Five years ago Martha Stewart was released from prison, having been convicted of lying to a federal officer and obstructing an agency proceeding. Her theoretical offense was that by selling shares of ImClone in 1981 based upon inside information, she avoided a stock loss of about $45,ooo. Stewart made the classic mistake of failing to "lawyer up," as they say on TV, and her statements were used against her.
Do you think that the SEC spent its time wisely in going after Martha with such enthusiasm? Because I've been thinking that maybe we would have better served if the SEC had paid more attention at the time to Bernie Madoff.
According to press reports, Madoff did not make a single trade for his clients after 1996. How could an SEC audit not notice that?
There going to be reformation of the regulation of the financial services industry, but the Stewart case suggests that regulators often get their priorities wrong.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment