Martha Stewart Resigns

CNN ^

[RoughDobermann]

NEWS ALERT Martha Stewart resigns as CEO of her company after indictment on obstruction of justice and securities fraud charges. Details soon.

[wizzler]

If I went and shared that info with day traders (like you must be one, I think)...tell me...anything wrong with that picture in your book?

No, nothing wrong with that picture. (Unless you were bound by contract -- some kind of nondisclosure agreement -- not to share the information.)

And no, I'm not a day trader. I also can't stand Martha Stewart.

[RoughDobermann]

He's speculating that the prosecutor who's throwing the book at Stewart is a Clinton appointee who is using Stewart to make the Bush administration look bad.

He'd be wrong...

WASHINGTON -- James Comey, the new U.S. attorney in New York City named by President Bush, is viewed in the capital's GOP circles as an ambitious politician trying to parlay the prosecutor's office into elective office, in much the way that Rudolph Giuliani did. In contrast to low-profile predecessor Mary Jo White, the 41-year-old Comey made worldwide headlines by accusing an alleged Russian mobster of conspiring to fix Olympic figure skating competition. Shut out of the Enron prosecution, Comey won Justice Department approval to go after Mississippi-based WorldCom.

[JLO]

Your so-called Tom and Alex are not considered 'insiders' but speculators.

They don't have any insider info - they're just speculating and sharing info. amongst traders. Pretty normal, I think.

[bootyist-monk]

"But nobody ever knows that a property is about to lose value."

Sorry, but that is patently untrue. Let's use Enron as an example. Quite a few moron senators suggested that the Bush administration should have warned employees that their Enron stock was going to tank based on the false reporting they were engaging in with both their shareholders and the SEC regarding their profits. This would have been insider trading (letting employees know something that the general public didn't have knowledge of).

Let's say that the Bush administration did indeed warn the employees. What would have happened? There would have been a mass amount of activity on Enron, with employees dumping their shares. This would have been quickly noticed by the market, and the stock price would begin a downward spiral.

Those that had this knowledge would have been privy to information that allowed them to get a higher price than the average investor who is trying to get out after all of the employees have already dumped their stock. To say that these employees wouldn't know that the stock price would fall is ludicrous - the act of dumping this many shares, all from employees of the company, would create an instant reaction from market, and it would, with absolutely certainty, be a negative one.

Martha Stewart could have made all this go away if she had just admitted what she had done, publicly apologized, said that she had made a mistake, and paid a fine. Instead, she chose the path of arrogance and defiance, and thought that being a billionaire excluded her from the law.

Since her entire empire is built on image and the “Cult of Martha”, if Stewart is convicted, then the entire value of her operation goes straight into the toilet. This is also something that can be said with absolute certainty, and is the reason that she and her board are making the moves they are now. As a public company, her shareholders should demand and expect as much.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up!

[Political Junkie Too]

Thanks for clearing that up.

-PJ

[wizzler]

Your so-called Tom and Alex are not considered 'insiders' but speculators. They don't have any insider info - they're just speculating and sharing info. amongst traders. Pretty normal, I think.

On a moral level, there is nothing different between their speculating and the speculating done by the CEO. All of them own the company. Some of them know more than others. So what?

If Tom or Alex doesn't like the fact that Mr. CEO might know more than them, he can choose not to buy in the first place. Whining to the federal government to keep things "fair" by enacting laws against "insider trading" is to fight against the very capitalism that gives them freedom to buy something in the first place.

[wingnuts'nbolts]

I agree with Savage that something happened to make the dems desert Martha in droves. They are very unkind to their own when they turn on them. Maybe they figured she could be made female villan of the year taking the heat off hillary and Pelosi. Or, once the crisis is past all will be as before, Martha being currently viewed as too hot to handle. Go figure. Certainly no moral issues here.

[wizzler]

Each of you who keeps copying my line for quotation is omitting a key characteristic: the italics. This is what I actually wrote:

"But nobody ever knows that a property is about to lose value."

The italics were the crux of my whole point, and vital in the context to which I was responding. Yes, of course some people might have a pretty damned good idea that a value is about to drop. But the nature of supply, demand and price never, ever, ever makes that a sure thing.

Anyway, I wasn't trying to make some broad, sweeping point with that line, which has now been taken out of context by at least two responders. I was replying to a specific assertion in a specific prior post.

[RoughDobermann]

No thanks needed, I wasn't sure either.

[wingnuts'nbolts]

No, but people abused freedoms and free market practices making in inevitable that restriction and laws would be instituted to curb such actions, even back then, human nature being what it is. Back when the big boys grew hugh fortunes there was not much competition, and no income tax.
Can't be done nearly so easily now without being able to hide behind a pretzel.

[Navy Patriot]

You have spent a lot of time proposing that rules against insider trading are based on envy and class warfare, and I don't buy it.

An insider trader is a thief, and operates by concealing the inside information that he is a thief, because those knowing that information would not do buisness with him.

As you say, life isn't fair, also the law has nothing to do with justice. Most important, a conservative doesn't have to condone theft to be a real conservative.

[wingnuts'nbolts]

Ain't gonna happen this year. Calm down. Martha is not a victim.

[Howlin]

I honestly have NO idea; my mother did not pass me the "economics/business gene." I still don't understand why they bought orange juice futures in Trading Places.

[Political Junkie Too]

Pelosi wasn't the House Dem leader when the story broke, so that wasn't the reason. Hillary!'s always a suspect, whatever the crime. I do believe that she's being sacrificed, given that Hillary! turned $1,000 into $100,000 in one day in the commodities market, but we were told to move on -- nothing to see here; given that Terry McAuliffe turned $100,000 into $18 million by looting Global Crossing in a mathematically impossible deal, but nothing to see here either.

It's a good thing that Hillary! wasn't a "stand by my man" "making cookies in the kitchen" kind of woman, because look where making cookies in the kitchen got Stewart! And she probably threw great Democrat fundraising parties, too!

-PJ

[Lijahsbubbe]

Martha Stewart behind bars?

[wizzler]

You have spent a lot of time proposing that rules against insider trading are based on envy and class warfare, and I don't buy it. An insider trader is a thief, and operates by concealing the inside information that he is a thief, because those knowing that information would not do buisness with him. As you say, life isn't fair, also the law has nothing to do with justice. Most important, a conservative doesn't have to condone theft to be a real conservative.

Well, take pride in this, at least: You've convinced me to give up talking about the topic here on "Free" Republic. The frustration of seeing others buy into the socialist rhetoric is too much for a pleasant Wednesday night!