just procrastinating

Monday, March 08, 2004

Martha Trial
I've mentioned before how much I dislike Martha Stewart, mostly because of her reputation for treating underlings and people who aren't in a position to help her career with disrespect, if not outright disdain. So I am largely satisfied with the jury results. I find this little piece from Henry Blodgett somewhat confusing, given his background:
In a further irony, Hartridge reportedly remarked that the verdict "was a victory for the little guy who loses money in the market because of this kind of transaction. It sends a message to bigwigs in corporations they have to abide by the law. No one is above the law." This was ironic because, although this case has always been trumpeted as a symbol of fat-cat insiders fleecing the "little guy," it didn't cost anyone but Martha Stewart, Peter Bacanovic, and the government a dime (anyone, that is, except the shareholders of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, who lost $250 million Friday afternoon).
Uh hey, Henry Blodgett, there are two sides to every trade. How about the poor sap that Martha unloaded her shares to? I bet that person wasn't too thrilled with the merchandise.

Update: As Director Mitch points out in the comments, this isn't necessarily the case, and in this instance, I am willing to concede his point. I don't think I am ready to accept the "insider trading is a good thing" matra; but certainly for Martha's case, the information about the pending results from FDA report was out there, and she was just trading on what she thought the report said based on the fact that the Waksal's were unloading shares.

Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com