Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : Martha Stewart -- Scourge or Scapegoat -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: yard_man who wrote (119)	3/8/2004 10:40:07 PM
From: EL KABONG!!!	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 165

Hello tippet, but did he interview the woman. Does he know her?? I'm going from memory here, but as I recall, she declined all requests for an interview. At the time, she feared a hatchet job because she knew the other folks that Byron was interviewing. After the book and the movie came out, there are those that maintain that she did indeed get a hatchet job. Surprisingly, she never sued Byron for libel, and Byron stood by his documented sources. So a reasonably prudent individual would believe that Mr. Byron got the story right. There were no corrections or plausible denials from the Stewart camp. did he interview real confidants -- real friends of Martha -- my guess is he only got interviews with folks who had an axe to grind ... To the best of my knowledge, he interviewed anyone credible that would talk with him. Many of the folks in Martha's circles wouldn't talk with him, or did so anonymously, because they feared social retribution from Martha. what does that have to do with the fact she is not guilty of insider trading -- only possibly guilty of lying about something that is not a crime -- getting a tip that waskal was selling his shares?? Actually, whether or not she knew exactly why the Waksal's were selling their shares is a moot point. It's highly likely she guessed or surmised that something was amiss at Imclone, and anyone who followed the stock (even in the most minimal sense of following a stock) would have known that a decision on Erbitux was expected "at any moment". I think that both the SEC and the federal prosecutors could have made a case for insider trading on the sale of the Imclone stock, but they decided not to explore that avenue (in the criminal case) because it would be difficult to get a conviction on the charge, and attempting to do so might have destroyed any chances of conviction on the other charges, which were much easier to prove. However, that doesn't mean that the law wasn't broken when Martha got the telephone call regarding the Waksal's actions. The brokers (Bacanovic and Faneuil) violated the law by disclosing to a third party that the Waksal family was selling. Their guilt does not automatically make Martha guilty of anything. Had she just not sold the stock after receiving the tip, nothing would ever have come of her knowing of the Waksals' sales. No sale of Martha's stock, no investigation of Martha or the brokers involved. And let me add one more thing here. Back up the thread a few posts or so, someone asked who got hurt by Martha selling her Imclone stock. The answer is, of course, the individual(s) on the other end of the transaction, who had no idea that the Waksal's were in a "panic sell" mode. have you ever lied?? Not as an adult, and most certainly not to federal authorities... Have you ever treated someone else in business with less respect than you would have liked to receive?? No, not intentionally... Is the punishment -- not just her jail time -- but the damage inflicted on MSO shareholders commensurate with what she supposedly did -- lied about a tip that waskal sold his shares Investing involves the undertaking of certain risks. In this case MSO and Martha Stewart are and were (apparently) inseparable. I remember reading a prospectus for MSO somewhere, and one of the risks that was clearly written was something to the effect that should something happen to Martha, the company could and would likely be adversely affected. Folks that chose to invest in MSO had plenty of opportunities to sell their holdings, both before and after Martha was charged. That they chose not to acknowledge that particular risk, and continued to hold the stock long, is not the fault of Martha Stewart, her legal team or the prosecutors. The responsibility lies squarely with those investors, all of whom made their own choices. KJC

To: yard_man who wrote (119)	3/9/2004 7:49:31 AM
From: Stoctrash	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 165

You make me sick tippe.... SHE WAS ON THE BOARD OF THE NYSE! Don't you think that means anything about the standards you should live up to if you're in the biz; ie the securities biz code of honor and credibility...and trust? SHE WAS, PREVIOUSLY IN HER LIFE, IN THE SECURITIES BUSINESS with a Series 7 License...! This is another big issue, proves she knew the rules and there is no excuses. SHE SURE AS CRAP DIDN'T JUST SELL IT BECAUSE WASKIL WAS...SHE KNEW THE SCOOP. HER $60 SELL POINT WAS A FLAT LIE TOO...FBI PROVED THAT. WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT? She didn't have one little lie, it was a whole basket of them! ,, and for that her Bush is going to get Mowed in jail as MSO approaches zero.