The old hag finally got it in the arse..

[url]http://www.msnbc.com/news/922014.asp?vts=060420031015[/url]

She's irritating no doubt, but surely the Feds have more important things to do than go after somebody that dices vegetables on TV. [rolleyes]

I was watching Neil Cavuto  for a bit list night and one of his guest said all the women in the country were behind Martha.  My girlfriend turned to me and said, "Ummmm, no they aren't."

Who cares

When I was working on my MBA we discussed insider trading in my finance classes. Our professor explained to us that the SEC didn't mind people making a little bit of money of insider information but they got pretty upset when you got greedy.

In other words. If you sell 100 shares on insider information and make a couple thousand dollars they won't say anything. But when you make damn near a quarter million like good old Martha did, they are going to teach you that greed is bad.

On part that we discuused is that the SEC uses computer models to search trade records for trades that occur prior to information that has a large impact on a stocks price. Any trades int he two weeks prior (IIRC) that result in large gains, are going to be heavily examined by the SEC.

In Martha's case she sold 3,928 shares of ImClone the day before they went public with the information that the FDA had rejected their drug application. She sold for $58 a share, which netted her $227,824.

That is well above the dollar value that the SEC looks for and well within the timeline that SEC checks.

Rusty

clone topic.

ibtl.

Martha Stewart makes me ill.

I'd hit it   [:)]

What is worrisome is that someone very sharp with good instincts could do the same thing. Or someone quite by accident.  Who cares how they came to buy or sell the stock?

Come to think of it, why should the SEC penalize anyone for utilizing the resources at their command to make money?  It's unAmerican.  It's ecologically unsound.

Sure.  But if you are riding for a few hours on a private jet with the CEO of a company whose shares you hold, and give an order to sell once you land, after which the stock starts a tumultuous fall from $60 to $5 (this is what happened in Stewart's case) I think it's fair to say you exploited information that the saaviest stock trader doesn't have access to.

If you rig the game (too much [;)] ) no one's going to want to play and buy your stock.

Interestingly, Stewart was not indicted for insider trading (the SEC is going after her civilly for that.)  All of the criminal charges against her stem from the fact that she lied, both publicly and to investigators, during the course of the investigation.

My friend's mom looks like martha stewart, but hot. She has an identical twin too. Talk about a couple of MILFs.

Anyway. She gets what is coming to her. I take insider trading very seriously. Why should the rich be privileged any more than they already are. If they want to work harder for it, great, but tiping off their friends is cheating.

That is not what happen in this case. Martha Steward sold her stock the day before the “inside information” she is supposed to have was released to the public. If she had waited until the next day after the “inside information” was released the money difference for the whole transaction in which she sold the stock was just $20,000 from one day to the next.

This is a bullsh*t show trial. You have people out there that have literally stolen billions from companies in the last 10 years and they are going to go after Martha Steward over a $20,000 difference in a trade. They are not even bothering to charge her criminally with insider trading because they cannot prove it… but obstruction of justice.

To quote the U.S. attorney:



Except of course William Jefferson Clinton. This is a damn disgrace and not right.

Purely a show trial and it is a relatively easy conviction on lying and obstruction of justice charges.

Lets talk about the millions that were stolen from Enron and the biggest bankruptcy - Global Crossing, which by the way former head of the DNC made millions off of.