Should Martha Stewart get a prison sentence? They've only got her on being
dishonest to investigators. They have no evidence regarding her
participation with the IMCLone insider trading scam. Even if she did have
advance knowledge that the IMClone stock was going to pummel, was she wrong
for dumping the stock? What would you have done?
What about Michael Jackson?
Kobe Bryant?
Robert Blake?
Scott Peterson?
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 02:24:59 GMT, Zeke Redner <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>Should Martha Stewart get a prison sentence? They've only got her on being
>dishonest to investigators. They have no evidence regarding her
>participation with the IMCLone insider trading scam. Even if she did have
>advance knowledge that the IMClone stock was going to pummel, was she wrong
>for dumping the stock? What would you have done?
>
>What about Michael Jackson?
>
>Kobe Bryant?
>
>Robert Blake?
>
>Scott Peterson?
What about Sadam?
What about OJ? I'm against the death sentence, but approve of life in
prison.
Sun, Dec 14, 2003, 2:24am (EST+5) [email protected] (Zeke=A0Redner) posted
something snipped:
Kill 'em all, let the Gods sort 'em out.
Next time you post something OT, at least make it half-way
interesting.
JOAT
Life may not be the party we hoped for, but while we are here we might
as well dance.
- Unknown
Life just ain't life without good music. - JOAT
Web Page Update 12 Dec 2003.
Some tunes I like.
http://community-2.webtv.net/Jakofalltrades/SOMETUNESILIKE/
Zeke Redner wrote:
> Should Martha Stewart get a prison sentence?
Yes, for what Bruce said.
>
> What about Michael Jackson?
Death by Boo Foo.
>
> Kobe Bryant?
Wife should divorce him, take most of what he has. When are these people
going to learn to buy a Pro. Awful hard for a hooker to cry fowl.
>
> Robert Blake?
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. Execution is probably the
only thing that will keep his mouth shut.
>
> Scott Peterson?
>
Who says you have to be from the midwest to be trailer trash? Should be
killed just for being classless.
--
--
Mark
N.E. Ohio
Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens,
A.K.A. Mark Twain)
When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure ends the
suspense. (Gaz, r.moto)
In rec.woodworking
Zeke Redner <[email protected]> wrote:
>Should Martha Stewart get a prison sentence?
Yes, a long one. She got caught playing the game that keeps the poor man
poor and the rich man rich. Insider trading screws every American with a
dollar in the stock market and should be dealt with harshly.
>What about Michael Jackson?
Death penalty.
>Kobe Bryant?
I'm not sure on this one. I think the girl was a slut.
>Robert Blake?
Death penalty.
>Scott Peterson?
Death penalty
In rec.woodworking
[email protected] (Bill Wallace) wrote:
>I just came across your comment and would urge you to reconsider your
>position on the alleged crime of insider trading. This another
>fabricated "crime" in which there is no victim. See my article below,
>I look forward to your comments.
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?
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
<[email protected]> wrote:
> No harm? Take the alleged case of Martha's dealings, an insider knew
>that a particular drug would not be approved by the government. This
>was knowledge not known outside the company. That insider then sold all
>of their stock at the prevailing price, all the while knowing that the
>coming announcement would cause the stock to drop and also knowing that
>the company had lost a significant portion of its real value because
>that drug was to be a significant portion of future revenue. Who was
>harmed? Those people who bought the stock whose knowledge was based
>upon only publicly available information -- there was no way for them to
>be smarter or more savvy investors. Thus, because of insider trading,
>the insiders weren't smarter nor more successful, they were trading on
>knowledge that they and only they had -- essentially defrauding the
>investors who purchased their soon to be worthless stock, with them all
>the while knowing that as soon as the information became public the
>stock would become worthless. This is not a victimless crime, and it
>was not jealousy that would make other investors irate. Now, if this
>was not an illegal act, but an accepted business practice, who would
>ever take a chance of buying a company's stock? There would be no
>investment that one could reasonably make unless one was an insider
>because only the insiders would have sufficient information to make
>rational investments. Do you see now why it is really the stock market
>that zealously sees to it that anti-insider trading cases are prosecuted
>and that this remains a crime?
>
> I fail to see how insider trading laws prevented Enron from being a
>debacle earlier than it was. As a matter of fact, insider trading and
>encouraging employees to invest their pension funds in the company while
>the executives were not is actually an indication of the corruption
>within that company. Frankly, Enron is a case that falls far outside
>the norm and really only serves as an example of how corruption can be
>sustained for years before it is finally exposed.
>
>
> The laws compel the insiders to part with a number of specific pieces
>of information in the quarterly reports to the SEC and in non-periodic
>updates in the event of "peculiar" occurences. Insiders are prevented
>from trading on that information until it is made public -- everybody
>suffers from adverse information and everybody benefits from positive
>information. In your example above, by the time the stocks have been
>dumped by the insiders, it's too late for you, you've already been
>killed if insider trading were legal.
>
>
> Who is asking a state agency to judge the quality of anything? The
>only thing being asked for here is to make sure that all investors in a
>company have an equal chance of making decisions related to their
>holdings in that company at the same time and based on the same
>information as all other investors have available to them. Doesn't seem
>like such a bad thing for the owners of a company to demand from their
>fellow owners and employees.
>
>
I suppose that 's good enough for most.
Those with an axe to grind will never be satisfied.
"Renata" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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 ?
>
Greetings and salutations.
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 08:52:15 -0600, Lazarus Long
<[email protected]> wrote:
>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.
>
Indeed. To reiterate...for the stock market to be fun
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.
No
As far as I know, none of her employees were robbed of their pension and
retirements, no dipping into company funds to buy homes, boats, and
airplanes, no bancruptcy due to her personal spending sprees or company
mismanagement.
The reason her stock tanked was the media hype.
Too many REAL corporate theves out there.
She's a scapegoat.
The rest of them......where's Jack Ruby when you need him.
"Zeke Redner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Should Martha Stewart get a prison sentence? They've only got her on being
> dishonest to investigators. They have no evidence regarding her
> participation with the IMCLone insider trading scam. Even if she did have
> advance knowledge that the IMClone stock was going to pummel, was she
wrong
> for dumping the stock? What would you have done?
>
> What about Michael Jackson?
>
> Kobe Bryant?
>
> Robert Blake?
>
> Scott Peterson?
>
Celebrity death match...
"Zeke Redner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Should Martha Stewart get a prison sentence? They've only got her on being
> dishonest to investigators. They have no evidence regarding her
> participation with the IMCLone insider trading scam. Even if she did have
> advance knowledge that the IMClone stock was going to pummel, was she
wrong
> for dumping the stock? What would you have done?
>
> What about Michael Jackson?
>
> Kobe Bryant?
>
> Robert Blake?
>
> Scott Peterson?
>
Martha should disgorge treble damages from her sale plus a big fine for the
coverup, then get back to making money and paying taxes.
Her "crime" was really pretty minor in the grand scheme of things and
collecting the taxes on her business is a lot more important than sending her
to Eglin for tennis lessons for a few months.
Why punish people who are pumping up the economy?
In rec.woodworking
[email protected] (Greg) wrote:
>Her "crime" was really pretty minor in the grand scheme of things and
>collecting the taxes on her business is a lot more important than sending her
>to Eglin for tennis lessons for a few months.
Nice attitude. So your financial contribution to society should be
considered when you break laws? You know, in the "grand scheme of things"
the crack head that robs the local convenience store is pretty minor too.
For that matter, what crime isn't pretty minor?
>Why punish people who are pumping up the economy?
You seem to have trouble separating things. It makes no difference whether
or not she was "pumping up the economy," she broke the law and then tried
to cover it up. Why should SHE get to get out before the stock bombs and
the ordinary Joe on the street has to eat the loss?
Bruce responds:
>In rec.woodworking
>[email protected] (Greg) wrote:
>
>>Her "crime" was really pretty minor in the grand scheme of things and
>>collecting the taxes on her business is a lot more important than sending
>her
>>to Eglin for tennis lessons for a few months.
>
>Nice attitude. So your financial contribution to society should be
>considered when you break laws? You know, in the "grand scheme of things"
>the crack head that robs the local convenience store is pretty minor too.
>For that matter, what crime isn't pretty minor?
Considering the possible loss to society by incarceration is something that
does happen. I can recall some years ago (27 or 28) brothers who owned a resort
hotel in NYS being nailed for screwing IRS out of, IIRC, about $5 million.
Restitution, minor fines, minor jail time (I seem to recall 120 or 180 days
each) with the jail time arranged so one brother would always be on hand to run
the hotel. Rationale: loss of several hundred jobs should the hotel end up in
difficulty and fold.
>>Why punish people who are pumping up the economy?
>
>You seem to have trouble separating things. It makes no difference whether
>or not she was "pumping up the economy," she broke the law and then tried
>to cover it up. Why should SHE get to get out before the stock bombs and
>the ordinary Joe on the street has to eat the loss?
It seems likely the stock won't bomb...and it probably wouldn't have wavered if
the varioius news media hadn't raise such a hullabaloo. I wonder often what it
is about Ms. Stewart that has so many who wish problems on her in advance of
conviction.
Charlie Self
"Man is a reasoning rather than a reasonable animal."
Alexander Hamilton
http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Bruce responds:
>
> >In rec.woodworking
> >[email protected] (Greg) wrote:
> >
... snip
>
> Considering the possible loss to society by incarceration is something that
> does happen. I can recall some years ago (27 or 28) brothers who owned a resort
> hotel in NYS being nailed for screwing IRS out of, IIRC, about $5 million.
> Restitution, minor fines, minor jail time (I seem to recall 120 or 180 days
> each) with the jail time arranged so one brother would always be on hand to run
> the hotel. Rationale: loss of several hundred jobs should the hotel end up in
> difficulty and fold.
>
Boy, that sends a great message, doesn't it?
... snip
> It seems likely the stock won't bomb...and it probably wouldn't have wavered if
> the varioius news media hadn't raise such a hullabaloo.
The stock in question did bomb -- she sold just before a major
announcement regarding information that was not available to the general
public (i.e. general stock investor) until the announcement. Profiting
from information that only an insider would know is a crime and is a
crime not because the government loves regulating industry (well, it
does, but that's not the over-riding issue in this case), but because
the stock market would die if this were not so. Consider that if people
inside a publicly traded company could benefit from news (good or bad)
before stockholders became aware of such news -- people would just plain
stop investing in the market because all of the profits would be made by
the insiders at the expense of outside investors.
> I wonder often what it
> is about Ms. Stewart that has so many who wish problems on her in advance of
> conviction.
>
From what I understand, peoples' reaction to her is similar to the
reaction that woodworkers and serious do-it-yourselfers have to Bob
Vila. The two appear to have very similar personalities (albeit with
Martha actually letting her guests speak a bit more than Bob ever did).
Not to anyone's credit, folks seem to take perverse pleasure when people
with the Bob V personality suffer some setback.
> Charlie Self
>
> "Man is a reasoning rather than a reasonable animal."
> Alexander Hamilton
>
> http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
>
>
>
In rec.woodworking
Mark <[email protected]> wrote:
>She's a strong and smart woman which is very threatening to man and
>woman alike.
She's a major league bitch; just ask her xH, anyone that has ever worked
for or near her.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/stewart1.html
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/msimclone1.html
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/marthamaine1.html
Bruce responds:
>In rec.woodworking
>Mark <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>She's a strong and smart woman which is very threatening to man and
>>woman alike.
>
>She's a major league bitch; just ask her xH, anyone that has ever worked
>for or near her.
Yeah, but, then, those of us who have been divorced, or fired, are not the best
judges of the character of those on the other side of the equation. My ex-wife
is probably about 1/5 as bad as I make her out, while my most recent ex-boss is
definitely not a bitch, though other qualifiers that are less pleasant leap
instantly to mind.
Charlie Self
"Man is a reasoning rather than a reasonable animal."
Alexander Hamilton
http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
In rec.woodworking
[email protected] (Charlie Self) wrote:
>Yeah, but, then, those of us who have been divorced, or fired, are not the best
>judges of the character of those on the other side of the equation.
Did you read the links I posted? How bout people that were cussed like
dogs and then run over by her in her Suburban?
Charlie Self wrote:
> Bruce responds:
>
>
>>In rec.woodworking
>>Mark <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>She's a strong and smart woman which is very threatening to man and
>>>woman alike.
>>
>>She's a major league bitch; just ask her xH, anyone that has ever worked
>>for or near her.
>
>
> Yeah, but, then, those of us who have been divorced, or fired, are not the best
> judges of the character of those on the other side of the equation. My ex-wife
> is probably about 1/5 as bad as I make her out, while my most recent ex-boss is
> definitely not a bitch, though other qualifiers that are less pleasant leap
> instantly to mind.
>
> Charlie Self
>
> "Man is a reasoning rather than a reasonable animal."
> Alexander Hamilton
>
> http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
>
They ought to sentence her to go to Iraq and decorate all the Saddam
hidey-holes!
Tim
Charlie Self wrote:
> I wonder often what it
> is about Ms. Stewart that has so many who wish problems on her in advance of
> conviction.
She's a strong and smart woman which is very threatening to man and
woman alike.
--
Mark
N.E. Ohio
Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens,
A.K.A. Mark Twain)
When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure ends the
suspense. (Gaz, r.moto)
Mark responds:
>Charlie Self wrote:
>> I wonder often what it
>> is about Ms. Stewart that has so many who wish problems on her in advance
>of
>> conviction.
>
>She's a strong and smart woman which is very threatening to man and
>woman alike.
You're probably right. Going through life that badly threatened by a stranger
has to be an awful sensation.
Charlie Self
"Man is a reasoning rather than a reasonable animal."
Alexander Hamilton
http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> [email protected] (Bruce) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > In rec.woodworking
> > [email protected] (Bill Wallace) wrote:
> >
> > >I just came across your comment and would urge you to reconsider your
> > >position on the alleged crime of insider trading. This another
> > >fabricated "crime" in which there is no victim. See my article below,
> > >I look forward to your comments.
> >
> > 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?
>
> 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.
>
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.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > No harm? Take the alleged case of Martha's dealings, an insider knew
> > that a particular drug would not be approved by the government. This
> > was knowledge not known outside the company. That insider then sold all
> > of their stock at the prevailing price, all the while knowing that the
> > coming announcement would cause the stock to drop and also knowing that
> > the company had lost a significant portion of its real value because
> > that drug was to be a significant portion of future revenue. Who was
> > harmed? Those people who bought the stock whose knowledge was based
> > upon only publicly available information -- there was no way for them to
... snip because this is getting really long
> > rational investments. Do you see now why it is really the stock market
> > that zealously sees to it that anti-insider trading cases are prosecuted
> > and that this remains a crime?
>
> Your premise here seems to be that if not for the trader with superior
> information, the buyer on the other end of the transaction would not
> have lost money on the purchase of the stock. In *every* market
> exchange there is a buyer and a seller. The buyer that entered the
> market had already made the decision to purchase the stock
> *regardless* of the intentions or knowledge of any other people.
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.
> No
> one was *defrauded*, the buyer simply called up his broker and asked
> him to buy some stock. Whether the seller that the broker matched up
> with the buyer was selling because they were "lucky," or "better
> informed," has *zero* economic impact on the buyer of the stock.
> Agreed?
>
Not at all, see above.
... snip
> > I fail to see how insider trading laws prevented Enron from being a
> > debacle earlier than it was. As a matter of fact, insider trading and
> > encouraging employees to invest their pension funds in the company while
> > the executives were not is actually an indication of the corruption
> > within that company. Frankly, Enron is a case that falls far outside
> > the norm and really only serves as an example of how corruption can be
> > sustained for years before it is finally exposed.
>
> Well, this may be an academic point, but I think it is fair to say
> that insider trading laws inhibit the free flow of information, and
> the free flow of information is the lifeblood of the stock market.
>
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 I do strongly object to is the state prosecution of individuals
> for victimless crimes. In the Martha Stewart case, you will not hear a
> peep from me if you advocate a shareholder derivative lawsuit against
> Mr. Waskal, the CEO of the company for sharing proprietary information
> with his friends and family (if indeed he was bound by agreement not
> to do so). But for a disinterested party (the State), to prosecute
> Martha for a "crime" is akin to prosecuting her for buying an umbrella
> because she was "tipped" that it was about to rain. The fact that she
> remained dry didn't make anyone else any wetter.
>
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.
> Next time you post something OT, at least make it half-way
>interesting.
Yeah, like "Picture Toilet Paper" of Osama or Sadam.
Rich
"T." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Sun, Dec 14, 2003, 2:24am (EST+5) [email protected] (Zeke Redner) posted
something snipped:
Kill 'em all, let the Gods sort 'em out.
Next time you post something OT, at least make it half-way
interesting.
JOAT
Life may not be the party we hoped for, but while we are here we might
as well dance.
- Unknown
Life just ain't life without good music. - JOAT
Web Page Update 12 Dec 2003.
Some tunes I like.
http://community-2.webtv.net/Jakofalltrades/SOMETUNESILIKE/
RKON responds:
>> Next time you post something OT, at least make it half-way
>>interesting.
>
>Yeah, like "Picture Toilet Paper" of Osama or Sadam.
Might have helped. The word--and pictures--say that Saddass Insane was captured
this morning (yesterday morning, I guess). The legend in his own mind did a
real hero's job of battling it out...he came quietly, with no resistance at
all. Mr. Guts & Glory. For someone else.
Charlie Self
"Man is a reasoning rather than a reasonable animal."
Alexander Hamilton
http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
Charlie Self wrote:
> RKON responds:
>
>
>>>Next time you post something OT, at least make it half-way
>>>interesting.
>>
>>Yeah, like "Picture Toilet Paper" of Osama or Sadam.
>
>
> Might have helped. The word--and pictures--say that Saddass Insane was captured
> this morning (yesterday morning, I guess). The legend in his own mind did a
> real hero's job of battling it out...he came quietly, with no resistance at
> all. Mr. Guts & Glory. For someone else.
>
> Charlie Self
>
> "Man is a reasoning rather than a reasonable animal."
> Alexander Hamilton
>
> http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
>
>
Maybe they should bunk Martha and Saddam in the same cell. She could
accessorize him and he could teach her how to be really nasty in business...
Tim
I just came across your comment and would urge you to reconsider your
position on the alleged crime of insider trading. This another
fabricated "crime" in which there is no victim. See my article below,
I look forward to your comments.
http://billwallace.blogspot.com (posted 12/11/2003)
Kind regards,
Bill
[email protected] (Bruce) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In rec.woodworking
> Zeke Redner <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> >Should Martha Stewart get a prison sentence?
>
> Yes, a long one. She got caught playing the game that keeps the poor man
> poor and the rich man rich. Insider trading screws every American with a
> dollar in the stock market and should be dealt with harshly.
>
> >What about Michael Jackson?
>
> Death penalty.
>
> >Kobe Bryant?
>
> I'm not sure on this one. I think the girl was a slut.
>
> >Robert Blake?
>
> Death penalty.
>
> >Scott Peterson?
>
> Death penalty
[email protected] (Bruce) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In rec.woodworking
> [email protected] (Bill Wallace) wrote:
>
> >I just came across your comment and would urge you to reconsider your
> >position on the alleged crime of insider trading. This another
> >fabricated "crime" in which there is no victim. See my article below,
> >I look forward to your comments.
>
> 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?
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.
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> 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.
Your description of "insider" trading is correct, but I fail to see
how this harms anyone else. If it breaches a shareholder's agreement,
then that is a different story. Again, I see how the above creates
*jealousy*, but no *harm*.
> 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.
This does not reconcile with historical fact. The New York Stock
Exchange, for example, has been operating since 1792 and the SEC was
not established until 1933. Consider that we were already the world
financial superpower without any "insider" trading regulation
whatsoever. On the contrary, insider trading laws keep insiders quiet
for fear of imprisonment, which artificially props up unhealthy
companies like Enron until the fraud is finally exposed at the 11th
hour, leaving millions of investors with major losses.
The misconception about insider trading laws, is that they somehow
create *better* information flow, when the opposite is true. The laws
do not compel anyone to part with this "inside" information, they only
prevent people from acting on the information, which actually keeps
the information from the market. If you see a major sell-off of a
stock, you have all the information you need to have about what other
investors think of the company. If you don't get this information,
because the "insiders" are prevented from trading, then we are all
lambs to the slaughter the moment the information is released over the
wire.
> 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.
I suppose the answer to this questions is: "Everyone who bought a
share of stock in the ~150 years before the SEC was formed." There are
hundreds of stocks that are avoided by the vast majority of investors
and are traded in very little volume as a result. If we deem ourselves
"unfit" to judge the quality of our own investments, why not have
another state agency to judge the quality of our fruit? Are we not
capable of making such decisions for ourselves?
Bill
http://billwallace.blogspot.com
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> No harm? Take the alleged case of Martha's dealings, an insider knew
> that a particular drug would not be approved by the government. This
> was knowledge not known outside the company. That insider then sold all
> of their stock at the prevailing price, all the while knowing that the
> coming announcement would cause the stock to drop and also knowing that
> the company had lost a significant portion of its real value because
> that drug was to be a significant portion of future revenue. Who was
> harmed? Those people who bought the stock whose knowledge was based
> upon only publicly available information -- there was no way for them to
> be smarter or more savvy investors. Thus, because of insider trading,
> the insiders weren't smarter nor more successful, they were trading on
> knowledge that they and only they had -- essentially defrauding the
> investors who purchased their soon to be worthless stock, with them all
> the while knowing that as soon as the information became public the
> stock would become worthless. This is not a victimless crime, and it
> was not jealousy that would make other investors irate. Now, if this
> was not an illegal act, but an accepted business practice, who would
> ever take a chance of buying a company's stock? There would be no
> investment that one could reasonably make unless one was an insider
> because only the insiders would have sufficient information to make
> rational investments. Do you see now why it is really the stock market
> that zealously sees to it that anti-insider trading cases are prosecuted
> and that this remains a crime?
Your premise here seems to be that if not for the trader with superior
information, the buyer on the other end of the transaction would not
have lost money on the purchase of the stock. In *every* market
exchange there is a buyer and a seller. The buyer that entered the
market had already made the decision to purchase the stock
*regardless* of the intentions or knowledge of any other people. No
one was *defrauded*, the buyer simply called up his broker and asked
him to buy some stock. Whether the seller that the broker matched up
with the buyer was selling because they were "lucky," or "better
informed," has *zero* economic impact on the buyer of the stock.
Agreed?
> > > 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.
> >
> > This does not reconcile with historical fact. The New York Stock
> > Exchange, for example, has been operating since 1792 and the SEC was
> > not established until 1933. Consider that we were already the world
> > financial superpower without any "insider" trading regulation
> > whatsoever. On the contrary, insider trading laws keep insiders quiet
> > for fear of imprisonment, which artificially props up unhealthy
> > companies like Enron until the fraud is finally exposed at the 11th
> > hour, leaving millions of investors with major losses.
> >
> I fail to see how insider trading laws prevented Enron from being a
> debacle earlier than it was. As a matter of fact, insider trading and
> encouraging employees to invest their pension funds in the company while
> the executives were not is actually an indication of the corruption
> within that company. Frankly, Enron is a case that falls far outside
> the norm and really only serves as an example of how corruption can be
> sustained for years before it is finally exposed.
Well, this may be an academic point, but I think it is fair to say
that insider trading laws inhibit the free flow of information, and
the free flow of information is the lifeblood of the stock market.
> > The misconception about insider trading laws, is that they somehow
> > create *better* information flow, when the opposite is true. The laws
> > do not compel anyone to part with this "inside" information, they only
> > prevent people from acting on the information, which actually keeps
> > the information from the market. If you see a major sell-off of a
> > stock, you have all the information you need to have about what other
> > investors think of the company. If you don't get this information,
> > because the "insiders" are prevented from trading, then we are all
> > lambs to the slaughter the moment the information is released over the
> > wire.
> >
>
> The laws compel the insiders to part with a number of specific pieces
> of information in the quarterly reports to the SEC and in non-periodic
> updates in the event of "peculiar" occurences. Insiders are prevented
> from trading on that information until it is made public -- everybody
> suffers from adverse information and everybody benefits from positive
> information. In your example above, by the time the stocks have been
> dumped by the insiders, it's too late for you, you've already been
> killed if insider trading were legal.
And because it is illegal, is the outcome of bad news any different?
> > > 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.
> >
> > I suppose the answer to this questions is: "Everyone who bought a
> > share of stock in the ~150 years before the SEC was formed." There are
> > hundreds of stocks that are avoided by the vast majority of investors
> > and are traded in very little volume as a result. If we deem ourselves
> > "unfit" to judge the quality of our own investments, why not have
> > another state agency to judge the quality of our fruit? Are we not
> > capable of making such decisions for ourselves?
> >
>
> Who is asking a state agency to judge the quality of anything? The
> only thing being asked for here is to make sure that all investors in a
> company have an equal chance of making decisions related to their
> holdings in that company at the same time and based on the same
> information as all other investors have available to them. Doesn't seem
> like such a bad thing for the owners of a company to demand from their
> fellow owners and employees.
I agree with every word of your last sentence. I have no problem
whatsoever with a shareholder's agreement dictating the behavior of
executives and other company insiders with regard to disclosure, in
fact, I strongly encourage such agreements. They are very clearly a
prudent idea, and in the best interests of both the company and the
shareholder.
What I do strongly object to is the state prosecution of individuals
for victimless crimes. In the Martha Stewart case, you will not hear a
peep from me if you advocate a shareholder derivative lawsuit against
Mr. Waskal, the CEO of the company for sharing proprietary information
with his friends and family (if indeed he was bound by agreement not
to do so). But for a disinterested party (the State), to prosecute
Martha for a "crime" is akin to prosecuting her for buying an umbrella
because she was "tipped" that it was about to rain. The fact that she
remained dry didn't make anyone else any wetter.
BW
http://billwallace.blogspot.com
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
> > Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > > No harm? Take the alleged case of Martha's dealings, an insider knew
> > > that a particular drug would not be approved by the government. This
> > > was knowledge not known outside the company. That insider then sold all
> > > of their stock at the prevailing price, all the while knowing that the
> > > coming announcement would cause the stock to drop and also knowing that
> > > the company had lost a significant portion of its real value because
> > > that drug was to be a significant portion of future revenue. Who was
> > > harmed? Those people who bought the stock whose knowledge was based
> > > upon only publicly available information -- there was no way for them to
> ... snip because this is getting really long
> > > rational investments. Do you see now why it is really the stock market
> > > that zealously sees to it that anti-insider trading cases are prosecuted
> > > and that this remains a crime?
> >
> > Your premise here seems to be that if not for the trader with superior
> > information, the buyer on the other end of the transaction would not
> > have lost money on the purchase of the stock. In *every* market
> > exchange there is a buyer and a seller. The buyer that entered the
> > market had already made the decision to purchase the stock
> > *regardless* of the intentions or knowledge of any other people.
>
> 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.
Probably not, but that is not relevant to whether or not a *crime* was
committed. The laws only *prevent* someone from acting on information
that has not been publicly released, they do not *compel* its release.
If Martha had fully observed the SEC laws, she would have simply held
onto her existing shares and lost money along with Mr. X who would
have bought his shares that morning regardless. Unless you are
implying that is Martha did not sell her shares that morning, that Mr.
X (the buyer on the other side) would have somehow "sensed" this and
cancelled his buy order?
> > > I fail to see how insider trading laws prevented Enron from being a
> > > debacle earlier than it was. As a matter of fact, insider trading and
> > > encouraging employees to invest their pension funds in the company while
> > > the executives were not is actually an indication of the corruption
> > > within that company. Frankly, Enron is a case that falls far outside
> > > the norm and really only serves as an example of how corruption can be
> > > sustained for years before it is finally exposed.
> >
> > Well, this may be an academic point, but I think it is fair to say
> > that insider trading laws inhibit the free flow of information, and
> > the free flow of information is the lifeblood of the stock market.
> >
>
> 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?
What is not being acknowledged here is the selling or buying a
security *is* information. In fact, this is the most valuable
information in the market, relied upon by institutional and individual
investors alike. When an investor buys or sells a share of stock, it
tells the market what that investor thinks of the company. It also
applied corresponding upward or downward price pressure on the
security.
As a more mundane example, consider the sale of a home. If every other
house in your neighborhood is for sale, is that valuable information?
It tells you that a significant number of people value cash more than
they do their homes, which you can factor into your own buy or sell
decision.
> ... snip
> >
> > What I do strongly object to is the state prosecution of individuals
> > for victimless crimes. In the Martha Stewart case, you will not hear a
> > peep from me if you advocate a shareholder derivative lawsuit against
> > Mr. Waskal, the CEO of the company for sharing proprietary information
> > with his friends and family (if indeed he was bound by agreement not
> > to do so). But for a disinterested party (the State), to prosecute
> > Martha for a "crime" is akin to prosecuting her for buying an umbrella
> > because she was "tipped" that it was about to rain. The fact that she
> > remained dry didn't make anyone else any wetter.
> >
>
> 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.
By this logic, no one can ever make a profit on the sale of a
security. The seller is simply making a value judgement about the
stock and acting accordingly. To accuse some, but not others, of not
having a "good enough reason" to sell is an exercise in futility and
tantamount to the "thought police."
Furthermore, any purchaser of a stock that loses their investment can
now sue on the basis of having received "defective merchandise." Or
perhaps they can simply return it to the "store." Investing involves
risk. Those not prepared to accept risk are better off avoiding from
the market.
Returning to the core issue at hand, we are trying to evaluate whether
or not a *crime* was committed (i.e., did she directly harm another
person or persons). Using the "Mr. X" pseudonym for the buyer of her
stock, I would like to see you outline exactly how this person was
harmed by Martha.
Very simply, if her actions did not directly harm this individual,
then neither "he" nor the state have any rightful claim against her.
BW
http://billwallace.blogspot.com
Bill Wallace wrote:
>
> Your description of "insider" trading is correct, but I fail to see
> how this harms anyone else. If it breaches a shareholder's agreement,
> then that is a different story. Again, I see how the above creates
> *jealousy*, but no *harm*.
I have a perfectly fine looking parts car here I could sell you. It's a
parts car because us people with sufficient level of knowledge will see
it's structure has been propped up and is about to break.
Since you don't have my level of knowledge and I'm not going to clue you
in that's a wreck waiting to happen, and because of your limited
knowledge you think it's a good car so I get fair market value. You get
it to the stop sign and BANG the frames on the ground.
Hey, noone got hurt, I got your money and you have a pile of scrap.
There's nothing wrong with that. Happens every day.
Bill, I think I met you.
A couple of weeks after 911 a friend asks me over because there is a
person coming over to make him a sales pitch on some computer service.
All his figures/ prospectus/ projections/ reviews were from ~ '96 to '99
or '00. When I asked about more recent figures it was interesting to
watch him slime out of that question 5 different ways.
Since he was selling 'shares' in a service, and it was shortly after
911, I submitted the thought that people in the market were selling off
and driving the market down so they could buy in lower. If this is what
was actually happening is of no consequence in this post as his answer
was 'Sure, that's Ok, just as long as people are making money'.
It's this type of person you'll find on Wall Street, except the people
on The Street are better at the game.
--
Mark
N.E. Ohio
Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens,
A.K.A. Mark Twain)
When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure ends the
suspense. (Gaz, r.moto)
Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
>
> 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?
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
Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens,
A.K.A. Mark Twain)
When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure ends the
suspense. (Gaz, r.moto)
Nah, they're all fine and should be left to commit whatever crimes they
want. You, however, should be shot and pissed on at the earliest opportunity
for posting crap like this.
"Zeke Redner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Should Martha Stewart get a prison sentence? They've only got her on being
> dishonest to investigators. They have no evidence regarding her
> participation with the IMCLone insider trading scam. Even if she did have
> advance knowledge that the IMClone stock was going to pummel, was she
wrong
> for dumping the stock? What would you have done?
>
> What about Michael Jackson?
>
> Kobe Bryant?
>
> Robert Blake?
>
> Scott Peterson?
>
[email protected] (Bruce) wrote
>>What about Michael Jackson?
>
> Death penalty.
How about torture and death penalty?
>>Kobe Bryant?
>
> I'm not sure on this one. I think the girl was a slut.
I agree.
>>Robert Blake?
>
> Death penalty.
The woman told him that she was going to raise their daughter to be a
prostitute like her. I don't know about this one.
>>Scott Peterson?
>
> Death penalty
No proof.
[email protected] (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.
>
LOL. 'Bill Wallace' is really Martha's attorney.
Zeke
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > 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.
>
> Your description of "insider" trading is correct, but I fail to see
> how this harms anyone else. If it breaches a shareholder's agreement,
> then that is a different story. Again, I see how the above creates
> *jealousy*, but no *harm*.
>
No harm? Take the alleged case of Martha's dealings, an insider knew
that a particular drug would not be approved by the government. This
was knowledge not known outside the company. That insider then sold all
of their stock at the prevailing price, all the while knowing that the
coming announcement would cause the stock to drop and also knowing that
the company had lost a significant portion of its real value because
that drug was to be a significant portion of future revenue. Who was
harmed? Those people who bought the stock whose knowledge was based
upon only publicly available information -- there was no way for them to
be smarter or more savvy investors. Thus, because of insider trading,
the insiders weren't smarter nor more successful, they were trading on
knowledge that they and only they had -- essentially defrauding the
investors who purchased their soon to be worthless stock, with them all
the while knowing that as soon as the information became public the
stock would become worthless. This is not a victimless crime, and it
was not jealousy that would make other investors irate. Now, if this
was not an illegal act, but an accepted business practice, who would
ever take a chance of buying a company's stock? There would be no
investment that one could reasonably make unless one was an insider
because only the insiders would have sufficient information to make
rational investments. Do you see now why it is really the stock market
that zealously sees to it that anti-insider trading cases are prosecuted
and that this remains a crime?
> > 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.
>
> This does not reconcile with historical fact. The New York Stock
> Exchange, for example, has been operating since 1792 and the SEC was
> not established until 1933. Consider that we were already the world
> financial superpower without any "insider" trading regulation
> whatsoever. On the contrary, insider trading laws keep insiders quiet
> for fear of imprisonment, which artificially props up unhealthy
> companies like Enron until the fraud is finally exposed at the 11th
> hour, leaving millions of investors with major losses.
>
I fail to see how insider trading laws prevented Enron from being a
debacle earlier than it was. As a matter of fact, insider trading and
encouraging employees to invest their pension funds in the company while
the executives were not is actually an indication of the corruption
within that company. Frankly, Enron is a case that falls far outside
the norm and really only serves as an example of how corruption can be
sustained for years before it is finally exposed.
> The misconception about insider trading laws, is that they somehow
> create *better* information flow, when the opposite is true. The laws
> do not compel anyone to part with this "inside" information, they only
> prevent people from acting on the information, which actually keeps
> the information from the market. If you see a major sell-off of a
> stock, you have all the information you need to have about what other
> investors think of the company. If you don't get this information,
> because the "insiders" are prevented from trading, then we are all
> lambs to the slaughter the moment the information is released over the
> wire.
>
The laws compel the insiders to part with a number of specific pieces
of information in the quarterly reports to the SEC and in non-periodic
updates in the event of "peculiar" occurences. Insiders are prevented
from trading on that information until it is made public -- everybody
suffers from adverse information and everybody benefits from positive
information. In your example above, by the time the stocks have been
dumped by the insiders, it's too late for you, you've already been
killed if insider trading were legal.
> > 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.
>
> I suppose the answer to this questions is: "Everyone who bought a
> share of stock in the ~150 years before the SEC was formed." There are
> hundreds of stocks that are avoided by the vast majority of investors
> and are traded in very little volume as a result. If we deem ourselves
> "unfit" to judge the quality of our own investments, why not have
> another state agency to judge the quality of our fruit? Are we not
> capable of making such decisions for ourselves?
>
Who is asking a state agency to judge the quality of anything? The
only thing being asked for here is to make sure that all investors in a
company have an equal chance of making decisions related to their
holdings in that company at the same time and based on the same
information as all other investors have available to them. Doesn't seem
like such a bad thing for the owners of a company to demand from their
fellow owners and employees.
> Bill
> http://billwallace.blogspot.com
>
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
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.
> >
>
>
>
> Yes, a long one. She got caught playing the game that keeps the poor man
> poor and the rich man rich. Insider trading screws every American with a
> dollar in the stock market and should be dealt with harshly.
You must be joking. To Think that Martha Stewart is the cause of todays
money grubbing society. Think again. She did what any other person would do.
Someone told her to sell the stock based on some info. Anyone in their right
mind would have done the same. Martha Stewart is a scape goat. What about
Ken Lay? Ask anyone from Houston or who worked for Enron.
Rich
"Bruce" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In rec.woodworking
> Zeke Redner <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> >Should Martha Stewart get a prison sentence?
>
> Yes, a long one. She got caught playing the game that keeps the poor man
> poor and the rich man rich. Insider trading screws every American with a
> dollar in the stock market and should be dealt with harshly.
>
> >What about Michael Jackson?
>
> Death penalty.
>
> >Kobe Bryant?
>
> I'm not sure on this one. I think the girl was a slut.
>
> >Robert Blake?
>
> Death penalty.
>
> >Scott Peterson?
>
> Death penalty
>
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 08:19:38 -0500, "RKON"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>You must be joking. To Think that Martha Stewart is the cause of todays
>money grubbing society. Think again. She did what any other person would do.
>Someone told her to sell the stock based on some info. Anyone in their right
>mind would have done the same. Martha Stewart is a scape goat. What about
>Ken Lay? Ask anyone from Houston or who worked for Enron.
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.
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 02:24:59 GMT, Zeke Redner <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>Should Martha Stewart get a prison sentence? They've only got her on being
>dishonest to investigators. They have no evidence regarding her
>participation with the IMCLone insider trading scam. Even if she did have
>advance knowledge that the IMClone stock was going to pummel, was she wrong
>for dumping the stock? What would you have done?
>
>What about Michael Jackson?
>
>Kobe Bryant?
>
>Robert Blake?
>
>Scott Peterson?
Saddam?
I think killing more than 400,000 people screws up that chance, too.
Glen
"Greg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >Saddam?
>
> Easy, eaten alive by hogs. I bet being in hog poop screws up you chances
with
> the 72 virgins.
Hmm, I'd say let's see what the jury says first. I kinda hate to make a
judgment based on what the media hype wants us to hear. Unless of course we
believe the media to always be accurate then hang them all as you suggest.
--
Larry C in Auburn, WA
"Bruce" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In rec.woodworking
> Zeke Redner <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> >Should Martha Stewart get a prison sentence?
>
> Yes, a long one. She got caught playing the game that keeps the poor man
> poor and the rich man rich. Insider trading screws every American with a
> dollar in the stock market and should be dealt with harshly.
>
> >What about Michael Jackson?
>
> Death penalty.
>
> >Kobe Bryant?
>
> I'm not sure on this one. I think the girl was a slut.
>
> >Robert Blake?
>
> Death penalty.
>
> >Scott Peterson?
>
> Death penalty
>
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 02:24:59 GMT, Zeke Redner <[email protected]> wrote:
>Should Martha Stewart get a prison sentence? They've only got her on being
>dishonest to investigators. They have no evidence regarding her
>participation with the IMCLone insider trading scam. Even if she did have
>advance knowledge that the IMClone stock was going to pummel, was she wrong
>for dumping the stock? What would you have done?
Yes, assuming she is convicted, she should do time.
>What about Michael Jackson?
Same.
>Kobe Bryant?
Same.
>Robert Blake?
Same.
>Scott Peterson?
Same.
Nobody should get off because they are famous or rich.
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.