of an eventual market recovery.
He was right - at that time, in those circumstances, she likely couldn't have done much better.
Exactly. According to this article, Romney didn't testify under oath in an attempt to undervalue her divorce settlement. She got a divorce settlement. She sold too early. She then tried to renegotiate the divorce settlement AFTER everyone knew what actually happened with Staples. THIS is the point that Romney got called in to testify. The only story here is that Gloria Allred is a hack who is trying to distract everyone.
Somebody please prove that Romney was incorrect that on the dates she sold her pre-IPO stock, the stock was worth something other than what she got.
Where's the beef?
How is Romney to "blame" for anything?
The leftists are really getting desperate.
And more pathetic by the day.
I agree. He didn’t advise her to sell her stock before it went up. She chose to do so. The price of the stock at the time of the divorce was probably not worth much. Romney probably hoped that the stock would be worth more in a year especially if he was owning any shares but to say that he influenced the outcome of her situation in reference to the stock seems a stretch. She chose to sell and loss out on a super windfall!
Check out the online comments at the end of this article. The Boston Globe has been universally scorned for this garbage, and their obvious hyperpartisan Obama proactiveness, as opposed to their ridiculous claim of being a part of the “objective news media” that simply reports the news.
Though I’m sure the reservoir of subscribers willing to cancel their Boston Globe subscriptions has shrunk to an all time low with most of their remaining subscribers in the hard left camp, I bet they STILL get a few more subscriptions cancellations over this one!
She made the choice to sell her shares. The Globe somehow is trying to connect Romney to her bad choice. Wonder if she is gaining financially for being part of this current media charade.
If this divorce occurred in 1988, Staples stock didn’t go public until 1989. In 1988, Staples was expanding and needed to solicit three more rounds of financing from the investment banking community, raising a total of $32 million.
Trying to value a company’s stock at this stage would have been a little sketchy because most of the valuation would have been tied up in venture capital. Obviously, the company was cash strapped.
http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/staples-inc-history/
Thank you freeper rollin_stone for this information.
In my best Breitbart tribute...”so?”
this is a crock the ex wife also sued her supposed atty saying they advised her to sell the stock to pay her atty fees...also i read Romney was asked if he exercised all the options he had to buy the stock and he said no it could fail as easily as go sky high..
the woman involved is no newcomer to bitterness...IIRC she was also sued for defamation by her ex and his new wife...
Allred apparently failed to investigate her client and consider her credibility..either that or she didnt care just wanted to make news...
http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/staples-inc-history/
In February 1989 Staples introduced its Private Label products—generic office supplies at exceptionally low prices. This strategy was one that Stemberg had first implemented in the grocery business, when he introduced company-label groceries for Star Markets. In April Staples sold stock to the public for the first time, raising $37 million to fund its further expansion. By the end of that month, the company’s sales had reached $120 million. Despite this strong growth in revenue, Staples had yet to make any earnings, although the company did turn in its first profitable quarter at the end of January 1989. Overall, losses since Staples’ founding had reached $14.1 million.
These losses were caused by the high cost of the company’s start-up and expansion as well as the strong competition the company faced. As Stemberg had predicted, Staples had quickly been joined in the office supplies market by a host of imitators around the country. In mid-1989 the company slipped to second place in revenues behind Office Depot Incorporated; Office Club was making a strong showing in California; and retail giants Kmart and Ames were also deliberating a move into the stationery field. To counter these threats, Staples continued its rapid pace of new store openings. By the end of the year the company was operating 38 stores, and it had racked up sales of $182 million.
Agreed. And though I don't have much faith in "the electorate" I'm pretty sure, they will yawn.
That was my thinking. If Mitt had quoted a higher value for the stock, she would have gotten LESS stock because the targeted value payout value would have been reached at that “presumed” share price.
In other words, he did her a favor by quoting a lower price and thus making sure she got more shares.
Nobody told her to sell off those shares early. She could have very easily held on to them and made ten times as much. She didn’t. Tough cookies, that’s the way the market works.
If anyone has a cause to bitch it’s her husband, who was “screwed” by Mitt because he ended up giving her far more shares than she would have otherwise gotten if he had quoted a higher price.
So tell me, what exactly, is she bitching about?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.