By David Schepp BBC News Online North America business reporter

With America's most celebrated homemaker facing the sort of scrutiny so far reserved for executives at Enron and WorldCom, BBC News Online looks at how strong her firm would be without her. With Martha Stewart's namesake firm preparing to report its latest profits statement, there is growing speculation about whether the firm can survive without her.

Doling out daily doses of advice on domestic bliss through television, magazines and newspapers, Ms Stewart has garnered legions of fans, who have simultaneously craved and marvelled at her creativity.

The taint of scandal has hurt Ms Stewart's business, with demand for her magazines flagging and audiences for her daily television show slipping

But her luminous image has fallen under a cloud because of a probe into insider-trading charges following her sale last December of shares in ImClone Systems, formerly run by her friend Samuel Waksal.

Lawyers at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently told Ms Stewart they were ready to file civil securities fraud charges against her.

Flagging demand

Mr Waksal and Ms Stewart have something in common other than their interest in ImClone. Both built businesses from scratch based on their own ideas.

The big difference is that while Mr Waksal's ImClone can continue as a viable concern without him at the helm, experts doubt whether the same will be true of her company.

Ms Stewart is not only the chief executive of her firm, Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, she is also its personality.

Her image is what drives consumers to read her magazines, watch her television shows and buy Martha Stewart branded goods.

So far, just the taint of scandal has hurt Ms Stewart's business, with demand for her magazines flagging and audiences for her daily television show slipping.

In addition, the taint of scandal recently caused Ms Stewart to resign her seat on the board of the New York Stock Exchange.

Share sale

For her part, Ms Stewart has denied any wrongdoing in her sale of nearly 4,000 shares of ImClone stock.

Not so with Mr Waksal. He agreed two weeks ago to plead guilty to six counts of securities fraud and awaits sentencing but has not implicated Ms Stewart.

If Ms Stewart is charged, will she be asked to relinquish the helm of her empire?

While Mr Waksal has not talked, the former assistant to Ms Stewart's broker has agreed to co-operate in the investigation, following a guilty plea to misdemeanour charges on 2 October.

At issue is whether Ms Stewart knew it was a good time to sell her shares because of a forthcoming decision from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) concerning ImClone's anti-cancer drug, Erbitux.

If investigators can prove Ms Stewart knew more than she is admitting to, it could lead to charges of perjury and obstruction of justice.

Central role

That uncertainty has led investors to sell Martha Stewart stock, which has tumbled 50% to about $8 (�5) a share since news of a probe into the ImClone sale first broke in March.

Analysts say the part of the business to be hit hardest would be its media division which is devoted to producing and marketing magazines and Ms Stewart's daily television show.

While many magazines have seen large increases in ad revenues in recent months, demand for space in Martha Stewart Living and other magazines is merely lukewarm.

Less likely to be affected are Martha Stewart branded goods, such as sheets and towels sold at Kmart stores.

Still, unlike other companies that carry their founders' names, Ms Stewart is the personification of her company.

The question remains: If Ms Stewart is charged, will she be asked to relinquish the helm of her empire?

Given her dominant role in fashioning and leading the company, it is not likely.

After all, who could fill her shoes?