Martha Stewart and Gay Marriages

[webiggy]

I was having a very interesting argument with my stepfather today re: the Martha Stewart case. Now, personally, I can't stand the bitch and I think she probably has a special place in hell reserved for her in the same wing as George Steinbrenner, Ken Ley, Jeff Skilling, Leona Helmsley and Charles Keating. Having said that, the reasons for her prosecution are little sketchy to me, as proved out by the judge in the case yesterday.

Anyway, being an accountant, I'm very sensitive to insider trading laws (although not as familiar with them as I should be) and really believe that those Gordon Gecko wannabes should go to jail.

So back to the argument. My stepdad says that a client shouldn't be held legally liable for acting on the advice of a stockbroker that is KNOWN to have been based in inside information. It's on this point that I became very vocal in stating that it's this type of activity that spawned the SEC laws of the 1930's and that anyone who knowlingly acts on such information in bad faith is subject to the same scrutiny and legal liability as the person soliciting the trade transaction to begin with. Further, since MS is the CEO of a public company herself, shouldn't she be held to a higher standard? Oh and by the way, since her friend is the chairman of mClone, doesn't that also put her in greater legal peril???

Well to this point, dad makes a stupid analogy on what's happening here in SF re: gay marriages. He then goes on this rant that by my reasoning, Gavin Newsome (SF's mayor), the employees at city hall performing the marriages, and all the gay couples who have exchanged nuptials should all be thrown in jail for breaking state law. BTW, he's very conservative so I think he really believes this.

I submit that perhaps the mayor could be subject to some legal remedies such as a fine for each offense, but to compare the two is like comparing jaywalking to capital murder. The point I made was that I believe that marriage falls under contract law and that entering into a marriage that is not recognized by law is not a criminal offence (except in such cases such as bigamy), but rather a case where such a contract is unenforcable. Whether or not the mayor is subject to criminal prosecution is another story, but the I couldn't see the punishment for such a crime being very severe.

He really bristled at this and for some reason could not get his arms around the fact that while breaking the law is breaking the law (thank you Judas Priest), that all crimes are not created equal and therefor should be judged accordingly.

My opinion is that securities violations perpetrated (sp?) by rich, powerful people is a greater crime to society than gay people getting married in hopes of gaining the same rights and priveledges as heterosexual couples (although the thought of kissing a dude on the lips gives me the willies).

Your thoughts...?

[Mikey]

I myself am not a fan of Martha Stewart, she actually used to live in Nutley, NJ, which is very near to where I live.

The funny thing is, that people as powerful as Martha Stewart who commit these crimes, such as insider trading, are not denied their council of choice.

So what she sold off 3900 something of Imclone Stock for $60 a share, which amounted to around.... somewhere around $240,000. I wonder what her legal fees will be once this is over.

[slavic]

You know we make a big deal about insider trading and we have even gone so far as to make the whole phrase a blight on a persons actions. Ask yourself, would it really hurt anything if we let insiders trade on information they had? In todays market we have disclosure of what a corp officer does in his trades, so a CEO dumping stock will be quickly followed by the market doing the same. Is this a bad thing?

Many of the dynamics of the 30's have passed us by.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

[ QUOTE ]
My opinion is that securities violations perpetrated (sp?) by rich, powerful people is a greater crime to society than gay people getting married in hopes of gaining the same rights and priveledges as heterosexual couples (although the thought of kissing a dude on the lips gives me the willies).


[/ QUOTE ]

On the first point, yes, I agree. I agree doubly cuz the rich bitch is highly likely to "pull an OJ" and get off scott free, even tho she's obviously guilty of at least some of what she's accused of. Hang the bitch next to OJ!

On the second point, thanks, now I don't want breakfast!

al

[mosch]

I'd say your dad is Conservative, not conservative.

A true conservative would believe that government has no business regulating marraiage at all, as marraige is a religious institution. Additionally, true conservatives believe that victimless crimes should not be crimes, as they create a significant tax burden despite causing no harm.

A Conservative on the other hand would be likely to use the reasoning that "the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly'.

[BadBoyBenny]

[ QUOTE ]
Ask yourself, would it really hurt anything if we let insiders trade on information they had?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

So the CEO who messed things up gets to get in and out before everyone else? Do you have any idea how easily this information could be manipulated on both good and bad news? We have disclosure on what officers buy and sell but not their friends, business partners and most big investors. Insiders, their friends, and anyone else who the executive needed something from (like inside info about a different company) would get rich off fluctuations. This would also lead to executives coming up with any possible way to delay disclosure of any news until they had taken advantage of it. Allowing inside trading would destroy the credibility of the markets and open up the door for all sorts of fraud.

[Clarkmeister]

[webiggy]

[ QUOTE ]
You know we make a big deal about insider trading and we have even gone so far as to make the whole phrase a blight on a persons actions. Ask yourself, would it really hurt anything if we let insiders trade on information they had? In todays market we have disclosure of what a corp officer does in his trades, so a CEO dumping stock will be quickly followed by the market doing the same. Is this a bad thing?

Many of the dynamics of the 30's have passed us by.

[/ QUOTE ]

One word - ENRON!

Now the verbose big picture - Many of the Enron officers dumped their holdings, or sold short during their legal windows of opportunity while the company's thousands of employees were left holding the bag with their 401(k) portfolios made up almost entirely of Enron stock at the behest of their employers. The stock went into the toilet, alot of investers (who should not have had ownership of this company because no one understood what the hell this company did to make money anyway) lost $millions and the employees got screwed. But I guess that's alright - ethically and legally [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]

Also realize that once one person places a sell order for 10,000 shares of stock, the market adjusts downward to reach a new equilibrium. When the next group of sellers dump their stock the price falls further as the greater fool really isn't because there are more shares available for sale than the market demands.

At the risk of another bad analogy - if you're mutliway in tournament play and you all have drawing hands and the flop comes 552 - you all check and T comes on the turn, the first to act often wins by virtue of acting first. The same is true with insider trading.

No, insider trading is indeed wrong because any action that corporate officer or any other person with knowledge not available to the general public can cause drastic and sharp price fluctuations of the stock so everybody gets hurt.

[webiggy]

[webiggy]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd say your dad is Conservative, not conservative.

A true conservative would believe that government has no business regulating marraiage at all, as marraige is a religious institution. Additionally, true conservatives believe that victimless crimes should not be crimes, as they create a significant tax burden despite causing no harm.

A Conservative on the other hand would be likely to use the reasoning that "the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly'.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting point, but I find that most "conservatives" think like "Conservatives" since man typically carry the banner of "conservative" politics as expressed in the GOP platform. (Not a blast against Republicans btw - some of best friends are Republicans [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img])