BP chief Tony Hayward sold shares weeks before oil spill

[ensho]

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


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.


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.
-snip-
----------------------------


remember after 9/11 we put those stickers on our cars that said 'Bush Knew'

[dipsydoodle]

1. continues to say................

There is no suggestion that he acted improperly or had prior knowledge that the company was to face the biggest setback in its history.

[cbdo2007]

2. So your theory is....

That instead of him spending $50 Million of the company's money to fix the problems and be a hero by helping BP get oil successfully from one of the biggest reserves from the Gulf and ensure himself $$Millions$$ more in bonuses and payouts from this....

he decided to cash out a few million dollars in shares for a giant disaster he knew was going to happen that he would probably end up losing his job over?

[meeshrox]

4. Best reply to this dumb theory I've read ever! Thanks! nt

[Peace Patriot]

7. Well, the answer to the "dumb theory" is as speculative as the "dumb theory."

Who knows what complex of motives might have prompted either neglect/malfeasance or sabotage, or something in between, say profiteering from rumors within a company that cutbacks in safety procedures will result in a blowout, or profiteering from some sort of passive or active complicity?

Given that nearly a dozen people DIED, and given that fact alone, there should be a rip-roaring investigation into every person and decision involved, including their motives for whatever part they played. Sabotage cannot be ruled out, since there has, so far, been no definitive explanation of what actually happened and why--as I point out below. And given the long term impacts--which are staggering--there is all that reason to investigate every possibility, as to cause. A possible MOTIVE turning up, for sabotage or complicity in sabotage, should not be ignored. It would, in truth, be blindness and stupidity to ignore it.

[meeshrox]

11. I'm sure the Justice Department will find out something about this.

I love a good conspiracy theory myself, but this is not a good one. As much as I would love to see Halliburton die a horrible death, I'm pretty sure that sabotage is not needed here. Negligence is sufficient.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5rRZdiu1UE

[ensho]

5. why would he sell off 1/3 of his stocks?

nt

[Ruby the Liberal]

10. To pay off his mortgage, which he did.

This is a nonsense conspiracy theory. As CEO, he is required by law to schedule and report his sales and purchases of his own company stock. He doesn't have the luxury to buy/sell on a whim like non-executives/directors can.

Unrec'd

[SidDithers]

16. Why would he keep 2/3 of his stock?...nt

Sid

[Statistical]

8. Not to mention personally loses tens of millions more on the shares he didn't sell.

:)

[SidDithers]

15. +1...nt

Sid

[dems_rightnow]

17. Makes sense to me.... LOL

Dear God, the dumb sometimes.............

[Peace Patriot]

3. There was news the other day, here at DU, that Goldman Sachs also sold off its BP shares

shortly before the disaster. I had only just begun to ask the "Who benefits?" question. Is there a possible motive for sabotage? And, has the initial explosion been adequately explained? In one article, BP seemed to be pointing the finger at Halliburton--re, contamination of the cement that Halliburton was using to plug the well just before the explosion occurred. But this suggestion was framed as a "maybe"--the cement "might have been contaminated." I have seen no definitive explanation of what ACTUALLY happened--as opposed to guesses and various kinds of blame-throwing. Both of these questions need to be thoroughly investigated. What actually happened, and why? And is there a beneficiary of this horror, that points to sabotage?

[Are_grits_groceries]

6. Goldman Sachs and Hayward:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8490972

[meeshrox]

9. Like I said on that thread: it's called high volume trading

and they buy/sell almost their entire portfolios everyday. That's how the system works, no matter how fucked up it is.

[Ruby the Liberal]

13. If they were to 'benefit', they add short positions.

Illegal for Heyward to short his own company, but if you can prove Goldman took a massive short position in BP, I will pay attention.

Until then, it is a non-story.

[gravity]

12. Tony Hayward can't see into the future

and if he did, he would have prevented this mess to begin with. He would have saved his company billions of dollars, his reputation, job security and the value of the other 2/3rds of his holdings.

CEO's sell stock all the time for various reasons. Usually if it happens at a good time, it is by blind luck.

[nevergiveup]

14. Nah, I aint' buying any conspiracy theory

about his stock trade but nevertheless I truly believe Tony belongs in an orange jumpsuit

[profile this]

18. Good to know

his home is paid off. I hate him even more now.