The Real Crimes of Martha Stewart

The Wall Street Journal ^ | Friday, January 23, 2004 | MEGHAN COX GURDON

[presidio9]

"Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, we are here today in the Court of Public Opinion to hear of heinous crimes committed by Martha Stewart, the Dictator of Domesticity. I ask you to set aside any old-fashioned prejudices you may have in favor of self-improvement, and forget any qualms you have about blaming a complete stranger for your own feelings of inferiority.

[gatex]

"but since Stewart is not employed by the securities industry..."

Didn't she receive pay as a member of the Board of the New York Stock Exchange at the time her stock sale occurred ?

[exmarine]

You are right, lying matters, but she's not the President. Martha is just an old woman from the northeast. She's not a politician - I just think the hullabaloo is an overreaction. We all have lied before but didn't go to jail for it. I think they are making a mountain out of a mole hill. A crime of hers should get her probation and a fine, but prison! That is a reach....in my humble opinion.

By the way, I did not mean to offend...didn't mean to insinuate that anyone on this forum is greedy or envious - just a general statement about American human nature.

[cyncooper]

If I ever have my own company and the Feds visit me with a few questions, you can be sure I won't be lying to them.

[SJackson]

Sure she is. Like it or not, as an officer of a public company she comes under the purvue of the SEC. Nowadays, the Atty Gen of NY claims jurisdiction too, till he's Governor. :>)

It's a very interesting case, right on the line, but if by professing her innocence she provided false information to the prospects of her company, she may well lose. I agree, this isn't the same as a CEO lying about corporate projections, but clearly her personal status in a criminal investigation is relevant to her ability to continue in a position of trust with her company, which is relevant to it's outlook.

I admit to being torn on this. If she loses, the appeal on her 5A right will be interesting, I'd tend to come down on her side. I can't help but think she passed on a deal, these cases just don't come to trial.

[exmarine]

It happens all the time. If you get the right person mad it could come back to haunt you.

Not exactly an incentive to get involved is it?

[cyncooper]

She has a co-defendent in her trial....she is not a "token".

[presidio9]

Perhaps I am confused, but I thought that the criminal charge that she might go to jail for is obstruction, and that the SEC civil case is the securities fraud.

You are confused. The securities fraud charge carries the most severe criminal penalty. The obstruction charge carries a potential fine, not a prison sentence. The civil case involves the SEC suing her for insider trading. No criminal charges have been brought against her there.

[SJackson]

Didn't she receive pay as a member of the Board of the New York Stock Exchange at the time her stock sale occurred ?

Doesn't matter. She's an officer of a publicaly traded company. The Feds get to have at her.

[wardaddy]

Managing investments are probably 30-40% of my business life today and have always centered mainly on equities trading.

I have never been fond of Martha myself but I feel that many folks have let thier bias cloud their perspective.

She did break the law it would appear from a reasonable perspective but I don't know how they can determine who is guilty and who isn't precisely everytime. Nashville is the center of the universe in Corporate Health Care and I can tell you that I and many others here have traded on cocktail party talk before. It's like the old sayin: Buy Rumour, Sell Fact".

Rumours and gossip and tips are arguably the main stimuli of stock activity in the marketplace along with the obvious such as analysts ratings up/downgrades and earnings and news announcements.

I think where Martha went wrong was the fact that her info came directly from the top and she acted on it immediately. The prudent course may have been to say "Thank You" and call her broker and put in a moderate stop-loss order which would have taken place after the announcement became public.

It's ironic that the stock tanked and has since recovered I believe.

There is no doubt that her being a public figure has given an ambitious AUSA a head from which to hang his hat.

I'm ambivalent.

[presidio9]

If I ever have my own company and the Feds visit me with a few questions, you can be sure I won't be lying to them.

That won't matter if you talk to the media. Anything you say to the media can now be construed as share price manipulation. Even the truth I guess. Of course, you'll have the benefit of knowing this in advance, unlike Ms. Stewart...

[antaresequity]

Off your meds?

Calm down...Martha hasn't done anything, its all still allegations and charges. Nothing has been proved or admitted to.

Further, she is not charged with insider trading. Many people still believe this. In fact if you ask the average guy at the supermarket, that is what they will say.

Further she is charged with securities fraud (regarding her own stock) because she denied she was charged with insider trading of IMClone. This charge is so ridiculous its frightening...wouldn't you agree?

The prosecution is partly responsible for the loss of tens of millions of dollars of Marthas stock value; owned by investors. Martha certainly handled this poorly no doubt.

I see a state action that is not serving the public at all. I see a state action destroying innocent wealth.

Calm down dude...the slash and burn post is unwarranted

[BlueNgold]

The media seldom seems to want to mention that Ms. Stewart is a licensed broker and that she owns a seat on the NYSE. Her financial credentials require that she be held to a higher standard. The fact that she is a public figure is not the issue. In the eyes of the courts she is not the Dutchess of Domesticity, but rather is a trained and experienced professional who is well aware of the details and legalities involved in stock transactions. I find it somewhat ominous that the WSJ failed to mention this 'minor detail'.

As I recall the WSJ tends to have a fairly detailed financial section [yes, that was sarcasm] with a couple of reporters and editors who should have taken note of her resume ....

[SJackson]

However, the securities fraud charge has to do with lying in order to boost the price of her own stock - which is apparently where you went off the track. You jumped to the end and left out the beginning and middle.

I can't look into Martha's heart, she may well have been professing nothing but her innocence. She may not have cared about the stock price, I don't believe it matters, conveying misinformation cooks her, regardless of her motives.

[MHGinTN]

"The simple fact is that this lady, who is both a former stock broker and a member of the New York Stock Exchange Board of Directors, knew the law very well: it is illegal to knowingly act upon information about a company that is not available to the public ..." As a former holder of a license with the Securities and Exchange, I can tell anyone who asks that Martha not only broke the law, she committed an most egregious offense to the process of stocks and securities ethics. She does deserve some punitive action against her, if for no other reason than to send a message that those caught flouting the ethics rules will be prosecuted. Think about it: there are broker folks out there cheating like the dickens, using the hard earned dollars of working citizens. When they're caught, will we excuse their wrongs based on degree of harm to specific people or prosecute them for violating the structure that gives integrity to the system? Martha--though I am a big fan of her and admire her self-promotion--insulted the integrity of the system, a system that must operate on trust to a great degree. She must be held accountable, not given special dispensation. [I said something similar when Speaker Livingstone was exposed for his hypocrisy.] Incidentally, had Martha waited until the trend of the day had started to appear on the stock she dumped, before dumping it, she would have been completely within the law ... and that's damn little to expect of someone as knowledgeable as she!

[presidio9]

It's a very interesting case, right on the line, but if by professing her innocence she provided false information to the prospects of her company, she may well lose. I agree, this isn't the same as a CEO lying about corporate projections, but clearly her personal status in a criminal investigation is relevant to her ability to continue in a position of trust with her company, which is relevant to it's outlook.

You're still missing the point: First you have to prove that she lied (and was in fact guilty of insider trading when she claimed to be innocent), or else claim that even telling the truth about yourself can be construed as share manipulation.

[cyncooper]

What amazes me is how many people here ignore the face of reason and openly confess that they want her in jail because they don't like her.

I saw one poster call her a witch. Suspecting the prosecution has a case is not the same as "wanting her in jail because they don't like her". Please point me to the post of one, let alone that of "many people" as you preposterously say, that says they don't like her so she should go to jail.

[CobaltBlue]

I think the case against her is as air-tight as the case against Clinton for lying about sex, and very similar. She lied to make herself look good in public.

It's the timing of the statements that stinks, and the fact that she made the statements to a conference of stock analysts who were analyzing her own stock.

[Modernman]

A crime of hers should get her probation and a fine, but prison!

I'd be suprised if she got prison. First time offense and all that. Plus the prosecution case does seem weak.

She'll probably plead to a lesser charge and pay a fine.

[cyncooper]

but she was a MEMBER OF THE NYSE BOARD, when she LIED

I meant to point that out, too.

Bears repeating.

[raybbr]

I hope all that monitoring works. I am sure that with insider knowledge manipulations go on. That said, I think this thing with Martha Stewart is blown way out of proportion.