Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: These are the faces of the One Percent

Posted 2 years ago on Sept. 21, 2012, 11:19 p.m. EST by UntilUKnow (35)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Inequality? “Makers vs. Takers”? Check this out: SECForm4.com It’s a site that allows you to track Trading Activity for Insiders. You know, Board Members like CEO’s, Directors, VP’s, etc. The data comes from the SEC's EDGAR database. Mostly traders use it. And there are other site out there like it. But when you see the $$$, you don’t have to be a trader to figure it out. When Romney began his run for President, I decided to look into his baby. You know, BAIN! Man oh man, talk about the “bane” of mankind? I've seen a lot of companies on this site, Bechtel, Halliburton, etc., but Bain is a whole different animal. Just do this: Go to http://www.secform4.com/insider-trading Type BAIN into the “Search by Company or Insider Name” box. Click “Search”. When your browser appears, click on the first link. When it takes you back to SECForm4, choose “All Data” in the top left box. Like I said, you don’t have to be a trader to understand what’s going on. Especially when you realize that all this $$$ is only taxed at 15%. Yup, that’s what they call CAPITAL GAINS! You know, what they want to drop down to 0%. Zero tax. NOTHING! But hey, I realize these people work really hard for this $$$. You know, Gifts, Awards, and Options. But really, when is enough enough? How about NOW? Bain happens to be Romney’s baby. He created it, along with their MO. But there are thousands of other Bains out there. Maybe not quite as bad, but take a look for yourself and you be the judge. Just plug in any public corporation’s name and see for yourself. Anyway, there’s a LOT more to this story. See if you can figure it out. Hint – think the 1%.



Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by UntilUKnow (35) 2 years ago

No, I don't think you understand. I agree with you. But these people, are "investors". Take a look at the ratio between the"Total Buys" and the "Total Sales". Very few of these Board Members actually "buy" anything anymore. They used to, that's why sites like this existed. Contrary to what the site's motto say's "Insiders might sell their shares for any number of reasons, but they buy them for only one: they think the price will rise", very few actually buy. They are "given" either Options, Gifts, or Awards of stocks in addition to salaries. I've been watching this site for about a decade now, and believe me I know. It appears that the money is being redirected to them because of the Capital Gains rate. And take a look at the $$$. Enter any company name in their, and click on any one of the Board Members and look at the $$$. It's phenomenal. And it is now "THE" way anybody who's anybody in the Corporate World is compensated. On top of this, there is a LOT more to this story. And if you spend some time to examine the numbers you may be able to figure it out. Enough said....

[-] 1 points by UntilUKnow (35) 2 years ago

Forgive me for being redundant, but one of my main points is that these people are GIVEN this money. And NOT because they earned it. I'm aware of what a Board Member's responsibilities are. It is a secondary function to their primary roles in a Corp. They are compensated separately for those roles, as well as their role as a board member. But the practice of GIVING them millions of dollars (often hundreds of millions) has created this group culture of "Takers". Here's one more key, and see if you can figure this out for yourself. SEC rules require that within about two days of a transaction, a Board Member must report their activity. BUT once they are no on the Board they NO LONGER HAVE TO REPORT ANYTHING because they are no longer a Board Member. Get it?

[-] 1 points by UntilUKnow (35) 2 years ago

Thank you Builder. Just read that article. True, it is a small group of companies. But it goes beyond that. It is a new counter-culture. I like to refer to them as the noveau riche of the 21st century. These people have no allegiance to a nation or an ideology for that matter. All they worship is Wealth and appurtenant Power it brings. Probably the most enlightening book I ever read was by G. Edward Griffin, called "The Creature from Jekyll Island". Boy did I grow up fast after reading that. To the point re SECForm4, if you click on any one of those Board Members you will notice that most are on the boards of several corporations. Like lillipads in a pond, they jump from one to another. And the most aggregious part, I haven't even mentioned. If you take just one board member and drill down on the numbers, you may figure it out.

[-] 1 points by UntilUKnow (35) 2 years ago

I only posted this info because of all the info out there, and all the people I've talked to, no one has ever heard or seen this. And if you just take any one of these Board Members in any one of these companies, and examine their $$$, you will figure out the missing part. In fact, if you just look at the Total Sales per Corp and figure out there are over 15,000 public corps out there (estimate), well you do the math. That is why I have said that these people are the 1%

[-] 1 points by Nevada1 (4740) 2 years ago

Thank you Until, for info/link.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (7068) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

These people simply think they are above everyone else.

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

virtually all stock investment is a gamble & should be taxed as INCOME
also super fast computer buy/sells should be taxed extra stock sold by the company itself (IPO) should have no tax when it is first sold if the co will use the money IN AMERICA

[-] 2 points by UntilUKnow (35) 2 years ago

There's stock investment and then there's this reallocation of wealth (aka siphoning) that I'm referring to. What's interesting is that much of the discussion with regard to reallocation of wealth lately has been initiated by the One Percent and directed at the Hoi Polloi. Talk about insult on top of injury. What's equally as interesting is how little the One Percent really understand about Capitalism. Who do they think is generating the suplus profit for them to extract.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

If they cant extract the profit, how can they afford to build their soylent green factories.

[-] -2 points by hereforacitecheck (4) 2 years ago

Look, just because someone takes a huge risk on something and ends up successful, you don't have to hate on them so much. We need to thank people like this who make something from nothing-which is a heck of a lot more productive than sitting around whining because you are all losers.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

You are discussing regulated capitalism.

Unregulated capitalism is gambling without the possibility of losing. That is what the American public are having to watch, while their houses get foreclosed.

Do you get it now?


[-] 0 points by hereforacitecheck (4) 2 years ago

Well geez, if there is no possibility of losing, then why isn't everyone doing this and making a killing-if it is so easy and there is no possibility of losing... Also, peoples' houses are getting foreclosed upon because people borrowed money they could not pay back. That is how banks operate-you borrow money, you have to pay it back. You don't pay it back, you lose your house. simple. sometimes, it is not peoples "fault" because they lost their job -but nevertheless, that is how banks work-what are they supposed to do-eat it because you can't pay your mortgage? When the banks lose, we all pay for it. And really we should blame Barney Frank who wanted everyone to own a home when they really could not afford it. People are not entitled to things just because they want them.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

If people can pay rent, why can they not pay that to buy a house instead?

And really we should blame Barney Frank who wanted everyone to own a home when they really could not afford it.

By your argument, one that cannot afford to buy a house may as well be homeless and by the numbers of renters we have in this country, you can see that is not the case.

The only reason to allow the practice of renting to be anything but recreational or optional is now and could only ever be to profit from someone else's economic status, exploitation.

You cannot justify charging a lifetime of fees to a person or family for property that not even their grandchildren would own if paid to such an extent.

[-] 1 points by UntilUKnow (35) 2 years ago

We're not talking about trading. I've been trading for about a decade. Win some lose some. These people are NOT traders. They are NOT investors. They are a group of men and women who siphon profits from Corporations. And although I have no problem with that, in the case of Corps that offer discretionary products and/or services. I do take serious issue with those who deal in the realm of Utilitarian products and services. Such as food, energy, healthcare, etc. We can choose to buy or not to buy those things we'd like to have, but we have no choice but to buy those things we NEED.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

I've got my needs down to sugar and flour.

And I'm not so sure I need flour.

Will be extra work turning sugar into diesel, but it's just work.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

If you choose to be facetious, expect to talk to yourself.

Why indeed isn't everyone gambling? Because everyone isn't Too Big To Fail.

Any more questions?

[-] 1 points by hereforacitecheck (4) 2 years ago

Fair enough, and I realize that I am not playing on home turf either ... so I should tread more carefully. yes I am a conservative and I really don't belong here ;). I'll be direct. My point was simply that Bain was not developed sans risk, sans knowledge, drive, education, hard work.. you get the point. It isn't as if this was just given to Romney on a silver platter. That was my point, as I am sure you gathered. In addition. I guess we can chalk this up to a fundamental disagreement. In response to an earlier comment, I don't believe that tax rates on capital gains should correspond to how necessary a service is. I feel that is a dangerous road to go down because then someone, necessarily has to determine what is "necessary" and what is not you know? Futhermore the necessary nature of something does not mean that is should be protected in some way - that people should not make a profit in the way they can in other areas. Profit is the impetus for development. Why is business created, what promotes development on a large scale, more than the idea of great monetary gain? I really believe that Greed is Good. There was a great article in the National Review a while back-http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/287583/gordon-gekko-would-have-fit-occupy-wall-street#--that I love-on topic-anyway, gentlemen, ladies, I am going to try to finish cite checking this law journal aricle on the business judgment rule-before I pass out on my screen-night

[-] 2 points by podman73 (-652) 2 years ago

dont feel all alone im a conservative as well!

[-] 1 points by UntilUKnow (35) 2 years ago

Boy did you offer a mouthful. But to your last point, and to what Jack Welch (father of the Shareholder Maximazation Model) and his prodige' Mitt Romney practice and privately espouse, I'd like to see us return to more of a balance. The classic model that is. Where shareholder profit is secondary to employment and longevity. It's not so much that I believe the tail should wag the dog, as much as re-examining, which is really the tail and which is really the dog. This is why I believe that the modern day Capitalist is sorely ignorant of the concepts of Capitalism. As an aside, I'm glad you are on this turf taking part in this discussion. We need more people like you who have the balls to leave their Comfort Zone.

[-] 1 points by hereforacitecheck (4) 2 years ago

feisty ladies are always in their comfort zone! except when they are too tired to think any longer!

[-] 0 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

Quite comical, my friend.

"Where shareholder profit is second to employment and longevity".

You are pretending that this is mittens' practice in business?

[-] 2 points by hereforacitecheck (4) 2 years ago

No I think he was saying that is what he wants to return to, not what he thinks (mittens'?) business pratice is. Read it again

[-] -1 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

Mittens is a classic takeover specialist.

He's not at all concerned with the company. He's concerned with liquidation of the assetts of the company.

Are you following what is happening? Or waving an R flag?

[-] 2 points by hereforacitecheck (4) 2 years ago

Well I am sporting an R bumper sticker! no flag..yet-I am currently flying a "Don't tread on me"

[-] 1 points by thoreau42 (595) 2 years ago

You'll have to pick. You can't be a member of the Republican/Democrat corporations and a patriot at the same time.

[-] 1 points by JustinDM (251) from Atascadero, CA 2 years ago

I like that flag too :)

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

I'm in Australia.

We still have five candidates for election.

[-] 0 points by JustinDM (251) from Atascadero, CA 2 years ago

Most of the defense given to Romneys' ilk is based on the general publics ignorance of what it is that they do. Too often I've heard them described as wizards pulling profit out of thin air, or as dare devils risking all for the elusive prize. I have a feeling that if the public truly understood what it is that they do, they would string them from the nearest poll.

[-] 2 points by UntilUKnow (35) 2 years ago

Absolutely! And that is why I posted the initial information. If the average American could examine the info on SECForm4.com and realize what it is they are actually doing right under our "ignorant" noses, the game would change. Reviewing the line of discourse following my initial post, I am fascinated at how little people understand or care to understand about this subject. It appears that rather than learn, they'd rather rereat to their ideological Comfort Zones. Although related to, this is not about Ideology. This is about the practice and process that has created the One Percent. If you just simply look at the numbers attached to the $$$ signs, and realize that almost all of this is just plain GIVEN to this group of people rerferred to as Board Members, by others within the group, you will be able to identify the One Percent.