Goldman Sachs sell 44% of its BP shares, days before the oil spill

the_dark_side

http://www.constitutionalrepublicparty.org/2010/06/04/why-did-goldman-sacs-dump-bp-share-two-days-before-spill/


and as well as that, BP chief Tony Heyward, sold 1.4 million of his BP shares weeks before the disaster

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/7804922/BP-chief-Tony-Hayward-sold-shares-weeks-before-oil-spill.html

What did they know or hear to warrant them to act in such a way?

reprazant

Heyward sold a month before the accident. The article is about the amount he made in comparison to if he had left it till later.

I have no idea about Goldman Sachs but, like Heyward, they did not sell all their stock. It is more than likely entirely coincidental.

Edit: Actually, according to the original article, what Goldman Sachs did was compeltely normal.

he 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.

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.

Stercus Accidit

Reports from engineers on an imminent failure and spill? The share price would have dropped for even a minor spill, buy back just before you are informed the fix would happen and values go up.

This is less a conspiracy and more likely insider trading.

thecommander

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

This is less a conspiracy and more likely insider trading.

Isn't insider trading a conspiracy?

alastair

reprazant wrote: »

Heyward sold a month before the accident. The article is about the amount he made in comparison to if he had left it till later.

I have no idea about Goldman Sachs but, like Heyward, they did not sell all their stock. It is more than likely entirely coincidental.

The article states that the Goldman Sachs sale was over the 3 months of the first quarter - not 'days before' the spill.

the_dark_side

alastair wrote: »

The article states that the Goldman Sachs sale was over the 3 months of the first quarter - not 'days before' the spill.

yes, the original article heading is misleading.. you could put it down to coincidence then I suppose, no biggy... I thought if I posted this on AH, it would be catagorised as CT straight away