Martha Stewart Indictment

Oh, I'm sure most will be happy to see Martha do the perp walk. Of course, these losers didn't build a billion-dollar business and create thousands of jobs, unlike Lay and Company, who did just the opposite. And now the Feds want to lock her up for saving 5 figures on a tip. I'm sure her arrest is going to be a voyeuristic thrill, similar to the hour where middle-America lardasses watch Jerry Springer and don't realize that they're a couple of paychecks away from a guest slot themselves. Gunning for people has turned into a spectator sport. Just hope that you never get caught in the crosshairs by an increasingly oppressive government.
 
Quote from PoundTheRock:

Just hope that you never get caught in the crosshairs by an increasingly oppressive government.


You got that right...I'd rather be surrounded by a pack of
hungry wolves, than have the Feds determined to make an
example out of me. I read somewhere this has already cost
her somewhere in the neighborhood of $400 million dollars.
 
Quote from Breakout:
Just because something is illegal, doesn't
necessarily mean it's wrong. When Hitler made it illegal to
harbor Jews and give them safe haven, would it have been
a wrong and immoral act to do so?


Harboring Jews may have been illegal under Hitler but it was not immoral. Stealing is both illegal and immoral. I was not saying that the two categories were the same, only that insider trading falls under both. Comparing common sense ethics to the Nazis does not make sense.


Now, that's a good point. What about that person who unknowingly took the loss for her? I think that was the point Mr. Friedman was trying to make. If she hadn't been forced by the government to sell her stock in secrecy, maybe that person who bought her stock would have been better informed and opted out on the purchase.

?? I don't understand. Do you think that if insider trading were legal that she would have come out in public and said "Imclone is about to release bad news, so therefore I am about to sell my stock."? There is no economic incentive to do so. Surely a Nobel Laureate Economist can see that.

The reason insider trading is illegal is precisely for that reason...the economic intrests of insiders are in opposition to the shareholder when it comes to adverse news. They are not going to give up profits in the intrest of others. You mistake the fact that it is illegal with the reason she (or any inside trader) sold the stock. The government is not forcing her to act illegally...she is just violating common ethics by her own will.

If we use Mr. Friedman's argument for other things the government "forces" us not to do, then if theft were not illegal, the thief would let you know when he was going to steal from you ahead of time and thus make it ok to do so. Secrecy is in the best interest of the thief, no matter if it is legal or not.
 
I personally would prefer to see some of the ENRON top honchos in jail and stripped of their ill-gotten gains.

But given their political connections, does anyone think that will happen? It's easier to go after little Martha Stewart and divert attention from the real criminals... :D
 
Quote from PoundTheRock:

I'm sure her arrest is going to be a voyeuristic thrill, similar to the hour where middle-America lardasses watch Jerry Springer and don't realize that they're a couple of paychecks away from a guest slot themselves. Gunning for people has turned into a spectator sport. Just hope that you never get caught in the crosshairs by an increasingly oppressive government.

:D well put

but surely they are just looking out for the 'little guy' here, small investor protection is job one for the Feds... there's no way this is politically-influenced, or that the timing of it is for anything other than to assure the integrity of the investigation and the punishment handed down, right?
 
I agree that there are plenty of crooks for the government to go after, but they are prosecuting at least some of the Enron crew. Too bad they're not as eager to go after the top people in the investment banks who were financing it and knew of the fraud.

Not to go off topic, but if congress or the SEC would ban or severely restrict incentive stock options, much of this fraud would become unattractive. Most of these companies were driven by an options culture where it became vitally important to goose the stock price so options went in the money. I have never understood why an ordinary employee is adequately motivated by his paycheck but the CEO, who is making tens of millions, can only be adequately motivated by hundreds of millions in options windfall. The only proper course of action for a board of directors, when told the CEO needs motivation, is to invite him to purchase stock with his own money or look for another job.

Intel and other tech companies are still beating this horse that exec's need to be aligned with stockholders. Fine, we bought stock with our own damn money. Let them do the same.
 
Quote from WarEagle:



Harboring Jews may have been illegal under Hitler but it was not immoral. Stealing is both illegal and immoral. I was not saying that the two categories were the same, only that insider trading falls under both. Comparing common sense ethics to the Nazis does not make sense.


My point was, that just because something is
illegal doesn't necessarily mean you've done something wrong. That was the only analogy I could think of, I'm sure there are better.



?? I don't understand. Do you think that if insider trading were legal that she would have come out in public and said "Imclone is about to release bad news, so therefore I am about to sell my stock."? There is no economic incentive to do so. Surely a Nobel Laureate Economist can see that.



I think most people are honest, and I think her and her broker and everybody else that knew of the impending news would have said something and the public would
have been informed and been able to take steps to protect themselves, if it hadn't been for the fear of the government.



The reason insider trading is illegal is precisely for that reason...the economic intrests of insiders are in opposition to the shareholder when it comes to adverse news. They are not going to give up profits in the intrest of others. You mistake the fact that it is illegal with the reason she (or any inside trader) sold the stock. The government is not forcing her to act illegally...she is just violating common ethics by her own will.


Actually, all she did was take the advice of
her broker. He called her up and told her he noticed the family
that owns the company was dumping their stock and I think
it might be a good idea to sell yours. What's so bad about that?
Sounds like she had a damn good broker to me!




If we use Mr. Friedman's argument for other things the government "forces" us not to do, then if theft were not illegal, the thief would let you know when he was going to steal from you ahead of time and thus make it ok to do so. Secrecy is in the best interest of the thief, no matter if it is legal or not.


You keep using words like theft, and thief and
immoral. I don't think these words apply. The CEO of Imclone is
being indicted, also. So, what was his terrible crime? He told
his daughter about the impending news so she wouldn't lose her savings. So, we have two choices here. According to you, he's a lying, deceiving, immoral thief. To others, he might seem a caring
father?




And, let me ask you this. If you were standing
on the railroad tracks and you could see a train coming straight
at you. What would you do? Stand there like a fool, or jump out
of the way? But, wait...you can't jump out of the way. Big Brother
says you have to stand there and take it like a man. Well, I'd say
Big Brother can go to hell, I'm gonna jump out of the way, and if
I see any of my friends or family on the track, I'd have to be one
sorry bastard to just stand there and watch them get killed.
 
Quote from candletrader:

Martha's hot (for her age)... we shouldn't send her to jail

Oh my God!

Criminal guilt and innocence are issues determined by judicial process, not economics and tax policy, and certainly not by who you want to bang.

Why don't you apply for a gaurd position at the joint she gets shipped off to, then you can spend time with princess.
 
Quote from Breakout:

My point was, that just because something is
illegal doesn't necessarily mean you've done something wrong

I said the same thing, only in this case it is both illegal and wrong.


I think most people are honest, and I think her and her broker and everybody else that knew of the impending news would have said something and the public would
have been informed and been able to take steps to protect themselves, if it hadn't been for the fear of the government.


I think you are very naive if you really believe this. As far as I know there is no law saying she can't inform the public as long as it is distributed equally. She is in trouble for profiting off that info at the expense of everyone else, not for not telling everyone.


Actually, all she did was take the advice of
her broker. He called her up and told her he noticed the family
that owns the company was dumping their stock and I think
it might be a good idea to sell yours. What's so bad about that?


Go ahead and sip the koolaid if you want, but it was not because of what her broker told her. She was good friends with Waksal. He told her. Simple as that.


You keep using words like theft, and thief and
immoral. I don't think these words apply. The CEO of Imclone is
being indicted, also. So, what was his terrible crime? He told
his daughter about the impending news so she wouldn't lose her savings


Insider trading is STEALING. It is taking something that is not yours because another person doesn't know better. Please explain how it is not stealing. His crime is that he profited for himself and left his shareholders..who he has a fiduciary duty to...holding the bag. When you purchase stock in a company as an insider, you know going in that you must take the good with the bad since you are privy to material information. If you used to be a broker (as in Martha's case), then you certainly know that trading on info from an insider is also prohibited. That is why the law was made, not because the government wants to spoil your party.

And, let me ask you this. If you were standing
on the railroad tracks and you could see a train coming straight
at you. What would you do? Stand there like a fool, or jump out
of the way? But, wait...you can't jump out of the way. Big Brother
says you have to stand there and take it like a man. Well, I'd say
Big Brother can go to hell, I'm gonna jump out of the way, and if
I see any of my friends or family on the track, I'd have to be one
sorry bastard to just stand there and watch them get killed.


I think your collection of examples is flawed. Of course anyone would push someone out of the way of a train. But would you pull someone else in front of it to save yourself?

Look, if no one else got hurt from it, then it would be fine. I am a free market capitalist and I am sitting here defending the government. IMO, the government is good for only a few things, protection of property rights being one of them. A stockholder, as an owner of the company, has the right to protection from an insider profiting off of him based on non-public material information. If that were not the case, if would be harder to sell shares to the public, which prevents you from raising the capital needed to invest and grow a business in a capitalist society.

I don't mean to come across harsh, I'm really a very nice guy. :)
 
She's not been found guilty yet.

She's probably guilty of taking her broker's advice, which isn't illegal, and guilty of trying to cover it up to the feds, which was obvious by her statements about having written down the stop order. She probably thought that what she did may be illegal and looked to cover it up, and that may be why they're so gung ho to get her 'cause "nobody's gonna make us look foolish and lie to us and get away with it." They announced it in Feb. that they were going to have something against her by July.

It's also probably easier to make an example out of her, and we all know the IRS takes sacrifical victims to their public alter every now and then in order to keep us all in line, than it is to prosecute Kenneth Lay and their ilk. Not to say they won't, but that's a bigger case, probably more work to dot the i's.

Them getting the easier target first, Martha, may just also be their way of sending a message to Lay and that bunch, much the same way Sean Connery's cop character in The Untouchables slaps around, threatens and shoots the already dead mobster in order to intimidate the crook they caught to give up names and submit to them (what a great scene).
 
Back
Top