% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc. Message Board

  • Sal5055 Sal5055 Feb 27, 2004 8:16 AM Flag

    Let Selling begin

    Not a basher but I am short this stock. The jury is going to nail her for something; the IRS is going to check into her finances given the expensed personal vacation in Mexico on the company. This stock won't see any upward sunlight for quite some time. If it doesn't go down significantly, it will remain flatlined for a while. If the jury by some chance acquits, then the public perception is that another one got away with something.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Get real. Unlicensed people are all over places like Merrill, Morgan Stanley, everywhere. It's no incumbent upon the customer to ask if the person they are talking to is licensed or not. It's up to the person to inform the customer and transfer the call to a licensed rep.
      Get your head out of the dark place.

    • >>OK, I've had my quota for today. My last comment.

      Good idea to bag it on this tack, dude. You are REALLY stretching it with this line of argument.

      If you're trying to say that it's somehow Martha's fault that ML has their system set up so that some guy like me, who sells hot dogs at the airport lounge, can walk in and make trades on the accounts of important celebrity clients, bypassing any licensed broker, I think you need to go have a drink and re-assess your position.

      That is SO not Martha's problem I can't even believe you're raising it as an issue. What if Bacanovic _said_ he had a license, but was really lying? What if ML had a policy of hiring convicted felons, none of whom were licensed to trade? What if they said they were buying and selling stock for her, but they were really buying Big Macs and taking $17,000 vacations with her money? You pay a company like ML big bucks to do a job for you, and it's __THEIR__ responsibility to do it right.

      Martha walks.

      See you at the $25 party.

    • OK, I've had my quota for today. My last comment.

      I sincerely believe that both you and Martha could figure out an "office girl" like Faneuil was unlicensed in about 2 seconds of talking to him. This is especially true for Martha, who socialized with her broker afterhours and would have known more about Faneuil's lowly status than I do about someone who handles my calls at a discount broker. I find your remark disingenuous. Had Martha known this kid had no Series 7, she wouldn't have traded. Hogwash. Martha thought and thinks the world revolves around her whims and wishes.

      As I said in an earlier post on another thread, the only smart one was Waksal's older daughter who held her shares until the info became public and sold at 49, taking a paper loss. Ms. Waksal probably got her shares at 1 a piece, or better. And Ms. Stewart probably got her shares at 11 dollars or less.

    • The Facts which will be sifted = #1 Conspiracy, #2 Obstruction of Justice, #3 Lying, #4 Lying......
      Why do you 'rush to aquittal'?

    • mistressofthemessageboard mistressofthemessageboard Feb 27, 2004 2:44 PM Flag

      It is not the client's responsibility to concern themselves with legal practice's by a brokerage house. THAT is the responsibility of the brokerage house, period. Did Stewart know Faneuil wasn't licensed? I doubt it or she would have had the trade rescinded when all of this was coming down knowing it would have negated all of this. BUT THE GOVERNMENT knew for a fact, as that is the first thing the prosecution got out of Faneuil on the stand!

      Faneuil, as a Merrill employee broke rules and regulations by selling her shares and by releasing information illegally.

      How does it seem like Martha knew of unlicensed trades going through her account?

      If I call into my broker's office, and my broker isn't in and I wish to process a trade, yes I will place that trade with the next eligible person. However, it is not MY responsibility to ask if the person placing my trade is licensed nor should it even be a concern of mine.

      I am not making any excuses for Stewart. She did try to protect her reputation, and got slammed with a securities fraud charge!

    • >>I don't understand them pursuing Stewart, once they got all of the facts!

      As I suggested, check the political campaign donation records. And those of Ken Lay et al., who are either not being charged at all, or who had to almost destroy the country before any legal action was taken.

      All things will be revealed.

    • mistressofthemessageboard, so the Govt. knew Faneuil wasn't licensed? How about Martha, a board member of the NYSE? You think she didn't know? Did she think he was gonna pass her sell order onto her broker who was flying in a plane out of cell phone range before HE would place the trade? Seems like Martha knew of unlicensed sales going thru on her account. Martha is old enough to know better about how to place a trade, especially since she has a Series 7. Would YOU place a trade with this twerp kid - or would you demand to speak to a licensed broker if you had an account at Merrill? Why are you making excuses for an egoist who did nothing to protect her reputation, things I suspect that you would never do yourself.

    • mistressofthemessageboard mistressofthemessageboard Feb 27, 2004 1:48 PM Flag

      I forgot to include the government also knew that Mr. Faneuil was not licensed to trade stock and by putting Stewart's trade through broke another rule and regulation.

    • mistressofthemessageboard mistressofthemessageboard Feb 27, 2004 1:47 PM Flag

      I didn't make my point....that being....

      The government was really reaching "out there" to get her on this final sale of IMCL. Her actions were that of being in a selling posture on IMCL long before the FDA/Waksal factor. The government also knew that Faneuil broke a law when he gave her that information.

      The fact that the government knew she had sold the hugest part of her IMCL position, over 3 MILLION dollars worth, without any kind of "secret" tip, and that THEY KNEW Faneuil was at huge fault for having let information out illegaly and that was not Stewart's fault, and THEY KNEW that she was only returning a phone call to her broker on 12/27/01,not seeking to sell the shares on her own, and they STILL aggressively pursued her is beyond my wildest imagination!!!

      I don't understand them pursuing Stewart, once they got all of the facts! I would think they would have pursued Faneuil and Merrill Lynch for putting out illegal information!!!

    • Yes, the government took exception to the sale after insider Waksal was told by the FDA his drug failed and he started selling and telephoning his "friends and family."

      I recall some "poor" guy written up in a business mag a few years ago who got a tip from a broker at his son's soccer game who knew a CEO who was gonna do something big. When the Feds busted the broker, they also busted the middle class zlub who had the misfortune to have a broker for his son's soccer coach. And Martha is supposed to walk.

    • View More Messages
6.42+0.23(+3.72%)Dec 4 4:05 PMEST