OT-Should Martha Stewart get time?

Page 2 of 2  


Yes, assuming she is convicted, she should do time.

Same.
Same.
Same.
Same.
Nobody should get off because they are famous or rich.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 08:19:38 -0500, "RKON"

Yes, and any other person would go to jail for doing it. It is a crime, period. Doesn't matter if you're rich or poor, a crime is a crime and should be dealt with appropriately.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Saddam?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Easy, eaten alive by hogs. I bet being in hog poop screws up you chances with the 72 virgins.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I think killing more than 400,000 people screws up that chance, too.
Glen

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 15 Dec 2003, Glen spake unto rec.woodworking:

Rumor has it that his defense will be "It's OK, I had Subway."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In rec.woodworking snipped-for-privacy@hushmail.com (Bill Wallace) wrote:

I will not read your article. I will not reconsider my position. There are many victims of this crime. You've never posted in this group before, why are you here?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@nospam.com (Bruce) wrote in message (Bill Wallace) wrote:

I am confused by your comment, did you never have a first post to this group? In any event, perhaps you can explain how insider trading creates even one victim (other than because the government says so)? I can see how it creates jealously, but it is not logically possible for the *reason* why someone sold shares (since the selling itself is not illegal) to harm anyone.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@hushmail.com (Bill Wallace) wrote

LOL. 'Bill Wallace' is really Martha's attorney.
Zeke
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@hushmail.com says...

Insider trading is not a "victimless crime", because the insiders bought and sold shares using information not yet available to other shareholders or potential shareholders. Do you realize the implications of treating insider trading as a normal business practice? It's not the government that is over-reaching here (there are plenty of other places where that is the case), this is a case of the stock market itself wanting this kind of regulation. If insider trading were legal, the market itself would fall apart. Who, besides insiders, would invest knowing that any good or bad news would be acted upon before the rest of the investors had a chance to do something? This kind of practice would make the stock market an unattractive investment for all but corporate insiders, and there aren't enough of those to support a business, otherwise the business would be a privately held company.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark & Juanita wrote:

I understand without thinking about it too hard.
What gets me about Stewart is she's worth a chunk of money, I've heard upwards of $1 billion (?). I heard she would have lost around $250k when the stock tanked. To risk so much over so little doesn't make sense to me.
--
Mark

N.E. Ohio
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
How come everyone's so up in arms over Martha, but has forgotten about our prez, who did this on a much grander scale, more often? Was it because he was technically "cleared" by the SEC - by the man who was his personal attorney and by his father's vice-presidential counsel ?
"According to U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission records, on four separate occasions Gov. George W. Bush disregarded federal statutes by failing to file insider stock trade reports on a timely basis, back-dating one trade by some four months. Moreover, one key trade just a few weeks before Iraq invaded Kuwait -- but reported some eight months late after the Gulf War was over -- netted Bush close to $1 million in profit as he sold stock in Harken Energy, an oil company doing business in the Middle East wherein some of his father's largest contributors also maintained substantial positions.
The SEC under President Bush carried out an incomplete investigation of the younger Bush's pre-Gulf War trade in 1991 after key presidential advisor George Jr. claimed that he filed a report, but that the SEC had most likely lost it. (No one has really asked whether the governor bothered to use registered mail to verify receipt of the documents.)"
Renata
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 03:53:17 GMT, Mark & Juanita

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I suppose that 's good enough for most.
Those with an axe to grind will never be satisfied.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says... .. snip of typical hate-Bush rant
Perhaps you need to check out the difference between "insider trading" and failing to file an insider trading report in a timely manner. Insiders are allowed to trade stock, they have to file their intent to do so and then report afterwards.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@hushmail.com says...

So you think that if the buyer had known the same thing that the insider knew, the buyer would still have bought the stock? At the prevailing price before the news was known? Maybe if that buyer were one of the e-bay bidders for the decrepit motorcycle referenced in another thread. Most intelligent people would take one look at that news and run far away from that particular stock. Otherwise, why did the stock tank after the news was made known to the general public? After all, people who were going to buy the stock should have continued to do so.

Not at all, see above.
... snip

Don't you think lack of insider trading laws would further inhibit free information flow? After all, if I'm an insider with superior information, why would I ever want anybody else to get information until I had profited from it?
... snip

What you have just done is shut out a significant majority of potential stockholders and limited it to just those who have the means and wherewithal to mount a lawsuit against those who violate such agreements. ... or put their trust in a corrupted class-action system in which case-sharks pocket 60% or more of settlements and leave the actual victims with pennies on the dollar.
Again, you keep referring to this as a victimless crime. If Martha is guilty, she committed fraud, she sold something she knew was worthless for the price of what undamaged goods would be. Would you consider it a victimless crime for you to sell a used vehicle with a transmission that you absolutely knew was going bad (or was bad) to someone for the same price as if the vehicle was in perfect condition? It is one thing to sell something and have it fail in the future -- both you and the buyer are acting on the same information; it is quite another for you to withold critical information in order for you to redeem your value in something that is known to be less than you present it to be.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The buyer of Martha Stewarts stock wouldn't have bought it if that bit of inside info was known to all.
This isn't a victimless crime. Period. As a small investor, I would never ever buy any stock from any company if insider trading were the norm. Why would anyone else? Why take the very large risk that the company I've checked out as thoroughly as possible using publicly available into, but had a problem that only the management team knew about? The management team uses that hidden info to sell/dump their investment at the then higher price than it'll become after the problem is finally made known after their sales are made.
That's where the victimization comes in.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
    Greetings and salutations.
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 08:52:15 -0600, Lazarus Long

to play in, we all need to be on the SAME level playing field. That is...we all need to have access to the SAME information. How well we analyse and interpret that information should be what determines how well our investments do. Secret informaton, shared amongst a few insiders puts mountains on the field, meaning that SOME folks are going to get screwed OUT of money and others will make it hand over fist. Good if you are the latter, bad if you are the former.     Interpreting facts can be a subtle thing and depends on good observation. For example, a few years ago, a friend of mine came back to town after a trip up North to visit relatives in Indiana and Minnesota. He immediately called his stock broker and told him to purchase a bunch of John Deere stock. The broker was reluctant, as JD was not doing well, but, made the transaction. Later that year, the stock took a big jump up when JD announced a much rosier future, thanks to some large, long-term projects that had come in. How did my friend know to do this? Well, he drove by one of the big JD facilities and saw that they were building a LOT of buildings there, to expand their manufacturing capabilities, and rightly assumed that the company would not do this unless they expected to make a bushel of money off it.     Observation is the key.     Regards     Dave Mundt
big rise.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.