I don't particularly like Martha Stewart. My wife fell for her phony-balony, perfect-household crap when it first hit big (she's seen the light since, thank goodness), but anyway...
Yeah, Martha's getting rail-roaded or whatever, but I just had to comment on this:
Quote:
Originally posted by bluesigns
never mind that guys share this sort of information on a daily basis on the golf course of the world as casually as one would share a stick of gum
I don't doubt that insider trading happens, but I think most guys (not sure what gender has to do with it, but whatever) take this stuff very seriously. It's not like sharing a stick of gum. It's like being a criminal.
I know a few inviduals that have access to "inside information" of the SEC-would-be-angry-if-it-was-shared sort. Not being particularly savy in this area, I kinda put my foot in my mouth one day when I, jokingly, asked my friend who works for Intel if anything new and interesting was coming soon. My interest was totally geeky (I don't do stocks), but, trying to be funny, I tried to make it sound like I was interested in some stock tips. Anyway, there was silence and what I perceived as reaction to being insulted. And then, "I can't talk about that! Are you trying to get me in trouble?" It was very sincere.
There doesn't seem to be any rational reason why she would resign.
She has no choice...the stock price of Martha Stewart Omnimedia has already suffered hugely due to the scandal. The case is going to drag on for months (and will get a lot of media attention). If she hadn't stepped down there would have been a risk of her company bottoming out on the stock market.
The kind of people that would have held on to shares of Martha Stewart Omnimedia may not know a hell of a lot about stock analysis by fundamental evaluation...but they know that insider trading is illegal and they'll be reminded that Stewart did it every time they turn on Leno or E!
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott
Or maybe there's independent investigations that have little to nothing and all the way to nada and zipo to do with one another?
Maybe...but how long do we have to wait? How can Lay, Skillings and Ebbers (and many others) remain uncharged - having caused thousands of times more damage to the public through the fraudulent and illegal practices of the companies they ran than Stewart's alleged insider trading did - just by saying that they "didn't know" illegal activities were taking place?
I know a few inviduals that have access to "inside information" of the SEC-would-be-angry-if-it-was-shared sort. Not being particularly savy in this area, I kinda put my foot in my mouth one day when I, jokingly, asked my friend who works for Intel if anything new and interesting was coming soon. My interest was totally geeky (I don't do stocks), but, trying to be funny, I tried to make it sound like I was interested in some stock tips. Anyway, there was silence and what I perceived as reaction to being insulted. And then, "I can't talk about that! Are you trying to get me in trouble?" It was very sincere.
The deal with insider information is that it only becomes important to the SEC if someone acts on it. Anyone who works for a publicly traded company has a fiduciary duty to that company (be they CEO, mail room guy or a lawyer / banker / consultant on the company's buck). If that individual, as a fiduciary of the company, uses information that is not yet publicly available to make a stock trade to their advantage they have violated SEC regulations. If they pass on that information to another individual ? even one totally unconnected to the company ? the fiduciary duty is passed on with the information.
While this seems on the surface to be a pretty strange law (particularly in the context of a free market, which is supposed to have a minimum of government control), it helps to create a level playing field which helps to keep the stock market strong. The strength of the US stock market is the strength of US business. It?s easier for a company to raise capital here than it is in other countries, so US businesses can grow and expand faster. This is why they come down so hard on someone who does what Stewart is supposed to have done. It?s also why I kind of believe her when she says her broker was instructed to sell ImClone when it went below $60. She?d have to be very, very stupid to risk so much for so little.
Samuel Waksal founder of ImClone who has been convicted of insider trading.
note: the government is not charging stewart with insider trading.
fraud
obstruction of justice
conspiracy
i would assume she would have to be convicted of the first to be convicted of the other two.
they claim she didn't necessarily know that the fda wasn't going to give ImClone a favorable recommendation (on a drug they'd submitted for approval), only that she knew Waksal was going to dump shares.
i don't understand why people hate her so much, i just don't get it. i was watching cnn today and they were talking about how everyone hates her. one guy said he wasn't a fan but why? maybe she is control bitch but who cares, it doesn't affect us
Scott you have some good posts and some not very researched ones.
Quote:
I totally agree.
Why doesn't our "librul media" go after the real corporate criminals? Why don't they explore the connections between Bush/Cheney and Enron? Dubya and Ken Lay were even daily golf buddies, and our "librul media" says not a word about it when Dubya recites speeches about getting tough on corporate criminals. WTF?
JD is right. WTF?
Bush and Cheney were corporate criminals and should face criminal charges, although I'm not sure about impeachment since it is a past crime. However I am surprised that even though all card-carrying Bush-haters know what Halliburton and Enron are and that Bush and Cheney are criminals, no one really pushes for more info. There were only 1 or 2 issues with Covers about Enron from Newsweek and the like. Fleecing of America. We have white-collar criminals running the country. I do not care about your personal political views, Bush and Cheney are corporate criminals and there should have been/should be a criminal investigation. And the whole Homeland Security Department thing investigating Texas Democrats, well, WTF happened since Whitewater? Does no one care anymore? What the hell is wrong with this country? I'm surprised it still runs. It's like a chicken running aound with its head cut off.
I want to see Kenny Boy, Dubya, and Cheney in orange jump suits where they belong. They should have to use soap on a rope.
How are my points not researched? They did indict another Enron guy. The media did/does report on Bush/Cheney and sundry Enron and corporate ties. And it's true that the two investigations are independent and go at their own pace. Please note that one case is so very much easier to investigate than the other.
How are my points not researched? They did indict another Enron guy. The media did/does report on Bush/Cheney and sundry Enron and corporate ties. And it's true that the two investigations are independent and go at their own pace. Please note that one case is so very much easier to investigate than the other.
Did I get something wrong?
So how would you feel about the appointment of a special prosecuter?
Damnit sorry scott that was misdirected anger, you are right the cases are unrelated although a SP should be appointed to handle Halliburton and other shady things the current Administration has done.
Does anyone know who is going to rebuild Iraq's cellular infrastructure? That company that had shady accounting...WorldCom! The Administration appointed them to do it! So yes scott the media has reported things, that is how I learned about them.
But how does this compare to the Lewinsky scandle? Clinton was a bad husband. But the scandal clogged news for years. It still does. Bush and Cheney are cold, hard, white-collar corporate CRIMINALS that BROKE THE LAW AND SHOULD BE JAILED for STEALING MONEY. I think that is more serious and newsworthy than an affair. Stupid American media. Why are they not blowing the lid on this? They made a big to-do about Whitewater with Clinton, so where is the Time and Newsweek covers with Bu$h in the courtroom? Damn cracksniffer.
Sorry to be offtopic. On topic, I don't feel sorry for Martha Stewart at all.
Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling of Enron and Bernie Ebbers of WorldCom should all have received indictments before Stewart. Stewart made - what - $50k out of the insider trade (and lost about $400 million in the wake of the scandal)? How many millions did those guys pull in from dodgy deals and fraudulent reporting? And how many millions belonging to their stockholders and employees did they wipe out?
Problem is Lay and Ebbers were buying their company's stock at the bottom. (I don't know about Skilling.) They drank the KoolAid. The case against them is a lot more complex than people think. And if anybody got wiped out because of the failure of these companies, it was due to their own greed. There's simply no excuse for being heavily concentrated in one stock. On that score nobody got nailed worse than Ebbers. He borrowed about $400 million to buy more of his now worthless WorldCom stock.
Comments
Yeah, Martha's getting rail-roaded or whatever, but I just had to comment on this:
Originally posted by bluesigns
never mind that guys share this sort of information on a daily basis on the golf course of the world as casually as one would share a stick of gum
I don't doubt that insider trading happens, but I think most guys (not sure what gender has to do with it, but whatever) take this stuff very seriously. It's not like sharing a stick of gum. It's like being a criminal.
I know a few inviduals that have access to "inside information" of the SEC-would-be-angry-if-it-was-shared sort. Not being particularly savy in this area, I kinda put my foot in my mouth one day when I, jokingly, asked my friend who works for Intel if anything new and interesting was coming soon. My interest was totally geeky (I don't do stocks), but, trying to be funny, I tried to make it sound like I was interested in some stock tips. Anyway, there was silence and what I perceived as reaction to being insulted. And then, "I can't talk about that! Are you trying to get me in trouble?" It was very sincere.
Originally posted by jante99
There doesn't seem to be any rational reason why she would resign.
She has no choice...the stock price of Martha Stewart Omnimedia has already suffered hugely due to the scandal. The case is going to drag on for months (and will get a lot of media attention). If she hadn't stepped down there would have been a risk of her company bottoming out on the stock market.
The kind of people that would have held on to shares of Martha Stewart Omnimedia may not know a hell of a lot about stock analysis by fundamental evaluation...but they know that insider trading is illegal and they'll be reminded that Stewart did it every time they turn on Leno or E!
Originally posted by Scott
Or maybe there's independent investigations that have little to nothing and all the way to nada and zipo to do with one another?
Maybe...but how long do we have to wait? How can Lay, Skillings and Ebbers (and many others) remain uncharged - having caused thousands of times more damage to the public through the fraudulent and illegal practices of the companies they ran than Stewart's alleged insider trading did - just by saying that they "didn't know" illegal activities were taking place?
Originally posted by spotcatbug
I know a few inviduals that have access to "inside information" of the SEC-would-be-angry-if-it-was-shared sort. Not being particularly savy in this area, I kinda put my foot in my mouth one day when I, jokingly, asked my friend who works for Intel if anything new and interesting was coming soon. My interest was totally geeky (I don't do stocks), but, trying to be funny, I tried to make it sound like I was interested in some stock tips. Anyway, there was silence and what I perceived as reaction to being insulted. And then, "I can't talk about that! Are you trying to get me in trouble?" It was very sincere.
The deal with insider information is that it only becomes important to the SEC if someone acts on it. Anyone who works for a publicly traded company has a fiduciary duty to that company (be they CEO, mail room guy or a lawyer / banker / consultant on the company's buck). If that individual, as a fiduciary of the company, uses information that is not yet publicly available to make a stock trade to their advantage they have violated SEC regulations. If they pass on that information to another individual ? even one totally unconnected to the company ? the fiduciary duty is passed on with the information.
While this seems on the surface to be a pretty strange law (particularly in the context of a free market, which is supposed to have a minimum of government control), it helps to create a level playing field which helps to keep the stock market strong. The strength of the US stock market is the strength of US business. It?s easier for a company to raise capital here than it is in other countries, so US businesses can grow and expand faster. This is why they come down so hard on someone who does what Stewart is supposed to have done. It?s also why I kind of believe her when she says her broker was instructed to sell ImClone when it went below $60. She?d have to be very, very stupid to risk so much for so little.
There's a good article on insider trading here:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/busin...ng_020624.html
Originally posted by anand
His name starts with Sam... and yes it is true.
Samuel L. Jackson?
Sam Malone?
Uncle Sam?
Kansas Senator Sam Brownback?
Sam's Club?
Congressman Sam Farr?
Sam Spade?
note: the government is not charging stewart with insider trading.
fraud
obstruction of justice
conspiracy
i would assume she would have to be convicted of the first to be convicted of the other two.
they claim she didn't necessarily know that the fda wasn't going to give ImClone a favorable recommendation (on a drug they'd submitted for approval), only that she knew Waksal was going to dump shares.
I totally agree.
Why doesn't our "librul media" go after the real corporate criminals? Why don't they explore the connections between Bush/Cheney and Enron? Dubya and Ken Lay were even daily golf buddies, and our "librul media" says not a word about it when Dubya recites speeches about getting tough on corporate criminals. WTF?
JD is right. WTF?
Bush and Cheney were corporate criminals and should face criminal charges, although I'm not sure about impeachment since it is a past crime. However I am surprised that even though all card-carrying Bush-haters know what Halliburton and Enron are and that Bush and Cheney are criminals, no one really pushes for more info. There were only 1 or 2 issues with Covers about Enron from Newsweek and the like. Fleecing of America. We have white-collar criminals running the country. I do not care about your personal political views, Bush and Cheney are corporate criminals and there should have been/should be a criminal investigation. And the whole Homeland Security Department thing investigating Texas Democrats, well, WTF happened since Whitewater? Does no one care anymore? What the hell is wrong with this country? I'm surprised it still runs. It's like a chicken running aound with its head cut off.
I want to see Kenny Boy, Dubya, and Cheney in orange jump suits where they belong. They should have to use soap on a rope.
Did I get something wrong?
Originally posted by Scott
How are my points not researched? They did indict another Enron guy. The media did/does report on Bush/Cheney and sundry Enron and corporate ties. And it's true that the two investigations are independent and go at their own pace. Please note that one case is so very much easier to investigate than the other.
Did I get something wrong?
So how would you feel about the appointment of a special prosecuter?
Does anyone know who is going to rebuild Iraq's cellular infrastructure? That company that had shady accounting...WorldCom! The Administration appointed them to do it! So yes scott the media has reported things, that is how I learned about them.
But how does this compare to the Lewinsky scandle? Clinton was a bad husband. But the scandal clogged news for years. It still does. Bush and Cheney are cold, hard, white-collar corporate CRIMINALS that BROKE THE LAW AND SHOULD BE JAILED for STEALING MONEY. I think that is more serious and newsworthy than an affair. Stupid American media. Why are they not blowing the lid on this? They made a big to-do about Whitewater with Clinton, so where is the Time and Newsweek covers with Bu$h in the courtroom? Damn cracksniffer.
Sorry to be offtopic. On topic, I don't feel sorry for Martha Stewart at all.
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling of Enron and Bernie Ebbers of WorldCom should all have received indictments before Stewart. Stewart made - what - $50k out of the insider trade (and lost about $400 million in the wake of the scandal)? How many millions did those guys pull in from dodgy deals and fraudulent reporting? And how many millions belonging to their stockholders and employees did they wipe out?
Problem is Lay and Ebbers were buying their company's stock at the bottom. (I don't know about Skilling.) They drank the KoolAid. The case against them is a lot more complex than people think. And if anybody got wiped out because of the failure of these companies, it was due to their own greed. There's simply no excuse for being heavily concentrated in one stock. On that score nobody got nailed worse than Ebbers. He borrowed about $400 million to buy more of his now worthless WorldCom stock.