You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Martha Stewart Indictment
- Thread starter BOSS_HOG
- Start date
F. d'Anconia
Guest
Quote from PoundTheRock:
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.
Thank you, rock! well said. The general public always wants to see the rich get in trouble, because they don't have the guts or the wherewithal to get there themselves. Pathetic. I call this "OPM". Its America's greatest spectator sport. Even more important than baseball or football. Its our national pastime. OTHER PEOPLES MISERY!!
Quote from WarEagle:
I said the same thing, only in this case it is both illegal and wrong.
Well, that's your opinion. So, I have choice, now. Do I agree with Nobel Laureate Mr. Friedman, that insider
trading isn't wrong, or do I agree with you? I don't mean any disrespect, but, you're not even close to guys mind.
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.
So, she had better info and a good broker. I still don't see the crime here.
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.
We don't know that. I read she just took the
advice of her broker. I think we better wait till we get the facts before we pass judgement.
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.
Once again, I think I'll go with Mr. Friedmans
opinion. It's not stealing.
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.
You make it sound like she knowingly sold
to a little old lady. Millions of shares trade hands every day. For all
we know, a daytrader bought her shares and sold them back to
another trader in 10 minutes for a small profit.
Quote from Breakout:
I don't mean any disrespect, but, you're not even close to guys mind.
Admitidly I am not a Nobel Laureate. You got me on that one.
We don't know that. I read she just took the
advice of her broker.
You just said yourself that you would tell your family and friends if you had inside info. You don't think Waksal did the same?
You make it sound like she knowingly sold
to a little old lady. Millions of shares trade hands every day. For all
we know, a daytrader bought her shares and sold them back to
another trader in 10 minutes for a small profit.
And who did that daytrader sell too? Someone lost money and it wasn't Martha. I don't need a Nobel Prize to understand economics. Clearly you lack a basic understanding of market mechanics. I guess its just easier to believe everything you read.
I did not intend for this to turn into a debate. Clearly we will have to agree to disagree. But its people like Lay and Waksal and Ebbers and even Martha who think like you that have caused the corporate scandal environment that we are wading through. The end does not always justify the means.
Quote from Magna:
Anyone who thinks a person of her wealth, with the team of lawyers she's got, will go to prison is kidding themselves. On top of it she's female, and in the USA we don't like to see women in jail.... unless they come from a trailer park. Bung, I think her plea of innocence is based on having instructed her broker to sell if it got below $60.
I'm sure that the market if touched order is somewhere here....
Quote from WarEagle:
Admitidly I am not a Nobel Laureate. You got me on that one.
Sorry, you were getting on my nerves, so
I had to pull out the Big Guns...hehe
You just said yourself that you would tell your family and friends if you had inside info. You don't think Waksal did the same?
Well, you have a good point, but I just don't
like to make a judgement if I don't have the facts. What I read
was that Waksal in fact "had not" implicated Martha. She said
that she had an agreement with her broker to sell if the stock
traded under $60. The broker later recanted and admitted that
he had called Martha with the info that the family was selling their shares and that she might want to dump hers, too. I really
don't have a problem with that, though. I wish I had some connections.
And who did that daytrader sell too? Someone lost money and it wasn't Martha. I don't need a Nobel Prize to understand economics. Clearly you lack a basic understanding of market mechanics. I guess its just easier to believe everything you read.
Well, see, once again you're implying
you know more about it than Milton. I'm sure you know a lot
about market mechanics, but I think Mr. Friedman knows a
little more than you do. And, he says you're wrong. So, I'm gonna go with him on it, this time.
I did not intend for this to turn into a debate. Clearly we will have to agree to disagree. But its people like Lay and Waksal and Ebbers and even Martha who think like you that have caused the corporate scandal environment that we are wading through. The end does not always justify the means.
I don't think it's fair to put Martha in the same category as the others. All she did was sell 4000 shares of
her stock on the advice of her broker. At least, that's what we know,now. If this was Jane Smith who lives over here on
Maple Street. This wouldn't even have been an issue with the
Feds or SEC. The Enron thing was in a different league, I think.
Anyway, I've enjoyed the discussion...cheers!