shereads
Sloganless
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Posts
- 19,242
dr_mabeuse said:I don't like Matha Stewart. She deals in lifestyle pornography as far as I'm concerned, and worse than that, she has no sense of humor, which is a bigger crime in my book. But I hate prosecuters who try to make their names by screwing famous people even more. She really doesn't deserve this.
What they got her on was not stock manipluation or insider trading, but on initially lying to the government about what she'd done. Lying to the government! Like she's the only one who's ever done that.
Meanwhile I see that Ken Lay of Enron has only recently been indicted, and as far as I know Jeffrey Skilling, the former CEO, is still in the clear. It'll be interesting to see how much time they spend breaking rocks.
---dr.M.
And the Tyco CEO got a mistrial.
I haven't understood the Martha charges from the beginning. Yes, it was illegal to use insider information but if she didn't solicit the information or plot to manipulate other stockholders like the Enron and Tyco boys, what was she supposed to do in this situation?
Suppose your broker calls while you're stenciling a Celtic decorative pattern on the freeway overpass near your home. He says, "Zoot, I'm not supposed to tell you this, but everybody who's anybody on the board of Company X is dumping their stock and I suspect it will soon be worthless. Would you like to sell?"
How long are you supposed to hang onto the stock now, in order to assure that when you do sell, it will be legal?
What if you were planning to dump Stock X anyway, on a whim or the advice of your astrologer? Now that your broker has offered you this information, do you have to hang onto the stock?
