Eric Schmidt To Sell Up To 42% of Stake In Google

derGoldstein writes "AllThingsD reports that Eric Schmidt 'plans to sell up to 3.2 million shares of his class A common stock in the company,' according to an SEC filing. 'The amount is equal to approximately 42.1 percent of his overall stake in Google.'"

Comments

Capitalism is failing

[For a Free Internet]

Folks, Karl Marx was right. Increasing wealth at one pole, increasing misery at the other. A system that condemns millions to starvation does not deserve to live. It is time for the workers, lead by their Leninist vanguard party, to smash the rule of the bourgeois parasites and establish a dictatorship of the proletariat, opening the road to socialism.

Re:Capitalism is failing

[msh104]

Or we could have a better incremental tax system where dirt poor is not the bottom and fat rich is not the top.

Re:Capitalism is failing

[lucm]

> Increasing wealth at one pole, increasing misery at the other.

This has nothing to do with capitalism. This has to do with the government raising taxes aimed at the middle class since the rich can move and the poor can't pay. Decade after decade the middle class shrinks while prices go up, taxes go up and the government becomes like a pimp managing tired older whores.

When both political parties give the government's ATM card to lobbies and spend trillions on what they think will get them elected again it appears that there is no hope.

There is only one solution: become rich or become poor.

Re:Capitalism is failing

[Anonymous Coward]

things can be worse than dirt poor?

and things can be better than fat rich?

sign me up!

Re:Capitalism is failing

[Charliemopps]

Yes, because there's no poverty or starvation in Marxist countries at all right?

Re:Capitalism is failing

[Anonymous Coward]

So you want a system where everyone is pulled down to the same level? Where hard work isn't rewarded? Schmidt gets too much for what he's contributed? Perhaps - OK, then how much is too much? Who decides?

I personally know some dirt poor people. Some of them are hard working but unlucky or got a bad start in life (would be my guess), some are hard working but dirt poor because they made a mess of things when they were younger (drinking, not doing their school work, losing jobs through their own doing, etc), and some of them are just plain lazy. And in most of these cases, if you give them a million dollars today, they won't have anything left by next year this time.

Re:Capitalism is failing

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that US taxes have been trending down for 30 years, and wages have not kept up with inflation.

Re:Capitalism is failing

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, there's a third solution. You may not have thought of it.

If wealth condensation were an unstoppable force, it would have run to completion thousands of years ago and there would never have been a middle class in all of recorded history. Clearly there is some counteracting force. Something which we haven't since... let's say 1945.

Re:Capitalism is failing

[morcego]

Yes, because there's no poverty or starvation in Marxist countries at all right?

Nah. It is just that in Marxism, everyone is equally poor.

Re:Capitalism is failing

[egcagrac0]

There is only one solution: become rich or become poor.

That's two solutions.

Re:Capitalism is failing

[Anonymous Coward]

There has never been a country that has implemented marxism, you are probably thinking of stalinism. Yes there is a diffrence and its big. Marx also said that if the Russians ever tried his ideas it would end up in failure.

Re:Capitalism is failing

[jopsen]

Nah. It is just that in Marxism, everyone is equally poor.

The choice isn't necessarily between extreme capitalism and extreme socialism...
Socialism to the point where people don't starve, can start over after failing and are given a decent chance to go to university, isn't so expensive that hard work won't be profitable anymore.
(Socialism to that extend, does however, encourage risk taking, as there's a system to help you if you fail).

It's often called liberal socialism, many/most countries in Europe (especially northern Europe) are quite successful with this approach.

Re:Capitalism is failing

[Acapulco]

I think Orwell would say all farm animals were equally poor, except for the pigs...
 
  So, *almost* everyone is equally poor.

Re:Capitalism is failing

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because there's no poverty or starvation in Marxist countries at all right?

It's really a matter of the fact that the poor and starving in marxist countries are "right wing" and therefore aren't counted as people by the left.

Re:Capitalism is failing

[morcego]

Liberal socialism didn't work as well as expected in many places (see Spain).

However, there is one easier to digest concept also: welfare state.

Re:Capitalism is failing

[Capt. Skinny]

It is time for the workers, lead by their Leninist vanguard party, to smash the rule of the bourgeois parasites and establish a dictatorship of the proletariat, opening the road to socialism.

Yes, let's replace those who have skill and initiative with those who are unwilling or unable to make their own way in the world. I've always found it quite ironic that the "proletariat" has such disdain for the capitalists upon whom they depend to make their living.

Re:Capitalism is failing

[MightyYar]

Federal Income Tax is down - almost every other tax has increased. Local wage taxes, state income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes... It took the recent financial crisis to knock us back down to 1970s levels, but expect that to ramp back up as the economy recovers. Just prior to the financial crisis, we were at an all-time high for total tax burden as a percentage of GDP.

Got my numbers here.

Re:Capitalism is failing

[__aaltlg1547]

Dead or dying is worse.

Re:Capitalism is failing

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly there is some counteracting force.

We're fresh out of new continents, though.

Re:Capitalism is failing

[__aaltlg1547]

It's because the math is confusing. They compute the pay they get divided by the hours they work and try to compare that figure to the same statistic for a capitalist. They get in trouble when they attempt to divide by zero...

Re:Capitalism is failing

[Anonymous Coward]

No True Scotsman! I mean, Marxist!

Re:Capitalism is failing

[Anonymous Coward]

You want to incentivize paying your employees better but without eliminating the ability to pay executives great money. I have yet to see a system that does this very well. Perhaps if you taxed income based upon it's relationship to the median income in the country. That way you're not putting a hard cap on how much someone can make but creating an incentive to pay your employees better.

Re:Capitalism is failing

[Charliemopps]

Yea, Europe isn't my model for any sort of success fiscally. I suspect the solution is just something we haven't figured out yet. It certainly has nothing to do with socialism. Capitalism is at least, not a political dogma. Capitalism is "how money works" All the things you hate about it, are not a part of it. Kickbacks, loopholes, all that sort of shit are people gaming the system and are actually more socialist in nature than anything else.

Re:Capitalism is failing

[Nikker]

and slowly dieing of starvation is great.

Re:Capitalism is failing

[Anonymous Coward]

This has nothing to do with capitalism. This has to do with the government raising taxes aimed at the middle class since the rich can move and the poor can't pay. Decade after decade the middle class shrinks while prices go up, taxes go up and the government becomes like a pimp managing tired older whores.

When both political parties give the government's ATM card to lobbies and spend trillions on what they think will get them elected again it appears that there is no hope.

There is only one solution: become rich or become poor.

Why do people mod this juvenile nonsense up as INSIGHTFUL? Taxes are not the reason. People didn't magically change. Same crooks, different economy over the last couple hundred years. The US prospered at a ridiculous rate since the late 1800s until about the 1970s. See Richard Wolff's talks on youtube and learn. While it's TRUE that the political system is completely corrupt, that has little to do with the disparity. Without a cap on income + politically motivated loopholes, Capitalism is a winners win losers lose. That's CAPITALISM not taxation at work. Taxation impact is a function of economy. $1000 vs 1000 pennies is a lot in both cases, but has nothing to do with the middle or upper class without context of the existing economy.

Re:Capitalism is failing

[TuringTest]

What do you mean, that kickbacks and loopholes are not part of "how money works"? Sorry to bust your bubble, but the world doesn't actually work as a Randian utopia.

Re:Capitalism is failing

[Anonymous Coward]

So we just need to wipe out a continent and colonize it? Awesome.

Re:Capitalism is failing

[Anonymous Coward]

Also inflation and quantitative easing, so promoted by the last few administrations, are taxes targeted to the low and middle classes who own no equity and are unable to hedge. Keeping the people poor and dependent on your programs is a Machiavellian but predictable way to stay in power.

Re:Capitalism is failing

[houghi]

There is only one solution: become rich or become poor.

People will argue that these are two solutions. But just like the two-party system where there is no real option and thus for all things real, this is only one option.

A bit like the option if you want your left knee or your right knee broken. The people doing it say you have a choice, but for those in real life there is no option.

If things do not change, there will be some sort of revolution. Not sure if it can be compared of trowing the red jackets out, beheading the aristocracy or by strikes. I know it will be bloody. I know it will be temporary as after a while you need to redo it.

Not so much a question about if, but about when. It could happen anytime now or 50 years in the future. The start could be somebody not wanting to sit in the back of the bus. It could be somebody trowing tea in the river. It could be one kid killed by the Fingerman, uh, TSA. It probably will be something else.

It will be a random act that will be the last drip, but it will happen.

Re:Capitalism is failing

[Omestes]

You can be a capitalist while being a socialist, they aren't mutually exclusive domains. Many of the socialist countries in the world also have capitalist economies... Hell, the biggest communist country on earth is becoming a bigger capitalist country than the U.S. Hell, capitalism existed in the U.S.S.R.

As you point out, capitalism is how money works. Where there is currency or trade, there is capitalism, no matter what the government is.

Socialism is a political philosophy, and capitalism is an economic theory. Unless we take capitalism as what the edge cases define it as, of course, meaning no taxes, no laws, and no regulations, then they are not in opposition.

Personally, the market should be as free as possible, until it negatively effects individuals or society. Society is the sum of all the people within it, not just certain classes, or those who have more money/power, and government exists for the benefit of society, by the permission of society, and not for certain individuals or classes of people.

Re:Capitalism is failing

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea, Europe isn't my model for any sort of success fiscally.

Some people say that it might not be great, it certainly isn't bad and hasn't failed as dramatically as the USA.

I've also heard it said that your style of argumentation has been borrowed straight from fox news. Hold on while I find some other statement .. I need one more thing to reinforce my knowledge on this subject, and it needs to be equally vague and terrifying. Oh, yeah : Political manipulations.

Re:Capitalism is failing

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Capitalism is at least, not a political dogma. Capitalism is "how money works" All the things you hate about it, are not a part of it. Kickbacks, loopholes, all that sort of shit are people gaming the system and are actually more socialist in nature than anything else.

Amusingly, just a couple of comments down the thread from yours is someone explaining to us how "true Marxism has never been tried," which of course is the communist's classic excuse when the failings of communism in the real world are pointed out. Fundamentalists of all sorts never seem to realize how much they sound like each other.

Communism in the real world is brutal and corrupt. Capitalism in the real world is brutal and corrupt. You can talk all day about they way you think things ought to work, but in every case you need to take into account that people, not abstract principles, are the ones making the decisions, and those people will not always (or even usually) behave the way your ideology says they should.

Re:Capitalism is failing

[Anonymous Coward]

There are other solutions. The French found one. It involved guillotines aplenty. The French aristocracy thought they were invulnerable, until they weren't. I expect something similar down the line for the USA, China, Europe and possibly even some African countries.

Wealth is a form of political power and being oppressed by the wealthy is turning out to be little better than being oppressed by any other dictator. Today, with enough hydrocarbon energy and a semi-functioning economy that provides enough bread and internet hollywood circuses, nobody's going for that other solution. As resources deplete, everyone gets poorer. If enough people hurt enough, well... if a few guys in a plane can take out a building, imagine what a few million angry desperate engineers can do, worldwide?

Re:Capitalism is failing

[Anonymous Coward]

Go to the Philippines and see what happens when the government screws you over. You work as hard as you can to get out if you're lucky.

Re:Capitalism is failing

[Vintermann]

A middle class as we know it is a fairly recent phenomenon, probably starting in the Netherlands in the 17th century.

Re:Capitalism is failing

[Anonymous Coward]

Four solutions!
1. Become modestly rich
2. Become modestly poor
3. Become filthy rich
4. Become filthy poor

16 solutions if you add the qualifiers "happily" or "unhappily"

Re:Capitalism is failing

[kupofatu]

http://www.cloud65.com/ as Dawn implied I'm stunned that a person can profit $7584 in one month on the computer. did you see this webpage

Re:Capitalism is failing

[qzjul]

This is a good idea, except it would probably be easily abused by "splitting companies" into smaller ones. Having progressive taxrates where the marginal rate below the median national income is close to 0% and rises quickly above that would be my solution. While you do want to incentivize working harder, if you make it impossible for the poor to work hard and get ahead, what is the point. Also, inheritance tax!

Re:Capitalism is failing

[KingMotley]

That graph doesn't agree with what you said. Our all time high was in 1944 (94%), and we haven't been anywhere near that in a very long time. We're currently at 33%, which is a huge difference, although that is only tracking the very top tier of income tax. Also, that graph isn't very useful. If we added a new tax tier that said anyone making more than 1 trillion dollars a year would get taxed at 94%, the graph would show 94% at the highest tier, but no one would ever be in that tax bracket, so that number is useless.

Re:Capitalism is failing

[bbelt16ag]

This country was created by bold, risk taking thinkers. They may have been bigots and a part of their times, owned slaves and treated women like third class citizens,but they were learned risk takers. I am not sure who would be our leaders and founding fathers/mothers if it happened today, but i know it will be an enormous responsibility to undertake for any group of the people. That being said, my fears that it will instead be the brawl, and torch caring mob that takes down this country seems greater every day. I see the Orwellian devices the governments create, and the policies they pass and try to pass. I want to scream don't they know what happens when you do this to a population? Didn't they read history books or literature? Do they care nothing for their brother and sister on the sidewalk? to their own freedoms? Are they not of the people as well? Then my thoughts move to perhaps the government is not of the people, and are a separate class of corporations, and monopoly men. It is Us they FEAR. The man working the docks. The lady at the check out line. The fisherman. The Woman in the office. The coder at his desk. The geek in the living room. If that is the case, then they have already lost since they are the PROBLEM. This is the digital age and what do we do to problems? They get put on a webpage and showed to everyone in the world, and then we crowd source an answer. Whether this works for what we have in our situation I am not sure. However, it is up to US to solve this problem now, and no amount of screaming,voting, writing, and speaking will solve it. It is a time for action, and yes blood may be spilled, It should not be our first, second, or one hundredth option, only our last. Therefore I call to my fellows, to stand against anyone who would deny us the people our freedoms, dignity, and well being. I ask that you put aside any differences, and enter the process of creating a new world society that holds these ideals at its very core. We must do this now if we are to save what we have accomplished in the past century. To wait is to be too late, and we need all hands to create a world for all peoples. There will be false starts, despair, and rage. It will be dismissed, ignored, and called a terrorist. persist and be resolute for it is not only for your self that your fight, but for those who come after you, and after them as well. There are those who can do little, there are some who can do more, and few who can do a lot. It is for those who can do little we must do the most.It will not be easy, nothing worth doing ever is.

Re:Capitalism is failing

[MightyYar]

Please continue reading. I was referring to the TOTAL tax burden: Federal, State, Local. You were only looking at the Federal chart, which has been bouncing along at about the same rate since the 50s.

Re:Capitalism is failing

[Anonymous Coward]

This is exactly how it used to be in the US. In the early twentieth century a person that worked for a living was unlikely to pay much of anything in the way of income taxes. Adjusted, it was above $65,000/yr... much more than I make now. So I wouldn't have paid income tax at all. Everything was paid for with excise taxes on things like alcohol and tobacco ('sin taxes', now). The wealthy paid income tax at a wide range of rates, depending on when you're looking at.

But that only worked before large federal benefit programs. We'd dealt with massive foreign debt before (really the origin of federal taxation, to pay off France), but our spending really started to explode and we haven't looked back since. Nowadays we collect more from a much from a 'broad base'.

Re:Capitalism is failing

[sootman]

Any system would work with an honest, caring, non-corrupt government.

Which is why none of them ever work.

Re:Capitalism is failing

[onepoint]

well, in the movie my man godfrey 1936, there is a line where the character say " i don't mind giving 60% to the government " ... which he's implying his tax rate is 60%. this seems to conform to the chart.

What we need to find the distribution of the income

Re:Capitalism is failing

[Anonymous Coward]

revolution by itself is fine. The question is, will it get worse afterwards?

Re:Capitalism is failing

[Fastolfe]

The market economy is a tool, not a way of life. Beyond a certain point, monetary rewards do not cause people to aspire to be more productive, so what's the point in letting that wealth accumulate in their hands? Power? You can have a tax system that is far more progressive than it is today while still rewarding hard work.

Re:Capitalism is failing

[KingMotley]

Lol, I got distracted by the pretty chart, my bad.

Re:Capitalism is failing

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you give any thought as to why they do depend on them? Maybe because, at some point in time, capitalists claimed all means of manufacturing, all natural resources as their property, and enforced this (and are still enforcing) with military strength?

Re:Capitalism is failing

[Alex Belits]

You want to incentivize paying your employees better but without eliminating the ability to pay executives great money.

All employees that actually do anything, are on fixed, and very inflexible salary. It's ersatz sales drones and arrogant executives, that get any variations.

Re:Capitalism is failing

[Alex Belits]

Capitalism is bad by design, it doesn't have to be broken or corrupt to keep everyone but tiny minority poor. In fact, someone (such as European government) has to constantly and severely keep breaking it, to keep it from slipping into what US has.

Socialism, on the other hand, by design promotes equality and universal access to abundant wealth. Obviously it only works when wealth is abundant (ex: 60's-80's USSR, not North Korea), however it actually is supposed to be that way, and corruption converts it to something that could approach (European-diluted form of) Capitalism.

Re:Capitalism is failing

[Anonymous Coward]

Marx is doomed to failure. The problem with the Marx crapola you're spouting is that it ends in Socialism which ends up in the hands of the bankers anyway! Looking at the news over the past couple of years??? At the end of the day (or decades) someone is going to be left holding the bag of debt that socialism garners and then the cries begin for someone to either forgive that debt or buy it from them ending also in an interest payment and severe realignments of society where dumpster diving for food is an ever growning opportunity for media photographers. Your recommended system ends at the same dead end point just by taking a couple of different avenues to get there. Combine that with extremely liberal immigration policies that continually allow the overflow of borders with people not well educated and during a time of global recession when they cannot find suitable work. Reading or listening to the news, Marx? Most of us would like the government to stay out of our lives and let us make a living for ourself under the power of our own steam engine. The problem is not capitalism but politicians who have jumped into the pockets corporations and special interest groups like a joey in a kangaroo's pouch.

Re:Capitalism is failing

[Anonymous Coward]

Or put a better way: All of these pure systems fail because they ignore the truth of human nature.

Re:Capitalism is failing

[Charliemopps]

No, you're wrong, you can't be a "capitalist" People use that term incorrectly. "Capitalism" is how money works. It's in flux all the time but has general rules that are rather firm. "Socialism" is a political dogma with the goal of manipulating Capitalism into doing things it wouldn't naturally do. It doesn't work... it never works.

Capitalism is equal and fair, provided sales are transparent. This is where government regulation can help. Weights and Measures. Clearly defined products. Legal recourse for breaches of contracts. The government fails when it trys to regulate or manipulate prices. Or trys to ban products, regulate what can and can't be sold, and when it prevents failed business models from suffering their well deserved fates.

Re:Capitalism is failing

[Charliemopps]

Kickbacks and loopholes are Capitalism ways of dealing with errors in the system. Artificial barriers put up by governments that prevent economic growth are circumvented in the most cost efficient way possible. Take away the artificial barriers, and there are no kickbacks/loopholes.

The fact is, if you pass a law that prevents people from making money in a certain way, all that happens is that the ones that can afford to bribe those that write the laws will continue to operate in the most efficient way. Stop creating laws that we all know the Rich wont have to follow. They are just burdens on the poor and middle class.

Re:Capitalism is failing

[Omestes]

Capitalism is equal and fair, provided sales are transparent. This is where government regulation can help. Weights and Measures. Clearly defined products. Legal recourse for breaches of contracts. The government fails when it trys to regulate or manipulate prices. Or trys to ban products, regulate what can and can't be sold, and when it prevents failed business models from suffering their well deserved fates.

This is what I meant by an edge definition. There isn't a purely capitalistic country on Earth, and probably never has been one for any significant period of time. On the other hand, pretty much every country on Earth has some flavor of socialistic policy, stretching back a very long time. Capitalism by this definition is a myth, and as much a utopian ideal as Communism.

Probably because when societies don't ban dangerous products, misleading or harmful and exploitative practices, things go bad pretty quickly, and people force their governments to protect them (as is their right, and as is the function of government). Personally, and I really don't want to get into it, I think that any economic theory is perfectly fine, until the second it hurts the only thing that matters, people. People are more important than commerce and capital. People need commerce, obviously, but it can go bad. Government exists to keep it within bounds, providing maximal benefit and minimal harm. Where these bounds exist are debatable, and these definitions vary from culture to culture, and time to time. There isn't one true definition, rule, or set of standards.

But actually we're just having a semantics fight now... Your thinking of economic philosophies (laissez faire, in particular, it seems), which generally are political philosophies as well. You'll find there are several competing economic philosophies. All them them have about as much force as the various competing political philosophies, meaning not much. They are all utopian, and sound very nice as a philosophy, but don't take into account that the world is a messy, chaotic thing with more factors than anyone can ever truly foresee.

Re:Capitalism is failing

[anguirus.x]

It is time for the workers, lead by their Leninist vanguard party, to smash the rule of the bourgeois parasites and establish a dictatorship of the proletariat, opening the road to socialism.

Yes, let's replace those who have skill and initiative with those who are unwilling or unable to make their own way in the world. I've always found it quite ironic that the "proletariat" has such disdain for the capitalists upon whom they depend to make their living.

You would have been a Loyalist in 1775 with your backwards ideas, like the Lord deserves to be Lord and they're so much better than the peons. I mean gimme a break. If all your cherished capitalists dropped dead right now the proletariat would produce ten times as many to replace them, and with improved results. The disdain comes from recognizing the current crop of capitalists are enemies of democracy.

Re:Capitalism is failing

[Anonymous Coward]

You can be a capitalist, provided you have enough capital.

You seem to forget (as most people while defending their political view points) that human nature is what really bring things down, vendors will almost always try to obscure their sales and it takes more than a well balanced weight from the goverment to enforce fairness in commerce. Without heavy (expensive, tax payed) regulation the packaged food industry would not have to print nutritional facts and list of ingredients and even so they cheat sometimes, in a Laissez-faire scenario we all would be eating more chalk and ashes than we already do, and only really rich people could afford to treat the ailments derived from it.

"The way the money works" has a lot to do with political and ideological context, it doesn't work the same in the U.S. than in Cuba and it was different in the past too. Is not like there is a pure, perfect, abstract market that we have failed to implement, it's more like the economic system we have today with all its failures is the result of a long and inconcluded social, political, and economical strife that spans for centuries and the agents involved vary in size and importance, and have changing, sometimes irrational goals.

 

Time to haul the red herrings

[G3ckoG33k]

I doubt this has anything to do with any bad news
for Google. It is my guess Schmidt just wants the
money here and now. Totally understandable.

Re:Time to haul the red herrings

[msh104]

It is part of a deal to have a more diverse group of stakeholders.
So you are indeed right that this shows nothing about the performance of google.
And i guess the money will always come in handy as well. :P

Re:Time to haul the red herrings

[fufufang]

Diversifying investment portfolio is something that all good investors tend to do. Eric Schmidt is a businessman too.

Re:Time to haul the red herrings

[Pascal Sartoretti]

I doubt this has anything to do with any bad news for Google.

Agreed. But it may also show that Schmidt doesn't expect huge growth in Google's share price...

Re:Time to haul the red herrings

[drolli]

A likely possibility is that he wants to avoid conflicts of interest. E.g. when investing in other companies.

Re:Time to haul the red herrings

[khoker]

Is it "totally understandable"? Interest rates are basically zero, which means that taking money "here and now" doesn't gain him anything. He might want to invest elsewhere in order to diversify his portfolio but such a move would only make sense given an underlying principle that he a) suspects something may perform better than GOOG or b) has uncertainties about the future of GOOG (to the point where cashing out now and stuffing cash in his mattress is better than holding onto GOOG). It isn't to say either of those reasons are "bad" from a savvy-businessman point of view, but it also doesn't mean you can simply dismiss the action as "totally understandable" either.

Re:Time to haul the red herrings

[gniv]

That doesn't mean he's right. He sold a similar amount last year, and missed most of the growth in the stock price in the last month.

Re:Time to haul the red herrings

[eexaa]

Moreover, I'm kindof expecting something like "Eric Schmidt buys SpaceX and travels to Mars" in following weeks.

Re:Time to haul the red herrings

[Anonymous Coward]

Or perhaps instead of trying to find some vague insider conspiracy where there is none you can look at the facts which are that he's getting quite old and would like to go for low yield low risk investments before his retirement. He still has a pretty big stake in Google.

Re:Time to haul the red herrings

[BasilBrush]

What's the collective noun for fanboys? I'm going with "flush". A flush of fanboys.

Re:Time to haul the red herrings

[Anonymous Coward]

> this shows nothing about the performance of google.

That's right, children, pay no attention to that "invisible hand" of industry, shoved up the puppet's ass and making its lips move.

You can draw the conclusion that this move will not cost Schmidt a lot of money, compared to staying where his is. That means that Google will *not* be making a lot more money than wherever else Schmidt invests it. The devil then comes from the details of where he decides to put the money. And a big stock sale also means a change in stockholder *voting*, which can certainly change the performance of Google.

Re:Time to haul the red herrings

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you do the math? If it sold at the current share price, that's over $2,500,000,000.00. I don't think I'd worry about interest with that kind of scratch. Even at 0% that's enough money for 500 people to live well for a lifetime. Stock can't normally be used to buy stuff.

Re:Time to haul the red herrings

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt this has anything to do with any bad news for Google.

I doubt it too, since selling off stock based on non-public bad news is insider trading.

Re:Time to haul the red herrings

[khoker]

Low yield/Low risk implies exposure to risk. You are saying is that GOOG is, what then? Medium risk? High risk? That's my point. If he views GOOG as risky, people should at least take that into consideration. Furthermore, it isn't like the guy came went directly from rags-to-Google. Prior to Google he was at both Sun and Novell. In addition to all of his stock options, salary and bonuses over the past decode -- Google gave the guy a $100 million gift when he vacated the CEO seat two years ago. I seriously don't think he's worried about retirement.

Re:Time to haul the red herrings

[Anonymous Coward]

Please go play in traffic.

Re:Time to haul the red herrings

[Pinky's Brain]

It has to do with bad news in general ...

Equities, banks, bonds ... it will all blow up. Own physical stuff ... and be sure some of it is in places out of reach of governments you don't outright own (ie. on an Island) in case the plan for neo-feudalism doesn't pan out and there is a socialist revolution instead.

Re:Time to haul the red herrings

[Anonymous Coward]

No it doesn't. Selling off his entire stake in Google would show that he doesn't expect huge growth from Google. Even selling off about 42% shows that he's just diversifying his personal investment portfolio, and he's probably going to buy himself on to a new board position at another tech company. People like that just don't sell out that much for no reason...he's planning something.

Re:Time to haul the red herrings

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, why? He's obviously not insane.

Re:Time to haul the red herrings

[BanHammor]

Is this comment a reference to "a swarm of butterflies"?

Re:Time to haul the red herrings

[Anonymous Coward]

First... interest rates are "basically zero" only if you have small amounts of cash. Even if he was going to get $1/share out of his 3 million shares, that isn't a small amount of cash. He will be getting substantially more than $1/share.

Second, diversified portfolios make sense always because diversified portfolios are substantially more resistant to the sort of shocks that you just really can't predict, expect, or otherwise plan for. Only if you have an absolute guaranteed money maker would you want to not diversify. There are no guarantees in stocks.

Third, yeah it really does mean you can dismiss the action as totally understandable if you can say it makes sense from a savvy point of view.

Re:Time to haul the red herrings

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you should read just a little bit about investing. Stocks are by definition more risky than things like US treasuries for example and an index of multiple diversified stocks as another example. So once again he's probably just preparing for retirement. This is not because GOOG has suddenly stopped growing or is more risky than earlier.

Re:Time to haul the red herrings

[foniksonik]

If it was me I'd be getting into either the new space economy or the new energy economy. Elon Musk is in the sweet spot for the next decade or so. The information economy is net a plateau. Too many players.

Re:Time to haul the red herrings

[Anonymous Coward]

True, the US economy is about to make a massive and near fatal hit as the world dumps the US Dollar as the world reserve currency and adopt the Renimbi/Yuan. 48% of the worlds population (18% of the world's GDP) just voted to do that last November in Cambodia. China setup their own SWIFT system Sept 6th, 2012 which it now pays Russia, Iran, and now Saudi Arabia for oil purchases and has offered it's new system to anyone wanting to buy OR sell oil. If you want to see the effects of this, look at the UK during the 1960s as their economy tanked as the US Dollar (Brentwood Agreement effect) was fully accepted as the new world reserve currency. Bad times in the US will hurt Google, time to unload for hard assets and ride it out until Google's stock hits bottom before buying again.

Re:Time to haul the red herrings

[the eric conspiracy]

Ownership is just a notation in a book somewhere.

When the revolution comes that will be erased too.

Re:Time to haul the red herrings

[Lawrence_Bird]

The only things which are certain are death and taxes. That he wants to diversify his holdings is pretty understandable given how much of his wealth is all in one basket. Single stocks can rise and fall dramatically on a whim (see the iPrecious). And as chairman he will not be their forever and it is certainly better to lighten the stake while still remaining at the company and holding a good share than after leaving it.

By the way... there's a Red under your bed....

Re:Time to haul the red herrings

[Anonymous Coward]

Bear in mind that Schmidt is selling a good portion of his class A shares which only get one vote per share, but none of his class B shares which get 10 votes per share. I'm not sure how much this will affect the balance of shareholder voting, but he is still holding on to the more influential shares.

Re:Time to haul the red herrings

[Pinky's Brain]

As I said, be sure to stash some stuff on islands (ie. yachts, precious metals, lots of equipments including a bio-fuel plant etc etc). The revolution might confiscate wealth inside developed nations, but it's unlikely to come to more primitive island states with smaller legislatures and populations which are more easily controlled.

The plan is austerity, economic collapse and neo-feudalism though ... not revolution.

Re:Time to haul the red herrings

[Anonymous Coward]

True, but class A votes can be easily bought and compiled into a significant vote, just like what lobbyists do to the government.

Re:Time to haul the red herrings

[guttentag]

Diversifying investment portfolio is something that all good investors tend to do.

Agreed, but his Google assets were built by building up Google into one of the more diversified companies around. Sure they don't own any salt mines yet (depending on your definition of salt mine), but they went from building a search engine in Silicon Valley to laying fiber in Kansas, creating self-driving cars in Nevada, writing a cell-phone operating system used by manufacturers around the world, buying Motorola's cell phone business, operating stores for books, music and software, operating an email network that is contributing to the USPS's demise (I know, Congress is killing the USPS, but the growth of services like Gmail is a factor in the equation), operating a network of buses on 300 routes in the Bay Area, operating a video service so ubiquitous countries around the world complain when they do or do not pull controversial videos, operating a fleet of camera-wielding cars all over the world taking 360-degree photos, helping health officials track pandemics on a nationwide scale, investing in renewable energy, helping NORAD track Santa, and a million other random things that are pulling highly-skilled employees from fields that have nothing to do with selling ads and delivering search results.

Yes, 96% of their revenue comes from advertising programs, but it seems they've positioned themselves in other markets pretty well to support those advertising programs. I don't think he's worried about diversifying his own money. It's more likely he's taking a good chunk of his profits before the taxes on his profits get so high between the state and federal taxes that cashing out is a losing proposition. The NYTimes just ran a story 3 days ago pointing out that California millionaires are grumbling that between the two they are being taxed 51.9%, the highest personal income tax rate in the U.S. Regardless of whether he needs all that money, from a psychological standpoint, once you start paying more than half of what you earn in income taxes, you start to question why you're doing the job and whether it's still worth it.

Re: Time to haul the red herrings

[Anonymous Coward]

Investing is not only about profits... it's also about risks. The only way to get a good risk-return deal is to diversify your idiosyncratic risk (risk related to a single company, which is not rewarded in the stock price) and therefore be left with systemic risk only. Of course you can also buy influence with your shares but apparently he has enough influence as it is with his class B shares. Anyways, this is of course oversimplified but the main message is that Schmidt is way above your armchair financial expertise so you shouldn't presume to be able to guess what his actions mean.

Re:Time to haul the red herrings

[__aaltlg1547]

Is it "totally understandable"? Interest rates are basically zero, which means that taking money "here and now" doesn't gain him anything. He might want to invest elsewhere in order to diversify his portfolio but such a move would only make sense given an underlying principle that he a) suspects something may perform better than GOOG or b) has uncertainties about the future of GOOG (to the point where cashing out now and stuffing cash in his mattress is better than holding onto GOOG). It isn't to say either of those reasons are "bad" from a savvy-businessman point of view, but it also doesn't mean you can simply dismiss the action as "totally understandable" either.

It gains him not having all his money in one basket, and not tying all of his fortune to a company whose stock is at an all-time high and may be overvalued based on its possibly saturated growth potential.

Re:Time to haul the red herrings

[alexander_686]

Not that easy. Buying A class shares requi5es a lot of real money. After you get above 5% you have to start declaring things - like how much you own, how much you plan on buying, and why you are buying.

Re:Time to haul the red herrings

[ColdWetDog]

Dunno, 'herd' seems to fit better.

Or perhaps 'gaggle'.

Re:Time to haul the red herrings

[__aaltlg1547]

It's high risk. Having a large proportion of your personal wealth on one stock is ALWAYS high risk. That stock is at an all time high. P/E is at 24 and cash flow appears to be peaking.

That's not to say that they aren't in a good financial position. They are very strong but nobody can know the future. Moving a large portion of his investment to more conservative positions is prudent.

Re:Time to haul the red herrings

[mrmeval]

104 billion dollars? How much cultural impact can you have with that amount of cash? Diversifying to other investments would be part of it but with that level of wealth I suspect he'll be having a large cultural impact considering some of his statements.

Re:Time to haul the red herrings

[tibit]

He'd probably quadruple his money if he began short-selling construction stocks in Turkey right now :) They're setting themselves up for a big construction bust in a couple of years at most.

Re:Time to haul the red herrings

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes it's called "Retirement" and "Zombie survival underground"

Re:Time to haul the red herrings

[tjb]

Given that the Renimbi is formally pegged to the dollar by the PBoC, how would that change anything?

If the Chinese were to float their currency, their trade balance would reverse in a hurry, which is something that they definitely don't want.

Re:Time to haul the red herrings

[ducomputergeek]

Bill Gates did something like this too in the late 1990's. Again the reason was portfolio diversification. He then left as CEO within 2 years after that. So it was clear he was planning for his life after Microsoft at that point. I'm not sure what Schmidt's age is, but it could be something very similar.

Re:Time to haul the red herrings

[the eric conspiracy]

Primitive island states are unstable.

Plus it gets real boring to live on a place that you can circumnavigate in a couple of hours.

You are much better off in a small nation-state like Monaco or Jersey.

Re:Time to haul the red herrings

[Pinky's Brain]

That's what I meant, if it doesn't have sovereignty it's not really interesting ... although Monaco seems a much better idea than Jersey, too many plebs on Jersey with much more political power. Monaco is primitive in some ways.

Re:Time to haul the red herrings

[Vintermann]

One possibility is that he has some plan with the money besides diversifying - probably something charitable, or something idealistic that he couldn't get the two other on board with.

Re:Time to haul the red herrings

[Anonymous Coward]

It's also considered bad asset allocation to have too large a percentage of your investments in one single investment, especially one you have little to no control over. Given that he'll still have ~4m shares of Google, this seems like a long-overdue rebalancing of his portfolio.

Re:Time to haul the red herrings

[floatpt]

Diversifying investment portfolio is something that all good investors tend to do.

Agreed, but his Google assets were built by building up Google into one of the more diversified companies around. ...

While Google has its hands in alot of pies, that doesn't remotely count as diversified from an investment standpoint. Google is practically a tech sector pure play.

once you start paying more than half of what you earn in income taxes, you start to question why you're doing the job and whether it's still worth it.

Boy its tough being a billionaire and getting almost half your income taken. Almost makes one want to stop being a billionaire. Probably why we have such problems with an evaporating ultra wealthy class.

Re:Time to haul the red herrings

[floatpt]

... I don't think I'd worry about interest with that kind of scratch.

Quite the opposite. With that kind of scratch small percentages of interest one way or another make a HUGE difference. . d-_-b

Re:Time to haul the red herrings

[steelfood]

He's cashing out when he has the chance. I'd too. After all, owning too much Google stock prevents me from investing in or working on other things, especially stuff that might compete or be perceived to compete with Google.

Re:Time to haul the red herrings

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, if some millionaire starts to question why he's doing something maybe it's time for him to just stop doing it. He's already set for life. He doesn't really need more. Paying lots of taxes should be seen a s a good thing, as you are basically being a good citizen.

Re:Time to haul the red herrings

[BasilBrush]

Gaggle? Hmm... I'd go with a google of fanboys.

Re:Time to haul the red herrings

[mattack2]

That's because people that high up in companies sell automatically at predetermined times, so they can't be accused of insider trading.

i wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

how much tax he will end up paying when all is said and done.
i bet its a lot less than you or i would pay
captcha=dissuade

Re:i wonder

[anthony_greer]

capitol gains tax post fiscal cliff is about 23.5% IIRC...If he had done this in December, it would have been about 15%...If you factor the marginal income tax rate that most people pay, the average federal income tax comes out to about 18-21% based on actual household income (for normal households of say 30k - about 2500 k)

The real benny comes in with no SS or Medicare taxation.

Re:i wonder

[the eric conspiracy]

Depends on your income. For Eric Schmidt long term cap gains will be 23.5.

This Eric pays 15%.

My kids pay 0%.

Microsoft 2.0

[anthony_greer]

Seems to me like GOOG is where MSFT was in the early 2000s. The search business and cell phone platform business are both relatively mature and while other things may be growing, they are inconsequential in the over all picture of GOOG, Since there will be no more 10-25% year on year growth, the Wall Street guys will let the stock stagnate and not grow...If I owned any GOOG, I would sell too!

The stock is sky high at the moment

[hsmith]

He'd be an idiot not to, just look at the price.

Re:The stock is sky high at the moment

[Anonymous Coward]

You probably wrote that one one of these...

Re:The stock is sky high at the moment

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha!

Insight into Google's legislative future.

[hessian]

Here's a hypothesis:

Google beat the last challenge from the antitrust attorneys from Texas, but it can't count on the future.

Specifically, other states or federal entities could attack it, and then there's all of the EU, which traditionally takes a harder line on privacy violation and monopoly.

Schmidt is no dummy and so he's divesting a reasonable amount (less than half) of his stock to hedge against a potential catastrophic future decline.

Remember what happened to Microsoft. They basically floundered hard after an assault by the department of justice. If the same happens to Google, they'll have to put most of their plans on hold for a decade as well.

When the Billionaire makes a move...

[rmdingler]

It's news for a reason. It seems unlikely he is strapped for cash, and as he's acting Executive Chairman of Google, a significant stock sale has to mean he's convinced the market capitalization for his Outfit has peaked. Often, if you look way up ahead in the distance, you can just make out the Captain running ahead of all those rats.

Re:When the Billionaire makes a move...

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, almost $800 per share. Anyone who thinks it hasn't peaked can just look at Apple, who is now a litle more than half that - when they were equal just a matter of months ago. Hell yes now is the time to sell. The bump will happen to Google, too, and its stock will drop and that much of a shit is huge money when talking about millions of shares. Not scary news, just smart money keeping smart money.

Re:When the Billionaire makes a move...

[Charliemopps]

Yes, but google has room to grown. I'd be surprised if Apple did anything interesting in the next year, I expect it of Google.

Re:When the Billionaire makes a move...

[dkf]

It's news for a reason. It seems unlikely he is strapped for cash, and as he's acting Executive Chairman of Google, a significant stock sale has to mean he's convinced the market capitalization for his Outfit has peaked.

Or it might just be that he's planning to do a substantial investment in something else and thinks this is a tax-advantageous way to raise the capital. (I've no idea what his acquisition price was, but you can bet it was a lot lower than now. It's not real profit until you sell.) There's no way to work it out for sure at the moment, since he's under no obligation to tell you what he'll be doing with the proceeds.

On the other hand, if he was truly worried he'd be actually looking to sell a larger fraction of his holding. If you're jumping off a sinking ship, it makes sense to not be tied to its anchor!

Re:When the Billionaire makes a move...

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering that the DJIA is an average of selected stock prices, you may want to rethink that.

Of course, GOOG doesn't have nearly the earnings that, say, Berkshire Hathaway does. But no credible analyst will say that it's impossible for Google to improve their earnings. Armchair analysts have been predicting Google's fall at various points since the financial crisis, and, well, they've been both correct and incorrect, because those who bought after Wall Streeters panicked now have increased returns. The question is not "Will Google's share price fall?", but rather "Do I need the money invested in GOOG elsewhere?"

Seeing as how Google still holds the online ad market and the lion's share of the smartphone market via Android, Facebook is still trying to figure out how to steal personal info without getting in trouble for it, and Apple is still trying to figure out what to do next post-Jobs, I would at least hold GOOG if I didn't immediately need that money. The "skunkworks" culture is their wild card, and I'd be surprised if some amazing new ideas don't start making money for them.

Re:When the Billionaire makes a move...

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

You are assuming that he wants to maximize his personal return. The amount of money is so huge usually they don't worry about maximizing their returns. They usually start thinking about leaving a lasting legacy so they cash out to fund a charity or political organization. Everyone has exactly 24 hours a day. He might decide to spend more time on a cause that is dear to his heart than managing a tough highly competitive business that keeps everyone on their toes.

Re:When the Billionaire makes a move...

[alen]

Last earnings announcement the gross margins fell which is a precursor to a falling stock price a lot of times

Revenue and earnings went up but falling gross margins is a bad long term thing

Re:When the Billionaire makes a move...

[dnaumov]

Except, of course, that nominal price doesnt say ANYTHING about whether a stock is cheap or expensive. A 1000$ stock can be cheap and a 5$ stock can be outrageously expensive.

Re:When the Billionaire makes a move...

[epSos-de]

The Google CEO is aware of the coming inflation of the USD, which will plummet US stock, because the international investors will relocate the assets to other countries in case of an inflation. The inflation is needed to reduce the US debt. Or did you really think that the USA is going to create more money out of nothing. They will just make the debt less valuable and pay off with ease. He is actually behind schedule, becasue other super rich people already dumped the stocks from USA. China will demand payment very soon, so that the inflation is the only possible way of reducing the value of the debt in a quick way.

Re:When the Billionaire makes a move...

[alexander_686]

I like most of your post, but I think you are wrong on this point.

If you donate stock you can deduct the full market price from your tax returns. If he sells the stock first he has to pay capital gains first. So it is always better to gift Google stock to a charity then to sell the stock and gift the money - i.e. the charity will always end up with more money. (Now, the first thing most charities will do is to sell the stock).

Re:When the Billionaire makes a move...

[tibit]

But those charities don't pay any taxes on such stock sales, right? :)

Re:When the Billionaire makes a move...

[alexander_686]

And how/why would they?

Case #1: I donate $100 in cash to a charity.

Case #2: I donate $100 in stock to a charity. That stock has some unrealized capital gain.

From the charity viewpoint, how would they know what tax they should pay? For the gifter's standpoint – they are donating exactly the same value – right?

Re:When the Billionaire makes a move...

[alexander_686]

Except that in inflationary periods, real assets don't fall in value. In fact they may go up in value because people value those real assets. If you are looking for a hedge against inflation stocks are a good way to good. Then add in that a fair chunk of Google's profits comes from overseas.

Re:When the Billionaire makes a move...

[Anonymous Coward]

A couple of years ago, I sold one of my shares of google and bought two shares of aapl. Today those two shares are worth 950 while my one google share is only worth 785.

Re:When the Billionaire makes a move...

[bill_mcgonigle]

It seems unlikely he is strapped for cash

That all depends on what level you set 'strapped' at. It seems likely that he won't be sitting on this money - it's much more likely that he has an investment in mind, probably a new company, with a faster growth rate potential than Google. Google can be completely financially sound and still have a slower growth rate than a risky startup.

Re:When the Billionaire makes a move...

[tjb]

China will demand payment very soon

Bonds don't work that way! You buy a bond with a coupon schedule, you get paid on that schedule and then, at the end of the term, you receive the principle back.

Where on earth do people get these bizarre ideas about "demanding payment"?

If the Chinese elect not to roll those bonds over, the renimbi peg to the dollar falls apart, their currency skyrockets and their trade flows reverse. A country's capital account MUST equal the opposite of their current account - this is the economic equivalent of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Any country running a trade surplus with the US is more or less forced to buy dollar-denominated assets (stocks, bonds, etc.) in exact proportion to their net trade flows - what the heck else are they going to do with those dollars?

Re:When the Billionaire makes a move...

[thetoadwarrior]

Not if they're taken to court of unfair business practices in Europe or elsewhere. They can't really grow in search anymore and they won't have 100% of the smartphone market ever so they've possibly reached their limit there. Google glasses almost certainly won't be anything special. Where they can they go with maps or any of their other big products?

Google has enough going for it to maintain their position but I'm not entirely sure they can grow much more.

Re:When the Billionaire makes a move...

[swb]

China can demand all they want but the bummer for them is that the debt is denominated in our own sovereign currency. We can just print cash to pay them if we want.

We could also just decide to void that debt and not repay it. It would substantive consequences, but those may be more ambiguous than whatever action the Chinese were considering.

I think the primary reason they buy Treasuries is to keep their currency in check. Getting paid back is nice, but I'm pretty sure investment isn't the principal goal.

Re:When the Billionaire makes a move...

[deek]

That is, of course, unless the charity is the US Govt. I hear they need some money to pay off a few debts. Eric may be doing it this way to give them a helping hand.

Re:When the Billionaire makes a move...

[Namarrgon]

If you'd traded those aapl shares for goog six months ago, they'd be worth 1570.

Re:When the Billionaire makes a move...

[Prof.Phreak]

Hard assets don't usually fall... stocks with lots of future optimism priced into them often do.

Re:When the Billionaire makes a move...

[tgd]

Yes, but google has room to grown. I'd be surprised if Apple did anything interesting in the next year, I expect it of Google.

Google is an advertising company that has blown massive amounts of money on side products that have effectively been loss-leaders for their advertising revenue.

The thing about advertising, though -- the more people see, the less its worth.

Google doing something "interesting" is of virtually zero value from an investment standpoint if they can't convert to revenue, and so far they've shown even their biggest bets (like Android) haven't.

Re:When the Billionaire makes a move...

[tibit]

They would know what tax to pay exactly the way me and you know. The stock would need to come with purchase records.

This doesn't mean that I think charities should pay such taxes, just that it's wouldn't be a technical problem at all.

Re:When the Billionaire makes a move...

[Methlin]

... virtually zero value from an investment standpoint if they can't convert to revenue ...

Like say for instance, Facebook, or Instagram.

Re:When the Billionaire makes a move...

[volmtech]

Oil, grain, timber, coal, and a whole lot more, most countries accept dollars in payment for raw materials.

Re:When the Billionaire makes a move...

[mattack2]

Um, almost $800 per share. Anyone who thinks it hasn't peaked can just look at Apple, who is now a litle more than half that - when they were equal just a matter of months ago.

What bozo modded that insightful?

Comparing stock prices directly is completely meaningless. (I was going to try to joke that it's like comparing Apples and Googles, but I think some wouldn't get it.)

Compare P/E, total market capitalization, or something else relevant. The share price is completely irrelevant, because a company can split or reverse split at any time.

(I have made money by buying before a split and selling afterwards, to profit off of the same people who think "the share price is now half what it used to be, it must be cheap", which often causes a brief *illogical* pop in the share price.)

time to buy microsoft stock

[Anonymous Coward]

the bear must have google in its sights

Google 9

[Anonymous Coward]

/tongue in cheek on.....
Maybe he is getting ready due to Microsoft ATE [At The End...) failing by selling 42% of Google to buy 100% of Microsoft

Insider Trading???

[wisnoskij]

I am not exactly sure what insider trading is, but since he not only knows the inner workings of Google but controls them, how is this not insider trading?

It would be pretty simple for him to influence stock price right before he sells, and theoretically influence it down right before he buys back stock. Hell, it would be simple enough to lower the stock price or rise the stock price of other companies. Just announce that Google plans on competing with company X; Stock falls and he can quietly buy up a big chunk; Then announce that they decided to work together and corner the market with a new wonder device; Stock raises.

Re:Insider Trading???

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not insider trading when you are rich and powerful.

Re:Insider Trading???

[sunderland56]

I am not exactly sure what insider trading is, but since he not only knows the inner workings of Google but controls them, how is this not insider trading?

It *IS* insider trading. Any CEO selling their own stock is insider trading. That is why the SEC requires documentation and a public disclosure of any potential transaction before the sale happens, which is what the linked document is. The SEC cannot prohibit such sales, but they do put them under extremely tight restrictions - such as preventing such sales near the end of a quarter, when financial results are known internally but not yet released.

It is important to note that this does not mean that Eric *is* going to sell 42% of his stake, it means that he is now *allowed* to sell *up to* 42% of the stock. Many such filings end up with a smaller amount sold.

Re:Insider Trading???

[Shompol]

...and that is exactly why company management is required to declare all such things publicly in advance. This way all investors can see what's cooking.

Re:Insider Trading???

[LMariachi]

All trades of stock by that corporation's officers are "insider trading;" the question would be whether it's illegal insider trading. In a nutshell, if he knows about something that the public doesn't and trades based on that knowledge, it's illegal. (Although the Zynga guys seem to be getting away with it so far.) Since he's such a large shareholder, anything he does is going to have some effect on the price, so it's hard to say whether he sold because he knew it was about to drop or it dropped because he sold.

Re:Insider Trading???

[alexander_686]

Excellent post.

For finer detail you notice that Schmidt has file a “plan” to sell 2.4b over the next year. That plan gets handed over to a 3rd outside party so Schmidt is removed from the timing and execution of said plan. So, at this point everybody on a level playing field.

Re:Insider Trading???

[TubeSteak]

For finer detail you notice that Schmidt has file a âoeplanâ to sell 2.4b over the next year. That plan gets handed over to a 3rd outside party so Schmidt is removed from the timing and execution of said plan. So, at this point everybody on a level playing field.

One game executives can play is to have several "plans" at any one time.
These plans can be suspended and resumed as needed, in order to match actions to the stock price.

It lets them use their insider knowledge and deflect scrutiny by saying "look, I have a plan approved by the SEC!"

"42% of stake"

[Arancaytar]

Careful with the vagueness there. That's 42% of his stake in Google, not to be confused with 42% of the company's stock.

Re:"42% of stake"

[Anonymous Coward]

mod parent up.
This is an important point.

Re:"42% of stake"

[jordonwii]

Thanks for that. I didn't notice that keyword there.

Re:"42% of stake"

[giorgist]

Much like bidding $Pi Billion dollars, is selling the meaning of life in shares something to worry about ?

Taxes aren't the problem either

[Anonymous Coward]

In Europe taxes are spent largely on public works, public health, and public services, so taxes are not a net loss for citizens but contribute directly to their welfare and to the smooth running of society for the man in the street.

The difference in the US isn't so much in the rate of taxation, but what is done with your tax dollars. They're not spent for the social good to any large degree, but fund the huge military complex and benefit the rich more than the poor. (Here the rich pay much more tax than anyone else.)

The US "misery" problem to which you refer is much more deeply rooted than could be solved by changing the rate of taxation. It can't. Your society is structured to create misery.

Re:Taxes aren't the problem either

[lucm]

European "wealth" has been built on the blood and misery of others. Namely: colonies. And of course since there are no more colonies, many European countries are going bankrupt, fast. France, Italy, Spain, etc.

So you guys got to learn how to work and make money yourselves, then you can give lessons about tax.

Re:Taxes aren't the problem either

[bondsbw]

That huge military complex is helping to protect the people of the United States (both poor and rich). It's also helping to protect Europe and the rest of the globe.

As a US citizen, I would love for more US tax dollars could be used for domestic social services. As it stands, Europe as a whole would rather keep their tax dollars at home and let the US police the world. (This is one reason it is unfair to compare tax rates and social benefits; Europeans seem to forget the foreign aid the receive in military support.)

Re:Taxes aren't the problem either

[steelfood]

The military complex is part of the problem. But what's more visible are the contractors and their sub-contractors, wasting away taxpayer dollars. That's what's causing the big government backlash recently.

Most people don't care that half of our tax dollars are funded for military research. After all, part of that goes to DARPA, which gave us the internet. However, it's a bit upsetting when we see the government pissing out tax dollars away by paying a contractor several hundred dollars an hour for three or four people to stand around and drink coffee for six out of eight hours a day.

Re:Taxes aren't the problem either

[xQx]

I live in one of the colonies.

And I'll tell ya - I'd rather be poor in Australia than rich in England.

Actually, Truth be told, I'd rather be rich in England, but like, Robbie Williams rich, not just 'I own a BMW and my house in London' rich.

Because you can be poor in Australia and have a BMW and your own house. But Australia's got two other awesome things that London doesn't got - Sunshine, lots of it, and beaches lots of that too. (oh, and a whole lot of land that we're making a killing digging up and selling to the Chinese)
(and when I say beaches, I mean white or yellow sand and surf. I don't care what you call that place where water meets land in Brighton, but it's not a beach.)

So yeah, I don't mind paying my taxes back to the old country, I just see it as an annuity we're paying back to the people who stole this land from it's traditional owners and gave it to us - the poor sun-tanned over-taxed beach-bums of the colonies.

Re:Taxes aren't the problem either

[Anonymous Coward]

As a US citizen, I would love for more US tax dollars could be used for domestic social services. As it stands, Europe as a whole would rather keep their tax dollars at home and let the US police the world. (This is one reason it is unfair to compare tax rates and social benefits; Europeans seem to forget the foreign aid the receive in military support.)

Maybe Europeans (and others) do not want this help.

Re:Taxes aren't the problem either

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, dear... Are you joking or are you actually serious?

It's also helping to protect Europe and the rest of the globe.

Bullshit.

The US isn't protecting anyone but itself. The only reason the US is out meddling in the affairs of other countries around the globe is to protect its own interests, and nobody else's.

As it stands, Europe as a whole would rather keep their tax dollars at home and let the US police the world.

Err, no. Would you please be so kind as to fuck off from the rest of the world, go home, and stay there?

Thank you,

The rest of the world

Re:Taxes aren't the problem either

[Inda]

Hey, that's not fair. We had some wonderfully hot sunshine last year, in the last week of July.

And while you wont find surf in Brighton (strange example to give btw), you'll find it on the south west coast. Some of the best waves in the world, so I'm told. They even have some yellow sand too.

All the bars are full of Australians, in all parts of England. We need someone to serve the drinks!

Re:Taxes aren't the problem either

[bjdevil66]

Your society is structured to create misery.

True. Our entire society has become one that doesn't take responsibility for its actions because nobody is holding us accountable for our fiscal and social irresponsibility - yet. Until then, we'll just keep on driving towards the fiscal day in the not-too-distant future, when our country will become "nothing but an old-folks home with an army."

And if things still didn't change when creditors start calling the American Bluff, then everyone but the truly wealthy would then be facing the prospect of living in the misery of a collapsed and/or powerless government - and the chaos and death that would surely follow.

The sad part is that the financial problems (and the social imbalances involved in the government's spending plans) could be fixed quite quickly if the poor had to actually start paying federal income taxes - even if it was a really small amount, or just a piece of those Earned Income Credit freebies they get annually (i.e. "no more welfare until you pay your taxes this year".) If those people suddenly felt like they had some skin in the game - even if only to keep the welfare checks and other freebies coming - they'd wake up pretty quickly to balancing the budget and the population's real needs. At that point, BOTH parties would have to work to balance the budget, and (at least temporarily) kick corporate lobbyist pressure to the side to get it done.

Re:Taxes aren't the problem either

[anguirus.x]

In Europe taxes are spent largely on public works, public health, and public services, so taxes are not a net loss for citizens but contribute directly to their welfare and to the smooth running of society for the man in the street.

The difference in the US isn't so much in the rate of taxation, but what is done with your tax dollars. They're not spent for the social good to any large degree, but fund the huge military complex and benefit the rich more than the poor. (Here the rich pay much more tax than anyone else.)

The US "misery" problem to which you refer is much more deeply rooted than could be solved by changing the rate of taxation. It can't. Your society is structured to create misery.

My favorite: Private citizen wants to develop some land they don't own, but they can't afford to buy. Government steps in and gives them tax dollars. Land gets purchased and developed, property values go up, everyone connected to the deal gets their kick-backs, and Joe Public gets a decaying city.

Schmidt's coke whores need more money

[WOOFYGOOFY]

for "rehabilitation"

https://gawker.com/5475332/the-google-ceo-and-his-mistress-the-tell+all-blog

Sucks to be p0wned, doesn't it Dr. Feelgood.. er, Eric?

JavaScript Injection

[Anonymous Coward]

[NoScript InjectionChecker] JavaScript Injection in coalesced:///site/4459ret=html&limit=10&r=63822&phint=adZone=news_singlepost, serverDomain=allthingsd.com, primaryProduct=All Things D, pageName=ATD_Mike Isaac_Google Chairman Eric Schmidt to Sell Up to 42 Percent of Stake, articleType=ATD_Blog_News, section=ATD_News, subSection=ATD_News, contentType=blogs, contentChannel=Blogs, isSub=yes, edition=ATD_Blog_News_Google Chairman Eric Schmidt to Sell Up to 42 Percent of Stake, referer=tech.slashdot.org, adSection=allthingsd.com, __bk_k=Google Chairman Eric Schmidt to Sell Up to 3.2 Million Company Shares - Mike Isaac - News - AllThingsD, __bk_k=general, news, assets, chairman, eric schmidt, google, liquidity, stake, stock
(function anonymous() {
adZone=news_singlepost, serverDomain=allthingsd.com, primaryProduct=All /* COMMENT_TERMINATOR */
DUMMY_EXPR
})

JavaScript Injection

[awpoopy]

Got the XSS alert when clicking on that link.

Stock is risk, cash in hand isn't.

[caveat]

I'm getting a price for GOOG of $785. That's $2,512,000,000 of literal cash under the mattress. IT's not that GOOG is a particularly risky stock, but money in the bank is more or less zero-risk; putting enough away to live like a king for the rest of your days certainly seems to me the absolutely perfect retirement strategy.

Re:Stock is risk, cash in hand isn't.

[SteveFoerster]

In an era of "quantitative easement", leaving money in the bank does involve risk.

Re:Stock is risk, cash in hand isn't.

[Vintermann]

It's called quantitative easing. But the relationship of that policy with inflation is a lot more complex than some people would have it, it might well have been riskier to not do it - even for people with billions in the bank.

Re:Stock is risk, cash in hand isn't.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thinking banks being risk free is very stupid. Next time they may not be too big to fall. Bye bye money.

Re:Stock is risk, cash in hand isn't.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called quantitative easing. But the relationship of that policy with inflation is a lot more complex than some people would have it, it might well have been riskier to not do it - even for people with billions in the bank.

Riskier for the feds, sure, but jacking up the money supply by a few tens of trillions is always going to create downward pressure on the dollar. It may happen that prices don't increase much due to other factors because gasp, the economy has a lot of moving parts.

and he wants to "TANK" another company

[Anonymous Coward]

RIP NOVELL

Stuffed shirt

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like the little Schmidt is on his way out. NK visit didn't go too well either.

Tax system needs overhaul

[Anonymous Coward]

One big problem with our tax system is that it taxes work far more than wealth. Tax rates on earned income are high, taxes on dividends and capital gains are low. So a very high-paid individual (think good actors, sports figures, etc.) who may bring in $10 million of annual earned income gets taxed at ~50%, while someone who collects $10 million in dividends annually gets taxes at 15%. And the larger tax on work extends way down into middle class incomes, where it constrains people much more than it does my hypothetical high earned-income worker.

I would like to try it the other way around for a bit, or at least bring the two rates nearer one another. Haven't the time to push the numbers, but I wonder what the revenue implications would be if we taxes earned income, dividends, and cap gains all at 25%. There's probably a more balanced mix of rates that would bring in plenty of revenue and ease the disproportionate tax burden on work.

Re:Tax system needs overhaul

[Stormthirst]

Or at least "earned income is earned income". The income you make from investments, and the income you make from working should be taxed at the same rate. Then there wouldn't be any of this bullshit Rmoney pulls where he delivers a speech to a company (which, lacking a better term, is work) and yet his accountants put it down as an investment in the company and there for is taxed at 15%. And yes, if you make a bad investment, you get to write off that bad investment against the good investments. But at the end of the day, earned income is earned income - and that decides what rate you pay income tax at.

Impending Market Correction / Crash

[wasteoid]

He's selling his stocks, as other billionaires are doing, to get out of the stock market before it crashes again: http://www.newsmax.com/newswidget/billionaires-dump-economist-stock/2012/08/29/id/450265

Fuck him

[Anonymous Coward]

Eric Shitt is an arrogant asshole.

Cash Billionaire?

[Bigby]

If he sells it all, will he be the first all cash billionaire, if only for a minute before he converts them to Treasuries, bonds, and other stocks?

Nobody mentioned his $1.5B divorce?

[Namarrgon]

Wasn't that long ago, and certainly cut into his spare cash. Also, Planetary Resources, Inc probably needs cash soon.

Hell Yeah!

[xQx]

We should get rid of the whole huge military complex and replace it with drones.

We need flying drones, walking drones, floating drones and rolling drones.

Then we need to replace the current people who are flying this generation of drones with drones.

We can get piloting drones, strategy drones, driving drones, refueling drones and engineering drones.

Once we have that in place, Obama and Panetta can run the entire conflict without the need for any 'military complex'.

FREEDOM!!!!

Which only leaves the question - what does America do to employ it's 3.2 million servicemen and servicewomen who would then be unemployed and unskilled at anything useful?

Re:Hell Yeah!

[Anonymous Coward]

Which only leaves the question - what does America do to employ it's 3.2 million servicemen and servicewomen who would then be unemployed and unskilled at anything useful?

Cops so they can be part of the prison complex

Socialism clearly worked in Russia

[Ifthir]

They seem to enjoy so many freedoms.

buying bitcoins

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps he is using the dollar coins to buy bitcoins.