Martha Stewart

[Otolith]

I'll admit I know nothing about securities law, but it seems that the guy who gave Martha the insider info is the one who should fry, not her. What is she supposed to do after she gets the tip, keep her stock and take the loss like a man? Even if acting on the info is a crime, it seems like the crime committed by the broker is worse, so why does he get the plea deal? Are they just prosecuting her because of who she is?


Martha Stewart case

[Cool Texan]

Nope. Insider trading is the distribution of non public information as well as any subsequent actions taken as a result of obtaining this non public information. The person who passed along the tip, and his boss, will likely lose their securities licenses, hopefully. However, it is not clear that they received any income from the information. Martha however, as well as Sam W (cant remember how to spell is last name) both reaped huge rewards for their crimes...and thus, are being prosecuted.

Why are they going after small fish when the big ones are still swimming free?

She's an easy target and the big boys contribute much more to the "Politician Retirement Fund"

[El-Kabong]

Keta,

[img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

[TheRogue]

High-exposure case, the agency gets to take credit for doing something against someone, while not affecting anyone who is a personal friend or past business associate of the current president.

May be years before we actually see Ken Lay on the stand.

My .02

TR

Ken Lay is just one of hundreds.

They should ALL have everything they own, including their offshore accounts, taken away and serve LONG HARD TIME in a cell with a Bubba shareholder.

It will never happen though

[WheresMyBobber]

Yep, they're trying to hammer Martha for something that happens all the time. Doesn't make it right, but she's small potatoes with one 4,000 share sale.

[Grantspastor]

Am I the only one here that sees the BIGGER issue?!!! If Martha Stewart goes to jail, just WHO exactly is going to help us with "Living", and who will we have to tell us which things are "good things"?

[Cool Texan]

Grantspastor, personally, I look to people such as yourself to tell me about all the Good Things that are truly important.

[Hoosier Daddy]

Forget Martha Stewart and the "good things" she rode in on!! :grin:

I really don't care, but do you think any of us would get off easier if it was us in her place?

[Grantspastor]

Thanks CT! I have to admit though, I'm not very good at coordinating paint color chips, and when it comes to cooking I'm a disaster.

[Sea Nymph]

Maybe they'll come out with a "Best of Martha Stewart" DVD that we can all refer to when we're faced with those drated domestic engineering emergencies.. and maybe the proceeds can go towards her legal defense fund.

I've enclosed (for your viewing pleasure) Martha's future home.


[ 02-04-2004, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: Sea Nymph ]

[Grantspastor]

Sea Nymph...LOL!

[Otolith]

I don't really care who the person is in this case or how much money they did or didn't make on this deal. My point is, why isn't the crime committed by the guy giving the insider info considered bigger than the crime committed by the person who used it? Because lets face it, if somebody gives you some inside bad news on stock you are holding before it is made public, wouldn't you want to unload it too? Whether it is one share or 1 million shares, I still don't see how this is such a crime compared to actually divulging the information in the first place.

[Bait O' Eggs]

With Martha being on the board of directors for the Securities Exchange Commission when the infraction happened doesnt make it look good for her.

I agree there are far worse criminals to go after. Plenty of people like the Worldcome crew need to meet Guido in a dark alley.

******,
Those are some of the ones I was refering to.

[Sea Nymph]

No way should we leave her alone if she broke the law! Nor should we leave alone the bigger fish (no pun intended) like Enron and World Com. execs...

If you do the crime, you should do the time; no matter who you are.

I do however, think a stiffer penalty should be brought down on folks who hurt others in their law breaking escapades, such as the Enron folks who cost many a 401K and job. Those folks should pay dearly. Nothing short of total estate sale, total funds seizure and 5 to 10 in the federal pen. Then use the seized assets to pay back to the ones who lost, as much as possible anyway. But... like any of this will ever happen.

SN

SN

[husker]

so what if martha only sold 4000 shares? what was the profit she realized form the insider info? i would take that $$$$$$$$$$ in a heart beat shes got more money then all of us combined and she wasnt about to lose 1 nickel if could. so send her to jail.

as far as the crooks from enron, woldcom, and anybody else like that....well they ought to be disected like frogs and all there pennies distrubed to us low people on the totem pole.

[Cool Texan]

Couple of issues:

1) Homestead laws. Fastow, I believe, was in a mad scramble to finish work on his MULTI million dollar home prior to certain events happening (cant remember all the details) so as to get protection from homestead laws. He will be ripped apart for everything he has via criminal and civil suits, will ultimately declare bankruptcy, but will likely keep his home. It sucks, but those laws can be quite beneficial in other scenarios.

2) Passing insider information is bad, as it tempts illegal behavior. However, there is no economic impact from the distribution of information. Truth be told, these leaks happen all the time, and are hard to catch due to their very nature. However, economic gain from said information is quite easy to see. The person passing the laws will likely be slapped with a penalty, stripped of licenses, possibly barred from trading, possible jail time, etc. The people seeking economic gain will almost certainly be hit with a fine for their net proceeds from the transaction plus some amount, possible jail, etc. I believe Martha is in hot water because she has basically been caught, but has chosen to then lie about it and create a struggle for truth...which may or may not bite her in the rear when its all said and done.

3) As for the Enron fiasco...while I feel for those who lost money, its a great reminder of the need for financial diversification. My 401k used to be 100% in one of my past tech companies I worked for....and it took a huge beating. Now, its spread around among several other funds so as to afford me some protection.

[kayakfisher]

I am told that Martha was a stock broker...so should have known better.

Still...I have a feeling the big boys don't like a big girl making so much money...so they go after her instead of the bigger badder fish.

m.

[HeavyMetal BankFisherman]

Didn't she used to have seat on the exchange? She new what she was doing. I never cared for her smugness. I hope they throw the book at her.

Just another example of the extremely wealthy thinking that laws don't apply to them.

[Silver Hilton]

It's telling that she is not being prosecuted for insider trading. I think she's guilty, but the case is a stretch, unless I'm missing where Waksell called her directly. If the case for insider trading was solid, I think they'd charge her with it.

The deeper concern is that she is basically being prosecuted for publicly saying that she was innocent. Seems to me that's a right any defendent ought to have, until proven guilty.

That said, the testimony is certainly showing that she was a nasty imperious witch.

Where's Bubbett?

[reeldick]

Keta is right, there are hundreds out there. The ones that hurt the little guy get to me. The company I retired from cut our retirement benefits for this coming year and talk is they might cut out retirement by 2006. The CEO made $40.7 million in 2003. I have not heard what her total was for 2004 with bonus. What's wrong with that picture.

Leave her alone! Use the resources to get the Worldcom rat bastids that stold my life savings
and retirement.