Talk:Michael Milken
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
UC Berkeley does not have a "summa cum laude" graduation status. One can graduate with either "honors" or without.
- Could you please cite your source for this confinement of academic status at UC Berkeley? T.E. Goodwin 05:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
Contents |
[edit] Guilty pleas
Does anybody have a very good memory? Which one is which of these charges? And what do they mean?--130.237.89.4 06:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Milken planned or thought to engage in a series of unlawful security transactions.
- Was this the thing where they earned an instant markup by buying the bonds themsels and then selling them slightly more expensive to the institutions?
- Charge involving tax fraud. The charge relates to Ivan Boesky’s false 13-d statement.
- What kind of tax fraud?
- Helped a client reduce his income tax liability by selling him two investments and then buying them back at a lower price.
- Is this the same thing as above, or a spearate charge?
- Milken suggested that Ivan Boesky buy MCA stock to hide that Golden Nugget was selling (MCA) and to assure him no loss in a sale to Drexel (what sale?).
- Can this be explained better?
- Failed to disclose in written form an agreed-upon adjustment in transaction prices between Drexel and a client.
- Is this the "four reporting violations" that the article speaks about?
[edit] Edits to watch
- 00:59, 7 Mar 2005 (personal details and Milken writings removed).--Jerryseinfeld 21:24, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- 01:43, 18 Jan 2005 (1987 salary removed).--Jerryseinfeld 21:28, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- 16:02, 27 Jan 2005 ($700 million number added).--Jerryseinfeld 21:29, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Balance Needed
I am extremely concerned about this page, and believe that as it stands, it is a disservice to both readers and Wikipedia as a whole. This concern is two-fold.
1 - Milken has launched a massive public relations campaign. Because of this, contributors such as Jerryseinfeld can simply click a hyperlink and get lots of information that Milken has paid to distribute. Milken's supporters have an easy-to-access web page, while more balanced contributors have to do a little digging (it's no surprise Milken tried to pay off at least one journalist who wrote a book on him). As a result, much of this page simply repeats the public relations drivel that Milken spouts.
In the world I live in, when a person is a convicted felon, you simply do not take his words and claims at face value. Not even Milken's most fervent supporters can deny the simple fact that he was convicted on finance-related charges and served time.
Because of this, the vast majority of the information given on Milken here - from early childhood to his post-sentence actions - is nothing but positive, public relations-initiated statements. Such things have no place in an encyclopedia.
2 - Contributors have shown definite ignorance of basic economic tenets, and this is apparent from Milken's detractors. For example, I have not found a link describing the S&L scandal. While Milken was a major cause - and beneficiary - of this unfortunate event, there are others at fault, such as government deregulators and unscrupulous thrift managers.
Because of the inexorable state of this entry, I formally ask that its neutrality be disputed until such time as it can be completely rewritten with balanced sources, and its organization should reflect this. --L. 16:52, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
-
- Just for the record--the 'journalist' Milken tried to "pay off" was Connie Bruck, who wrote an extremely biased book "Predator's Ball", whose highlight was alleged orgies in Beverly Hills involving Milken clients (Milken himself is very straight laced). A clear cheapo IMO. And Milken was within his constitutional rights to try and buy her book. She declined, which was also within her rights. Nothing sinister here, it's not like he made death threats against her. Read Fischel's book "Payback" for the other side of the story. Furthermore, the US govt used Gestapo-like tactics to force Milken to settle, so it is not fair to say he is a 'convicted felon' who cannot be trusted--I believe he pleaded 'Nolo Contendere', which is not the same as 'guilty'. The US government, via Giuliani, who is an elected district attorney and hence biased by definition, used RICO --a law the US congress intended only to be used against mobsters --to freeze Milken's cash flow. How would you plead if the government said that unless you settled you could not write another check from your checking account? The same was done against the law firm of Kaye Scholer LLP when the US govt wanted to target one of their clients. I've run a business, and believe me, when anybody, be it bank or government, cuts off your cash flow, you are dead meat within a matter of weeks at best. This is like having a loaded gun put against your head and being asked to sign a contract. Milken had no choice but to settle. The Milken trial was political rabble rousing of the worst sort, usually reserved to Stalinist show trials. I've lived in a socialist country, and believe me, it's not fun. 69.107.96.61 7 March 2005
Try again. A person has the right to sue for libel or slander should a book say false things about them; Milken didn't do this. BTW, quite a few of the "writers" who side w/Milken are on his payroll; future revisions to this page will contain a comprehensive chart on who's getting paid by who.
And please refrain from using loaded terms like "Gestapo" or "socialism" or "Stalinist show trial." In my experience, Milken's supporters generally start calling their opponents "communist" after a few well-placed arguments, so you're not adding anything to the discussion...if an anonymous Wiki contributor could be said to add anything to a discussion. --L. 15:43, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
-
- "After a few well-placed arguments" -- I'll take that as a concession, albeit back-handed. if an anonymous Wiki contributor -- and, what, "L", are you if not anon.? Let's face it: those who Milken enriched, be it businesses or traders, are not contributing to Wikipedia, the haunt of librarians and others of a more illiberal persuasion (in the classic sense). And FYI the laws of libel and slander in the US are not biased in favor of the plaintiff, as they are in England. Milken, as a public figure, would lose unless he could show actual malice, which is nearly impossible to prove. 69.107.96.61 8 March 2005
"haunt of librarians and others of a more illiberal persuasion" - I'll take that as an admission of ideological considerations, and this opens the perfect opportunity to try and correct this terrible entry. And FYI, as an American who believes in free speech, I'll favor my country's libel laws over those of others (if you know who David Irving is, I'm sure you'll see my point). --L. 01:12, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC) _______________________________
DEN OF THIEVES
Anyone interested in this story should read "Den of Thieves" by James Stewart.
[edit] Milken's Unethical Actions
The "Milken's Unethical Actions" is obvious POV. This article needs to be rewritten in a more NPOV manner. RickK 07:04, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
"Milken's Unethical Actions" was clearly in violation of Wikipedia's Neutral point of view. I attempted to address this by highlighting the arguments made by Fischel in his book "Payback". 69.107.96.61 07:11, 7 March 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Court documents
This article could use some court documents or a more detailed review of the guilty pleas.
And how big was the fine, his site says $200 million, another page $600 million, another $1 billion, another $1.1 billion, another "$200 million fine and $400 million in restitution".
One page reads "Milken was indicted under in March 1989, and pleaded guilty in April 1990 to six felony counts. He paid a $600 million fine under a plea bargain that promised him no jail time. In November 1990 judge Kimba Wood sentenced him to 10 years, plea bargain or no plea bargain. But Milken never got his $600 million back.". And then one reads "The guilty plea carried with it a potential maximum prison sentence of 28 years, compared to a potential 500 year sentence if he had been convicted on the original charges." This clearly need some clarification.
Then another page writes that he handed over $600 to the Securities and Exchange Commission, and then $900 million to the Resolution Trust Corp. and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., and then another $47 million to the SEC.
The article says "six felony counts of securities fraud". His page says "five securities and reporting violations". - Jerryseinfeld 23:57, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-
- For future reference, and to repeat what was made clear above - things that come from Milken's page are untrustworthy, as is any claim by a felon. User:L.
[edit] 1998
"In 1998, without admitting any guilt, he returned $47 million in fees". Did he "return" the money to the companies? Who says so?--Jerryseinfeld 21:12, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] 2006
On this date this article states simultaneously that Mr. Milken is worth $2b and $3b. Which is it? Of course it is tough to estimate the fortune of a private individual, but the gap is $1b U.S. dollars. Bigturtle 14:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Didn't do anything wrong
Milken didn't do anything wrong. How about some words from those that point that out? Economizer 05:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- If he didn't do anything wrong, why is he a convicted felon? T.E. Goodwin 05:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Largest Paycheck Ever
In my 1994 Guinness Book of Records it mentions that Michael Milken was the beneficiary of the largest paycheck ever ($500m while he was at Drexel Burnham Lambert). Could someone verify this, and see if it is still the largest paycheck ever? zDust
Presently the article is a puff piece that whitewashes the fact that his actions led to hundreds of thousands of unemployed people and deleterious conditions for blue collar americans to this very day. It is an outrage that a convicted criminal be provided free publicity like this. There is no comment about the negative effects on the economy or population of the U.S. nor anything other than the briefest of mentions of his conviction.
[edit] Complete Rewrite Needed Here
As noted previously, this article needs serious revision. Not only is it not wikified, it is filled with statements without attribution. Sources? Mr. Milken's website? This is more like an essay that was written by an apologetic press agent in my opinion. Anyone else concur? T.E. Goodwin 05:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] He payed $900,000,000?
According to Milken's website, he did not pay 9 million dollars in fines. I don't know if this is true or not. Here is the link to his website: [1] Epachamo 22:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
