Hardbopjazz Posted July 16, 2004 Report Posted July 16, 2004 She'll be rooming with misses Bubber. Quote
chris olivarez Posted July 16, 2004 Report Posted July 16, 2004 She got off easy. Wealth does have it's privleges. Quote
doubleM Posted July 16, 2004 Report Posted July 16, 2004 I hope they put her cell-mate on suicide watch. Quote
DTMX Posted July 16, 2004 Report Posted July 16, 2004 She's going to come out of prison with mad street cred. The next product from Martha Stewart OmniMedia will be an ornate pewter shiv (laundry room, cafeteria, parole hearings - it's perfect for all occasions!). Wonder what kind of jailhouse tattoo she'll get? Something tasteful for sure - like an evergreen wreath on a mauve background. Quote
RainyDay Posted July 17, 2004 Report Posted July 17, 2004 (edited) Martha got a royal screwing. And I'm not one of her fans either. She is serving time for lying about a crime she didn't commit. Disgusting. Who was the woman who served time for not lying to Ken Starr about Whitewater? This sounds more like the Soviet Union than the US. Edited July 17, 2004 by RainyDay Quote
doubleM Posted July 17, 2004 Report Posted July 17, 2004 As far as I can tell she committed perjury, and engaged in insider trading. Not exactly a victim, is she? Quote
RainyDay Posted July 17, 2004 Report Posted July 17, 2004 (edited) The insider trading charges were dropped. If she had been convicted of insider trading, she would have received more than five months, and she would have deserved it. Edited July 17, 2004 by RainyDay Quote
doubleM Posted July 17, 2004 Report Posted July 17, 2004 No argument there. But I think she got off pretty easy, considering what I've read about her actual activity around the time when she sold her Imclone (sp.). Quote
J Larsen Posted July 17, 2004 Report Posted July 17, 2004 (edited) You're hard-pressed to find many insider trading convictions. You have to prove that the person didn't intend to sell the stock prior to getting the non-public information. As this is practically impossible to prove, persons guilty of insider trading are often convicted of related crimes, if anything at all. In this sense, the Martha case isn't all that unusual. Considering that her Imclone trades ripped a lot of money off of anonymous investors, I think five months is a reasonable to light sentence. I think it is appropriate to give harsher sentences for lying to investigators with regards to an insider trading case, given the fact that the underlying crime is nearly impossible to prove. We have to strike some fear in these hot-shot traders who think they can get away with anything. Edited July 17, 2004 by J Larsen Quote
RainyDay Posted July 17, 2004 Report Posted July 17, 2004 Well, I've heard and read a lot about this case and apparently a lot of folks who know this stuff a lot better than I do believe she got screwed. If anyone really thought she got away with insider trading because of lack of evidence, it's hard to believe that she would have only gotten five months in prison. I know how the criminal justice works. It's not about justice, it's about winning. Quote
AmirBagachelles Posted July 17, 2004 Report Posted July 17, 2004 20 bucks says the book deal that Martha's bitch signs will be pretty darn good. Quote
rachel Posted July 17, 2004 Report Posted July 17, 2004 Considering that her Imclone trades ripped a lot of money off of anonymous investors, I think five months is a reasonable to light sentence. She didn't own *that* much Imclone stock--Sam Waksal's dumping of his stock is what ripped off investors, not Martha Stewart. Quote
J Larsen Posted July 17, 2004 Report Posted July 17, 2004 No, she didn't - I think that's probably a big reason she didn't get *that* much time. Martha and her buddy Waskal both ripped investors off. Waskal is serving his time, and now it looks like Martha will serve his. BTW, I do mathematical modeling in the financial industry for one of the larger firms, and NO ONE I work with has ever believed Martha. For one thing (of many), every phone call that goes to or comes from a trader or broker is tape recorded. There are no exceptions. This is a malpractice insurance requirement. If Martha had really placed that sell order in advance, her trading firm (I think it was Merrill?) would have been able to produce the tapes. Quote
rachel Posted July 17, 2004 Report Posted July 17, 2004 Whatever.... I just get tired of hearing her compared to the Ken Lays of the world. Quote
J Larsen Posted July 17, 2004 Report Posted July 17, 2004 Oh come on, Kennie-boy isn't all that bad of a guy. Just kidding. The Martha thing has been blown a little out of proportion, but that's the price of celebrity. If Waksal was the TV show host/magazine editor and Martha was the relatively anon exec, the tables would have been turned on this thing. And as it is, Waksal defrauded traders of about 20 times more money (I think he sold about $4MM worth) and got close to 20 times as much time - he just didn't get the headlines because he didn't put himself in the headlines in the first place. Also, Martha did herself no great favors in terms of making friends and enemies. Quote
rachel Posted July 17, 2004 Report Posted July 17, 2004 You made my earlier point. Martha only saved about 50G on the sale, whereas Waksal.... I think Waksal got what he deserved; everybody seems to be overstating things a bit when they make it sound as if Martha Stewart ruined the financial lives of millions of investors with her trade. Please... Quote
Jim Alfredson Posted July 17, 2004 Report Posted July 17, 2004 As far as I know, nobody lost their retirements because of Martha Stewart's trades. Correct me if I'm wrong. Quote
J Larsen Posted July 17, 2004 Report Posted July 17, 2004 I haven't heard anyone say that. However, it is quite possible that she ruined the financial life of one investor. Also, that $50,000 figure is misleading. If you bought right after Martha sold, and sold right after the FDA announcement (which would have been a reasonable thing to do), I believe you would have been out more like $200,000. The stock lost 75% of its value after the announcement, and lost about 90% of its value before it started to rebound in the last quarter of 2002. finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=IMCL&t=5y Quote
Soulstation1 Posted July 17, 2004 Report Posted July 17, 2004 (edited) imo martha's not being truthful. she knew exactly what she was doing, when she unloaded the stocks imo ss1 wasn't her martha stewart stock up 40% today??? maybe she can share a cell with "krybaby" kobe Edited July 17, 2004 by Soulstation1 Quote
JSngry Posted July 17, 2004 Report Posted July 17, 2004 So, what kind of "prison" will she be doing her time at, anyway? Quote
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.