3 ms·

There was no insider trading. She thought she was in trouble and made up a story for the investigators that it was a limit order, which she was convicted of. W

There was no insider trading. She thought she was in trouble and made up a story for the investigators that it was a limit order, which she was convicted of. While lying is bad, this was a case of overzealous prosecution because it was a high-profile case and an inappropriate use of resources. Instead of prison, they should have just had her do some cheezy PSAs and enter in to a deferred prosecution agreement. I find the members of congress consistently beating the market to be much more troubling.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> was no insider trading "Martha Stewart, the founder of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, also became embroiled in the scandal after it emerged that her broker, Peter Bacanovic, tipped her off that ImClone was about to drop. In response, Stewart sold about $230,000 in ImClone shares on December 27, 2001, a day before the announcement of the FDA decision" [1]. It’s far from fact that she did not trade on inside information. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ImClone_stock_trading_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ImClone_stock_trading_case
- ksherlock 2y ago
  "Insider trading" doesn't have a well defined boundary. The SEC sued Mark Cuban [1] for "committing securities fraud by engaging in illegal insider trading" under similar circumstances. But he kept his mouth shut, didn't destroy evidence, and didn't lie to the FBI. Did he trade on "inside information"? Sure. But the Jury found him not guilty of insider trading. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Cuban#SEC_insider_trading_allegation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Cuban#SEC_insider_trading...
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > "Insider trading" doesn't have a well defined boundary Correct. In our courts it’s ambiguously defined. Colloquially, Stewart got a tip-off that arose from the non-public outcome of a drug trial. Whether she committed insider trading is open; whether she traded—knowingly or unknowingly—on material non-public information is pretty clear.
    - ok123456 2y ago
      It was third-party hearsay. The stock tip came from her stock broker, who also happened to handle transactions for people with inside knowledge. The broker didn't know the details about the FDA trials, only the movement some of his clients were making. This is why she wasn't tried on insider trading, but instead on the story she made up to cover the fact that she was given this knowledge indirectly.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > stock tip came from her stock broker, who also happened to handle transactions for people with inside knowledge. The broker didn't know the details about the FDA trials Source? Not disputing the broker was facilitating others’ insider trades, but if they were, it takes the suspicion to a whole new level around why this broker is so comfortable with his clients with potential insider status making large bets just ahead of corporate events.
      - jimmydddd 2y ago
        Agreed. I don't think she knowingly insider traded. After the fact, the authorities were going after her broker and she erased a voice mail message to protect the broker. They were upset that she deleted evidence and went after her because she was high profile.
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > were upset that she deleted evidence and went after her because she was high profile She also previously held securities licenses. That takes entire categories of innocent error out of the picture. I hold securities licenses. I’d be held to a higher standard because plausible deniability is removed.
uberdru 2y ago
worth looking into cathy wood's role in this respect. . .
joquarky 2y ago
When are these "risk takers" ever taking a risk if their behavior is always excused?

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> was no insider trading "Martha Stewart, the founder of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, also became embroiled in the scandal after it emerged that her broker, Peter Bacanovic, tipped her off that ImClone was about to drop. In response, Stewart sold about $230,000 in ImClone shares on December 27, 2001, a day before the announcement of the FDA decision" [1]. It’s far from fact that she did not trade on inside information. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ImClone_stock_trading_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ImClone_stock_trading_case

ksherlock 2y ago
"Insider trading" doesn't have a well defined boundary. The SEC sued Mark Cuban [1] for "committing securities fraud by engaging in illegal insider trading" under similar circumstances. But he kept his mouth shut, didn't destroy evidence, and didn't lie to the FBI. Did he trade on "inside information"? Sure. But the Jury found him not guilty of insider trading. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Cuban#SEC_insider_trading_allegation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Cuban#SEC_insider_trading...
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > "Insider trading" doesn't have a well defined boundary Correct. In our courts it’s ambiguously defined. Colloquially, Stewart got a tip-off that arose from the non-public outcome of a drug trial. Whether she committed insider trading is open; whether she traded—knowingly or unknowingly—on material non-public information is pretty clear.
  - ok123456 2y ago
    It was third-party hearsay. The stock tip came from her stock broker, who also happened to handle transactions for people with inside knowledge. The broker didn't know the details about the FDA trials, only the movement some of his clients were making. This is why she wasn't tried on insider trading, but instead on the story she made up to cover the fact that she was given this knowledge indirectly.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > stock tip came from her stock broker, who also happened to handle transactions for people with inside knowledge. The broker didn't know the details about the FDA trials Source? Not disputing the broker was facilitating others’ insider trades, but if they were, it takes the suspicion to a whole new level around why this broker is so comfortable with his clients with potential insider status making large bets just ahead of corporate events.
    - jimmydddd 2y ago
      Agreed. I don't think she knowingly insider traded. After the fact, the authorities were going after her broker and she erased a voice mail message to protect the broker. They were upset that she deleted evidence and went after her because she was high profile.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > were upset that she deleted evidence and went after her because she was high profile She also previously held securities licenses. That takes entire categories of innocent error out of the picture. I hold securities licenses. I’d be held to a higher standard because plausible deniability is removed.

uberdru 2y ago

worth looking into cathy wood's role in this respect. . .

joquarky 2y ago

When are these "risk takers" ever taking a risk if their behavior is always excused?