Martha Stewart

Discussion in 'Trading' started by Tbill1, Jan 14, 2004.

  1. Tbill1


    Although I feel she is unfairly being singled out by the goverment, her " oral stop loss " story troubles me. When I was a broker years ago, a stop loss was always a written order that was GTC. Have things changed, or am I missing something?

  2. Mecro


    If any of us did the same trade, we would be busted and prosecuted.

    It's just that our trial would not be publicized.
  3. Brokers can be granted some measure of discretion by their clients. I would think the precise level of discretion would need to be stated in writting. Then, an 'oral stop loss' communicated by a busy executive to their broker would make sense. And the stop loss wouldn't necessarily be for a specific price target but perhaps could be something vague like 'if the market stalls out' or 'if you are hearing nervousness' or if 'rumors, unsubstatiated or otherwise, start to circle the stock.'

    But of course we know Martha is reconstructing after the fact. If she has granted her broker written discretion I would think the case becomes extremely difficult to prosecute. Somehow of course, I doubt a written agreement exists, because there was in fact no discretion granted. :p
  4. She is NOT charged for insider trading. So while you might think she is guilty of insider trading, the government obviously doesn't feel they have enough evidence to win THAT case.

    It is amazing how many people think she is guilty. I like to think that she is innocent until proven guilty, and if the government is not even going to bring the case, then she is definately innocent of that charge.

    Also, the volume that day was VERY abnormal. She account for a very very small percentage of that day's high volume. Are you sure the small fry's trades were busted and procecuted?
  5. Mecro


    100 share lots, no. But any sizeable trades are caught. They really do not mess around with that. If any of us did the same trade, we would be busted.
  6. gms


    They're nailing her because she tried to cover up whatever it was she had done, even though what she had done, tell her broker to sell when he told her waxell was selling, was not illegal. But in her anxiouty or nervousness or stupidity or naivete, she didn't know that. Bottom line, she lied to the government when they came asking questions, and they can't have that. Since she's a high profile personality, they know that making an example out of her will also serve the purpose of keeping the rest of the populus in line because of the coverage it will get. They know many will think, "Boy, if they can send multi-wealthy little miss powerful Martha Stewart to jail/fine her $XXXX, imagine how long they'd put away a little nothing guy like me if I tried to cover something up or tried to get away with something". It's not the first time a high profile person got that treatment from the government.
  7. send her to jail
  8. Like the Leona Helmsley case.
  9. SteveD


    She lied 2 or 3 times to he FBI and also got her broker and his assistant to also lie. This is major "obstruction of justice" and the Feds take a very dim and aggressive view of this activity. If found guilty, she will go to the Federal Pen.

    Sometime when people are so smart they become very stupid.

  10. Mecro


    Uhm wasn't she told directly by Waxell about the situation of his company?

    And then she mysteriously had her broker sell right before the public announcement?

    Whatever the full details, she is being prosecuted for the right reasons and I think they are letting her off easily. What she did was blatant insider trading.
    #10     Jan 15, 2004