Ok, what really is the big deal with Martha Stewart?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

martha

Blue Crack Supplier
Joined
Mar 30, 2001
Messages
42,544
Location
Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Please explain to me why everyone is crapping themselves over what she did. I know that she may have done some "insider trading," but how big a deal was it? I'm not asking whether it was right or wrong, and I'm not defending her, but I really want to know what the fuss is. Are people focusing on her because she's such a pris? Or was it a really bad thing that she did?



Thank you.
 
sorry zoner, but this post is going to hurt both you and martha.

martha was this iconic "i do everything myself" symbol of well...what every american is too damn lazy to do. the alleged insider trading that took place was sweet sweet insider trading. imagine if bob barker (pic for reference
bob.barker3.gif
) owned stock in enron. then, the night before the shit hit the proverbial fan, he sold millions of dollars of that stock. hmm...was it a hundred million dollar coincidence? i mean, bob MUST have friends in high places...could it be that he got a tip?


insider trading is illegal in the U.S, which certainly doesn't mean it doesn't go on. add on top of illegality the corporate scandals, add in one martha stewart and you will get a focused america on poor martha who just wanted to sell her sheets at the kmart. :shrug:
 
insider trading is a big no no. i should know because i work in finance. there are strict federal laws surrounding insider trading.

Anyone who breaks these federal laws are most likely going to the Fed Pen, no matter who you are.

if you want a good example of insider trading, I would recommend watching 'Wall Street' with Charlie and Martin Sheen.

anyhow, this is what the SEC (Securities Exchange Commission) defines Insider Trading as:

Insider Trading
"Insider trading" is a term that most investors have heard and usually associate with illegal conduct. But the term actually includes both legal and illegal conduct. The legal version is when corporate insiders?officers, directors, and employees?buy and sell stock in their own companies. When corporate insiders trade in their own securities, they must report their trades to the SEC. For more information about this type of insider trading and the reports insiders must file, please read "Forms 3, 4, 5" in our Fast Answers databank.

Illegal insider trading refers generally to buying or selling a security, in breach of a fiduciary duty or other relationship of trust and confidence, while in possession of material, nonpublic information about the security. Insider trading violations may also include "tipping" such information, securities trading by the person "tipped," and securities trading by those who misappropriate such information.

Examples of insider trading cases that have been brought by the SEC are cases against:

Corporate officers, directors, and employees who traded the corporation's securities after learning of significant, confidential corporate developments;

Friends, business associates, family members, and other "tippees" of such officers, directors, and employees, who traded the securities after receiving such information;

Employees of law, banking, brokerage and printing firms who were given such information to provide services to the corporation whose securities they traded;

Government employees who learned of such information because of their employment by the government; and

Other persons who misappropriated, and took advantage of, confidential information from their employers.
Because insider trading undermines investor confidence in the fairness and integrity of the securities markets, the SEC has treated the detection and prosecution of insider trading violations as one of its enforcement priorities.

The SEC adopted new Rules 10b5-1 and 10b5-2 to resolve two insider trading issues where the courts have disagreed. Rule 10b5-1 provides that a person trades on the basis of material nonpublic information if a trader is "aware" of the material nonpublic information when making the purchase or sale. The rule also sets forth several affirmative defenses or exceptions to liability. The rule permits persons to trade in certain specified circumstances where it is clear that the information they are aware of is not a factor in the decision to trade, such as pursuant to a pre-existing plan, contract, or instruction that was made in good faith.

Rule 10b5-2 clarifies how the misappropriation theory applies to certain non-business relationships. This rule provides that a person receiving confidential information under circumstances specified in the rule would owe a duty of trust or confidence and thus could be liable under the misappropriation theory.

For more information about insider trading, please read Insider Trading?A U.S. Perspective, a speech by staff of the SEC.

http://www.sec.gov/answers/insider.htm
 
MissVelvetDress_75 said:
insider trading is a big no no. i should know because i work in finance. there are strict federal laws surrounding insider trading.
[/B]


:wave: hey iris


meh, i never liked martha, something about growing your own grains to make yer bread from scratch and churning your own butter after the advancements of the industrial revolution seems idiotic to me.
 
Martha has always scared me (much the same way Pennywise the Clown does).

I think that with her dumping that stock soooooo conviently (sp?) draws suspiscion.

Even if she is found innocent, I don't think she can recover her "domestic goddess" image.
 
martha appears silly. people like that.

the money martha saved on her 'premature' imclone sale is apparently only 50 bucks.

the personal worth she has seen vanish for herself is apparently measured in the hundreds of millions.
 
Martha Stewart is my mortal enemy.

Why?

Because I just find her such a phony.

She started out a stock broker and is now a good housekeeping guru. The funny thing about what is happening is that she traded her ImClone stock illegally to save approximately $50,000, what happened now that her name has been disgraced is that she has lost approximately $200,000,000 in value of her own company's stock.

The real slap in the face is that a woman of this stature, magnitude, and financial prowess could have easily defaulted on the $2,000,000 she owned of ImClone tock, sold at a much lower price, lost maybe a million from that deal but saved TWO HUNDRED MILLION in her own stock.

She did something illegal, she knows it and now she is in a heap of trouble.

See you in the clink Martha...
 
You've got young black kids robbing a convenience store in Harlem of maybe $40 and a six pack, and they're promptly sent to jail to do time.

Well you know what, I'm sick of corporate America's abuse of the legal system. People have gone to jail on much lesser thefts and embezzlement charges than Martha is accused of, and so I'd like nothing more than to see her sprucing up jail cells for a while.

That being said, she'll never be convicted, and even if she is, what's a couple of weeks at Club Med?
 
Back
Top Bottom