BP Chief Tony Hayward Sold Shares Weeks Before Oil Spill
g under p
Surfing The far side of THE Sombrero Galaxy Posts: 18,200
Coincidence???
BP chief Tony Hayward sold shares weeks before oil spill
The chief executive of BP sold £1.4 million of his shares in the fuel giant weeks before the Gulf of Mexico oil spill caused its value to collapse.
By Jon Swaine and Robert Winnett
Published: 12:10AM BST 05 Jun 2010
Tony Hayward cashed in about a third of his holding in the company one month before a well on the Deepwater Horizon rig burst, causing an environmental disaster.
Mr Hayward, whose pay package is £4 million a year, then paid off the mortgage on his family’s mansion in Kent, which is estimated to be valued at more than £1.2 million.
There is no suggestion that he acted improperly or had prior knowledge that the company was to face the biggest setback in its history.
His decision, however, means he avoided losing more than £423,000 when BP’s share price plunged after the oil spill began six weeks ago.
Since he disposed of 223,288 shares on March 17, the company’s share price has fallen by 30 per cent. About £40 billion has been wiped off its total value. The fall has caused pain not just for BP shareholders, but also for millions of company pension funds and small investors who have money held in tracker funds.
The spill, which has still not been stemmed, has caused a serious environmental crisis and is estimated to cost BP up to £40 billion to clean up.
There was growing confidence yesterday that a new cap placed over the well was stemming the oil flow. An estimated three million litres a day had been pouring into the sea off the coast of Louisiana since the April 20 explosion, damaging marine life.
The crisis has enraged US politicians, with President Obama yesterday forced to cancel a trip to Indonesia amid a row over the White House’s response.
Mr Hayward, whose position is thought to be under threat, risked further fury by continuing plans to pay out a dividend to investors next month.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/news ... spill.html
Peace
BP chief Tony Hayward sold shares weeks before oil spill
The chief executive of BP sold £1.4 million of his shares in the fuel giant weeks before the Gulf of Mexico oil spill caused its value to collapse.
By Jon Swaine and Robert Winnett
Published: 12:10AM BST 05 Jun 2010
Tony Hayward cashed in about a third of his holding in the company one month before a well on the Deepwater Horizon rig burst, causing an environmental disaster.
Mr Hayward, whose pay package is £4 million a year, then paid off the mortgage on his family’s mansion in Kent, which is estimated to be valued at more than £1.2 million.
There is no suggestion that he acted improperly or had prior knowledge that the company was to face the biggest setback in its history.
His decision, however, means he avoided losing more than £423,000 when BP’s share price plunged after the oil spill began six weeks ago.
Since he disposed of 223,288 shares on March 17, the company’s share price has fallen by 30 per cent. About £40 billion has been wiped off its total value. The fall has caused pain not just for BP shareholders, but also for millions of company pension funds and small investors who have money held in tracker funds.
The spill, which has still not been stemmed, has caused a serious environmental crisis and is estimated to cost BP up to £40 billion to clean up.
There was growing confidence yesterday that a new cap placed over the well was stemming the oil flow. An estimated three million litres a day had been pouring into the sea off the coast of Louisiana since the April 20 explosion, damaging marine life.
The crisis has enraged US politicians, with President Obama yesterday forced to cancel a trip to Indonesia amid a row over the White House’s response.
Mr Hayward, whose position is thought to be under threat, risked further fury by continuing plans to pay out a dividend to investors next month.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/news ... spill.html
Peace
*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Goldman Sachs sold $250 million of BP stock before spill
Firm's stock sale nearly twice as large as any other institution; Represented 44 percent of total BP investment
The brokerage firm that's faced the most scrutiny from regulators in the past year over the shorting of mortgage related securities seems to have had good timing when it came to something else: the stock of British oil giant BP.
According to regulatory filings, RawStory.com has found that Goldman Sachs sold 4,680,822 shares of BP in the first quarter of 2010. Goldman's sales were the largest of any firm during that time. Goldman would have pocketed slightly more than $266 million if their holdings were sold at the average price of BP's stock during the quarter.
If Goldman had sold these shares today, their investment would have lost 36 percent its value, or $96 million. The share sales represented 44 percent of Goldman's holdings -- meaning that Goldman's remaining holdings have still lost tens of millions in value.
The sale and its size itself isn't unusual for a large asset management firm. Wall Street brokerages routinely buy and sell huge blocks of shares for themselves and their clients. In light of a recent SEC lawsuit arguing that Goldman kept information about a product they sold from their clients, however, the stock sale may raise fresh concern among Goldman's critics. Goldman is also a frequent target of liberals and journalists, including Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi, who famously dubbed the firm a "vampire squid."
Two calls placed to Goldman Sachs' media office in New York Wednesday morning after US markets opened were not immediately returned, though Raw Story decided to publish the story quickly after the calls since the stock sale had been already noted online.
Others also sold stock
Other asset management firms also sold huge blocks of BP stock in the first quarter -- but their sales were a fraction of Goldman's. Wachovia, which is owned by Wells Fargo, sold 2,667,419 shares; UBS, the Swiss bank, sold 2,125,566 shares.
Wachovia and UBS also sold much larger percentages of their BP stock, at 98 percently and 97 percent respectively.
Wachova parent Wells Fargo, however, bought 2.3 million shares in the quarter, largely discounting Wachovia's sales.
Those reported buying BP's stock included Wellington Management, a large asset firm, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
BP is struggling to cap a massive oil leak at one of its drill sites in the Gulf of Mexico. The firm's myriad safety violations over the years have come to light in lieu of the Gulf disaster.
BP traded on average at $56.86 in the first quarter, according to GuruFocus, a site that monitors the major trading moves of prominent investors. A list of major institutions' sales of BP stock are available at the market research website Morningstar.
It's certainly unknown as to why the firms sold their holdings. In its analysis of the company in mid-March, Morningstar, the market research site, gave the company an average rating of three out of a possible five stars.
"BP's valuation carries more uncertainty than ExxonMobil's or Shell's because the firm is less integrated, with more of its earnings coming from the [exploration and production] business than from potentially offsetting refining operations," the site's analyst wrote. "Like its peers, a sustained drop in oil and gas prices can hurt upstream earnings. Lower crude-oil feedstock costs could help refining margins, but refined product pricing lags could quickly swing refining profits to losses. BP's global business faces potential disruptions caused by political risks, particularly with its heavy exposure to Russia. Disruptions caused by environmental and operational constraints could further limit earnings potential."
The transnational oil company, like other energy giants, was hit with lower oil and gas prices in the past year after the price of oil surged in 2008.
"BP's fourth quarter marked another quarter of year-over-year production gains, with a 3% increase thanks to new field startups," Morningstar's analyst wrote in another note, after BP turned in better than expected fourth quarter results in February. "BP reported fourth-quarter replacement cost profit of $3.4 billion, up 33% from year-ago earnings of $2.6 billion, as upstream earnings growth was more than enough to offset downstream weakness. For the full year, BP's earnings of $14 billion were 45% below year-ago earnings of $26 billion, in part because of lower oil prices earlier in the year. We're encouraged by BP's sequential earnings gains as new projects and cost-cutting efforts drive upstream results."
The SEC filed a civil lawsuit against Goldman Sachs and one of its vice presidents in April, asserting that the firm had committed fraud by misrepresenting a mortgage-investment product inherently designed to fail. The company helped a hedge fund trader create a mortgage investment that gained value as mortgage borrowers defaulted en masse.
In response, Goldman said the SEC's charges were “completely unfounded in law and fact” and averred that it would “vigorously contest them and defend the firm and its reputation.”
The firm has also faced criticism over giant bonuses paid to staff amidst the US financial crisis. Goldman reduced the sizes of its staff bonuses this year to $16.9 billion, and said it would pay its chief executive $9 million, far less than the previous year.
Goldman also announced it would create a $500 million program to help small businesses. Critics noted that the figure represented just 3% of the bonus pool.
http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0602/month- ... -bp-stock/
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
But like I said, maybe I'm naive.
Not suggesting anything at all, you can make up your own mind.
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
Sure you are...and I was being serious.
Oh ... by the way... the peace is fucking irratating.
Kool I'll post War instead happy now.
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
1. How much is usually traded in BP stocks every day?
2. From the shareholders view, was 1 month before the spill a good time to cash in as it was perceived the stocks had reached a high-point? Alternatively, was it a good time to consolidate gains by selling a portion of the shares they had?
My suspicions are that a BP chief selling stocks was a coincidence. Some BP bigwig is bound to sell some stocks in any given month. Goldman Sachs, although fuckers they are, trade for billions daily. Certainly buying and selling shares in BP is something they do regularly.
I dont think this is a "conspiracy" mostly because I fail to see the motive for anyone to let this happen. Not because I'm naive, but it would be a hellishly costly thing to do only to achieve what? Encourage anti-drilling legislation or something? Increasing our want for regulation? Get real. Companies and money-men can be relied on for a measure of greed, true. But this is WAAAAAY too costly for too many for anyone to want willingly.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
+1
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Agreed
peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
the conspiracy isn't that BP and Goldman Sachs purposefully caused the leak ... the conspiracy is that they knew there would be a problem before it happened ...
I honestly don't think that it was a problem they were aware of in advance before it really happened. In hindsight it seems that there were measures they should have used that they didn't and that security wasn't good enough at such a deep drilling operation. But that is all hindsight, really. I highly doubt they would have gone through with anything they KNEW was that risky, seeing how this is now gonna pretty much bankrupt them or exclude them from operating in American waters.
My money is still on coincidence with the BP chief, and GS always buying and selling everything. For GS to hold water, it must be shown they stopped trading BP altogether, or at significantly reduced volumes over time. One big sale doesn't prove much.
What this disaster shows, though, is how careful you gotta be when drilling deep offshore (from what I understand, this well was deeper then normal). You can't skimp on any safety measure, and this has to be required, regulated and policed vigorously to avoid stuff like this. And in vulnerable areas, maybe drilling should be outlawed altogether. That's where the story is, in my opinion.
Qui bono is not always the right question...
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Bridge School '06 Night 1 & 2
Venice '07 pummeled by the sleet!
Nijmegen '07
Werchter '07
April Fools ~ LA1
Has there been any info on the rig that blew up that shows that it was not completely safe? I heard about the crew on that rig, where the guy in charge would not call for help, or admit to crew there was anything alarmingly wrong...a female crew member took it upon herself to call for an "abandon ship" through the intercom...
Not to mention that safety regulations don't apply to rigs in the U.S. whereas they're applied in other nations.
i don't have an answer to that ...
but if we go by what exxon has done in the past - we can assume that oil companies are not interested in safety regulations ... because in most cases - the resulting costs associated with an "accident" is much cheaper than actually implementing any safety requirements ...
what we also know is that there was a spill some 31 years ago in the same region and that the methods used to try and control that spill are the same they tried to use recently which would indicate in 31 years, one of the most profitable industries spent exactly $0 dollars on innovating new technological solutions to problems that occur relatively frequently ...
Now THAT, is the real story in this.
The US should be in for beefed up safety requirements. Even if it is a nuisance for the oil business.
But that'll come now, I can't imagine any other result from this.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
So I think the political pressure will trump the lobbying here...
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
But I've been seeing for years now that the fossil fuel industries control Washington, not the other way around. Big Oil and King Coal are forces to reckon with, and if the current administration can beat them down, even after the latest atrocities including the Massey coal mine deaths a few months ago (and what's happened with that? Something we don't hear about anymore, probably because they want us to forget it AND Massey paid their way out of increasing safety regulations) I'd LOVE to see it. It NEEDS to happen.
Seems that something's gonna happen at least. And as you can see, any senator with a feel for public mood swings (that would include most) will get onboard on stuff like this. Smaller stuff may be brushed under the carpet, but a disaster big enough will reduce the lobbying to trying to reduce the hit they're gonna take while attacked by politicians with (hypocritical in many cases) moral outrage and a wish to hurt them good.
Politics is a dirty game, but can play in favour of the public at times.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
this is a america dan ... george w. bush wiped out decades of environmental laws in his first week of office ... the oil industry controls the gov't ... do you think exxon-mobil is going to sit and have new rules and regulations cut into their profits? - no way ... and at the end of the day - the reality is that there truly is no pressure ... most people vote based on the letter next to the person's name (assuming they vote at all) ... any changes will be done for PR purposes ...
a similar spill happened in the same area 31 years ago and there were no consequences then ...
Well, I'm not so doom and gloom about it this time. Such regulations can be quietly dismantled and disregarded, as long as effects are either long term and gradual, or limited in scale. This one is very immediate, humongously huge, and with the entire media circus all over it drooling over who to blame. Politicians are probably gonna overbid eachother in bitchslapping the industry in general and BP in particular. (see my post above) This cat is thoroughly out of the bag right now. Regulations may slide back again over time, but it'll take a pretty long while, given the scale and prominence here. This is not just a tanker filled with oil that empties, it's a guzzling oil well completely out of control. And given that the regulation might now get a bit over the top as well, the reverting may not go further than where they should have been before the accident.
Also consider that for years to come there will be ruined coastal lands in the south to testify the need for beefed up security and control. So I'm quite optimistic on that something will have to change and most likely for the better.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
it's not so much doom and gloom as it is a response based on the reality of american politics and environmental regulations ... this is a country where someone who works for industry can be appointed head of the EPA ...
you would think that changes would be done - but there has been no precedent in the last decade or so to show that anything will be done ... as disastrous as this spill is -climate change has already turned out to be far worse in its consequences - there just isn't the visual bomb associated with it ... and the US (along with Canada) have shown no substantive progress on that front ...
Well, the "problem" with climate change is that it's gradual and an assessment made on averages with big swings either way year for year. This is substantial and in people's faces. You can't have an academic disagreement about the fact of this spill. There is no fig leaf to hide behind.
Just saying, factoring in how it seems the dirty business of lobbying and politics works, this can't be ignored. Besides, Bush isn't in the office anymore, so they at least dont have "their own guy" in there. Obama seems pissed, as do several senators, lawmakers and the general population of at least the southern states. This is shaping up to be "the perfect storm" to bypass lobbiers this once.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
don't get me wrong ... i hope that you are right ...
but ... there is no difference between republican and democratic administrations when it comes to issues such as this ... obama signed off on the waivers that basically allow these rigs to go unregulated ... and since the spill he has signed off on additional waivers at other sites ...
this has simply become a publicity stunt and public relations exercise ... sure, obama may be angry but what can he do about it? ... any changes has to go through congress and that is about the most inept group of people you can get ... by the time they iron out something and the lawyers get their hands on it ... it'll be watered down (no pun intended) and by then any public pressure will have dissipated ...
i suppose we will have to wait and see - but history is not on the side of reform ...
These dividends do fill the pockets of rich investors but a vast amount of money also forms part of the meager pensions of our retired. In the UK about 1/7 of the money in pension funds is from BP. Dividends in the US are worth billions. The US government trying to stop BP paying out dividends is a bit ludicrous. BP has PLENTY of money to be able to pay for the mess (clean up, compensation, etc.) and pay their dividends.
Also... trying to make a story (and a certain link) out of Hayward selling shares is ridiculous.