Weird, weird, weird. But true.
Yesterday the Buck campaign put out a press release attempting to criticize Senator Bennet for owning stocks in specific companies which, according to the Buck campaign, are companies “…with ties to tyrannical regimes and genocide should be of great concern the people of Colorado.”
But, the harsh reality is all the investments mentioned by Buck have not been held by Senator Bennet since before he was a senator. In other words, Bennet divested several investments prior to January 2009, including any and all that are referenced by John Swartout, Buck’s campaign manager.
However, several of those same companies are investments held by Buck.
According to the Personal Financial Disclosure Buck filed, he holds investments in all of these companies:
CNOOC [Vanguard International Growth Fund Annual Fund, 8/31/09]
CGazprom [Vanguard International Growth Fund Annual Fund, 8/31/09]
PetroChina [Vanguard Emerging Markets Stock Index Fund Annual Fund, 10/31/09]
Huaneng Power International [Vanguard Emerging Markets Stock Index Fund Annual Fund, 10/31/09]
Some of the Other Companies Operating In Iran Which Buck Invests in and His Own Criticisms Would Also Apply to:
Total [Vanguard International Growth Fund Annual Fund, 8/31/09]
Statoil [Vanguard International Growth Fund Annual Fund, 8/31/09]
Royal Dutch Shell [Vanguard Emerging Markets Stock Index Fund Annual Fund, 10/31/09]
Lukoil [Vanguard Emerging Markets Stock Index Fund Annual Fund, 10/31/09]
PTT Public Company Limited [Vanguard Emerging Markets Stock Index Fund Annual Fund, 10/31/09]
SinoPec [Vanguard Emerging Markets Stock Index Fund Annual Fund, 10/31/09]
PetroBras [Vanguard International Growth Fund Annual Fund, 8/31/09]
Duh, MADCO, duh.
But it’s not a concern that anyone else has. I mean, after all, Buck is so for real cool that it cancels the bad out. MADCO, you tool.
How dare you?!? I demand you be banned for life!
Claiming ownership of stock in individual companies when each is a part of a mutual fund is ignorance beyond comprehension. Oh well desperate times bring out desperate shills.
Did you see the Denver Post endorsed Gardner. Even the liberal media is breaking from the extreme politics of Obama and his happy band of puppets.
as the campaign quotes Swartout claiming, then the mutual funds are bad. And Buck should know better.
Next thing you’ll be claiming that when the search warrant says you can get a couple of dozen files, it was ok to clean out that office of thousands of unrelated files. I mean files are files, right? And they all look alike.
I am not saying Buck went to Darfur or China or the Sudan and got directly involved. I’m saying if he was aiming for positive returns on his investments, and he cared about China, and the Sudan and Darfur, he should have cared enough to pick other mutual funds. At a minimum I’m saying Swartout should have confirmed whether Bennet owned any of the referenced investments since he was Senator – he has not – and whether Buck owned any of them when he filed his financial disclosure – he did.
Woo-hoo!- the Denver paper endorsed a guy. They endorsed Hickinlooper too – is that what’s going to put him over the top?
are ironic when they come from the guy who accuses people of socialism but never even studied what that is. Guess it takes one to know one, eh, colawman?
Do you post from your official work computer?
However, given Dean Singleton’s rabid anti-union stance, Betsy lost the Post endorsement as soon as she co-sponsored EFCA. Hitler could have run against her, and the Post would have endorsed him.
Rep. Markey (CD-7, MA)
If you are going to change my titles in diaries that are not promoted because they are not truthful, when you put the Pols blessing and recommend them I am sure you will apply the same rigorous scrutiny. Did Buck’s campaing manager really attack Buck? No. Is the headline truthful? No. Are you going to apply the same standard as you applied to my title yesterday?
I think MADCO forgot the ellipsis. The original headline is:
Buck Campaign Manager Attacks Bennet About Investing in Bad Companies but Buck Owns Stock in Same Companies So It’s Really Like He’s Attacking Buck
but we all know that’s too long for a headline. It should be updated to:
Buck Campaign Manager Attacks … Buck
Buck does not own stock in the same companies, but you would need to understand something about stocks or be honest to note the distinction. I am not sure which applies to you, but I am sure you can figure out which it is.
The mutual fund acts as manager, proxy and custodian for its shareholders’ assets. The fund investors still are providing investment capital that supports the companies the fund holds as securities. Saying Buck doesn’t own the stocks is like saying you’re not an American because you don’t live in North Carolina.
Besides, if he conceptually is so opposed to supporting the named companies by providing them with investment backing, Buck easily could vet his mutual fund investments and avoid those with holdings in said companies. People and institutions do it all the time, if they’re really sincere about avoiding such investments.
doesn’t mean…. well, it just means….
It doesn’t mean anything. Well said.
The mutual fund then buys and sells shares of stocks which the fund owns.
Still having trouble keeping up?
but it’s not ok to own the share in the company.
By that twist of logic, VWIGX would be the bad actor that according to the Buck campaign no one should be involved with…… except, of course, Buck.
Apparantly your friends at ColoradoPols are not concerned if the object of your dishonesty is Buck.
I’m not sure if you can call it parody when it’s factually correct. But then again, one man’s parody is another man’s pair o’socks.
Stock is a way to own part of a company. Typically, companies either get their capital funding from owners (equity) or lenders (debt) or both. And the stocks represent a fractional share of the ownership (equity).
You and colaman are misleading people when you suggest that investing by owning stock and investing by owning another company that owns the stock are somehow not the same ownership claim.
Let’s just use CNOOC (CEO) as an example. (fka China National Offshore Oil Corporation – they changed the name to CNOOC Ltd and the stock ticker symbol is CEO. I don’t have the CUSIP, but you could look it up if it matters.)
CNOOC is apparently focused on oil production outside of China. And is a publicly traded company, meaning anyone can buy shares of stock and look up all kinds of information about the company. (see http://finance.yahoo.com/q?d=t…
Bennet did – though he sold his stock before he became a Senator. Buck, instead, bought shares of the Vanguard International Growth Fund (VWIGX), which invested in CNOOC and dozens or even hundreds of other companies. That Vanguard fund is another company specifically formed to buy ownership interests in other companies, namely by acquiring publicly traded stocks. Sometimes companies like this, “mutual funds”, are also publicly traded. Sometimes not. But either way, in the case of VWIGX there is all kinds of publicly available information. (see http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=v…
Now, here comes the ownership confirmation. When CNOOC has good years and declares a dividend (CNOOC has had some very, very good years*) all the shareholders (in the declared dividend class) get paid. When that happens, CNOOC sends the owners a check. In this example, Bennet before 2009 or VWIGX since whenever.
So the distinction you and colaman claim makes so much difference that Swartouts ranting is somehow only relevant to (former) owners of the stock, is that Bennet owned the shares directly, and got dividends directly. Whereas Buck owns VWIGX and when those dividends are paid, the check goes to VWIGX and Buck sees his gain from his proportionate ownership share of VWIGX. Same ownership claim on the dividend, only Buck gets his ownership through owning VWIGX.
So, yes I would agree with you and colaman and maybe even Swartout that there is something less than fully honest going on here. You and colaman specifically are trying to redefine the legal definitions of ownership (equity); saying it’s ok to own VWIGX which owns part of CNOOC, but it is not ok to have ever owned the stocks that VWGIX owns. You may describe that is a “technicality” or something. But there are other words that are just as accurate. You may also say potahto.
Or is it your claim, or perhaps the Buck campaign’s claim, that Buck never knew that by investing in VWGIX he was also invested in CNOOC? That Buck actually never understood how mutual fund companies do what they do? Own what they own? Perhaps Buck didn’t study this area of the law at law school. Or maybe he was out sick the day they covered it.
In that case, I could understand the campaign’s complaint. And the obvious defense now is that he just didn’t know. Has Buck divested his ownership, even “indirect” ownership of CNOOC? When will he?
*I couldn’t help but notice that the share price of CNOOC has more than doubled in the past two years. Meaning that while the Buck campaign is complaining about Bennet having owned this stock before then, Buck has actually benefitted through his VWIGX shares proportionate increase during that time. WTF.
He knows exactly how mutual funds operate.
Waiting for the Buck-pedal…5…4…3…
Maybe he got “gentleman’s c’s
I was way off on that definition! 😉
Sheesh. Between you and Beej its getting really old.
Guess your “up to here” line is higher than mine.