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.'"

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: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.

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:Capitalism is failing

[Charliemopps]

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

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.

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: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.