Jeff Bezos and other corporate executives across the country sold approximately $9.2 billion in shares of their own companies between early February and the end of last week, salvaging potential losses of up to $1.9 billion, according to an analysis of more than 4,000 regulatory filings by the Wall Street Journal.
The largest seller was the richest man in the world – Jeff Bezos, who sold $3.4 billion in Amazon shares the first week of February, right before the market peaked – which avoided paper losses of approximately $317 million through March 20. The sale constituted roughly 3% of his holdings – and was nearly as much stock as he sold during the previous 12 months.
And while there is no indication that executives sold shares based on inside information – and the Journal notes that executives often sell shares early in the year for tax purposes, the amount of stock sold by US execs was up around 1/3 vs. the same period from the last two years according to the report.
Other execs who sold include BlackRock’s Laurence Fink, and IHS Markit’s Lance Uggla.
While Mr. Bezos’s sales accounted for more than a third of the 2020 sales, thousands of other insiders sold stock. More than 150 executives and officers individually sold at least $1 million worth of stock in February and March after having sold no stock in the previous 12 months, the Journal analysis found.
Wall Street executives also sold large dollar amounts, including Laurence Fink, CEO of BlackRock Inc., who sold $25 million of his company shares on Feb. 14, pre-empting potential losses of more than $9.3 million and Lance Uggla, CEO of IHS Markit Ltd., a data and analytics firm, who sold $47 million of his shares around Feb. 19. Those shares would have dropped in value by $19.2 million if Mr. Uggla had retained them. A spokesperson said the shares were sold under a preset plan. –Wall Street Journal
A BlackRock spokesman said that Fink’s sales were a small percentage of his overall holdings (under 5% according to his latest filing),
» Lees verder
“Guess what the best planet is in this solar system?” asked Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos at a recent media event on his Blue Origin space program.
“It’s easy to know the answer to that question,” he continued. “We’ve sent robotic probes like this one to all of the planets in our solar system. Now, some of them have been fly-bys, but we’ve examined them all. Earth is the best planet. It is not close. This one is really good.”
Bezos then went on to discuss his plan to ship humans off of the best planet in the solar system and send them to live in floating cylinders in space.
Bezos claimed that the growing human population and growing energy consumption will force us to make a choice between “stasis and rationing” and “dynamism and growth”, and claimed that the latter item in his dichotomy is possible only by moving humans off the planet.
“If we’re out in the solar system, we can have a trillion humans in the solar system, which means we’d have a thousand Mozarts and a thousand Einsteins,” Bezos said. “This would be an incredible civilization. What would this future look like? Where would a trillion humans live? Well it’s very interesting, someone named Gerry O’Neill, a physics professor, looked at this question very carefully and he asked a very precise question that nobody had ever asked before, and it was, ‘Is a planetary surface the best place for humans to expand into the solar system?’ And he and his students set to work on answering that question, and they came to a very surprising–for them–counterintuitive answer: No.”
Bezos went on to describe how the limited surface areas, distance, and gravitational forces of the other planets in our solar system make settling on those planets impractical and cost-prohibitive, while constructing giant space cylinders closer to Earth which can hold a million people is far more practical. These cylinders would spin to replicate Earth’s gravitational pull with centrifugal force.
Here are some illustrations Bezos used in his presentation to show us what these “O’Neill colonies” might look like:
“These are really pleasant places to live,” Bezos said.
» Lees verder
The National Enquirer has engaged in behavior so lowly and unscrupulous that it created a seemingly impossible storyline: the world’s richest billionaire and a notorious labor abuser, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, as a sympathetic victim.
On Thursday, Bezos published emails in which the Enquirer’s parent company explicitly threatened to publish intimate photographs of Bezos and his mistress, which were apparently exchanged between the two through their iPhones, unless Bezos agreed to a series of demands involving silence about the company’s conduct.
In a perfect world, none of the sexually salacious material the Enquirer was threatening to release would be incriminating or embarrassing to Bezos: it involves consensual sex between adults that is the business of nobody other than those involved and their spouses. But that’s not the world in which we live: few news events generate moralizing interest like sex scandals, especially among the media.
The prospect of naked selfies of Bezos would obviously generate intense media coverage and all sorts of adolescent giggling and sanctimonious judgments. The Enquirer’s reports of Bezos’ adulterous affair seemed to have already played at least a significant role, if not the primary one, in the recent announcement of Bezos’ divorce from his wife of 25 years.
Beyond the prurient interest in sex scandals, this case entails genuinely newsworthy questions because of its political context. The National Enquirer was so actively devoted to Donald Trump’s election that the chairman of its parent company admitted to helping make hush payments to kill stories of Trump’s affairs, and received immunity for his cooperation in the criminal case of Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, while Bezos, as the owner of the steadfastly anti-Trump Washington Post, is viewed by Trump as a political enemy.
All of this raises serious questions, which thus far are limited to pure speculation, about how the National Enquirer obtained the intimate photos exchanged between Bezos and his mistress. Despite a lack of evidence, MSNBC is already doing what it exists to do – implying with no evidence that Trump is to blame (in this case, by abusing the powers of the NSA or FBI to spy on Bezos). But, under the circumstances, those are legitimate questions to be probing (though responsible news agencies would wait for evidence before airing innuendo of that sort).
» Lees verder
Have you ever wondered how long it takes for the world’s wealthiest captains of industry to earn what you make in a year? For many, the reality is too depressing to fathom.
But for any curious parties eager to learn the painful truth, ABC Finance has created a series of infographics that break down how much the world’s wealthiest people earn – and how it compares to the average salary for regular non-billionaire workers.
While millions of Americans no doubt enjoyed some degree of schadenfreude watching the correction in FAANG stocks wipe out nearly $1 trillion of value from the largest US tech firms: Mark Zuckerberg alone has lost nearly $100 billion of his personal wealth since the beginning of 2018, and Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos has lost as much as $13 billion or more in a single day. But that doesn’t change the fact that the world’s billionaires enjoyed their highest-earning year on record in 2017 as their wealth increased by a combined $9 trillion.
Helped by the asset-friendly policies of the world’s largest central banks, the wealthiest 1% of the world now owns nearly half the wealth. The 54 billionaires living in the 54 UK alone have an aggregate $160 billion in wealth, equivalent to over 6% of Britain’s GDP. Meanwhile, the average worker earns about $37,000 a year. Virgin CEO Richard Branson earns that amount in roughly 25 minutes.
Even more galling, Facebook CEO earns the same sum every 60 seconds. Bezos earns the same sum every 28 seconds.
Here’s how the distribution of billionaires breaks down for every continent:
Curious to see how your own earnings stack up? ABC Finance has developed a comparison tool that can help determine how your wealth stacks up against the mega-rich.
» Lees verder
Authored by Jason Ditz via The American Conservative,
While employees at Google and Microsoft are wary of collaborating with the military, Amazon revels in it…
Speaking at the Wired 25th anniversary last month month, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos announced that his company will continue to accept Pentagon contracts. That includes a very controversial cloud-computing contract that Google and Microsoft have already backed out of due to vocal employee opposition to working with the U.S. military.
Amazon was long considered the front-runner for this contract, but Bezos’s rationale for taking it goes well beyond its being low-hanging fruit. He’s argued that the government’s job is to “make the right decision, even when it’s unpopular,” and that large tech companies should support those decisions irrespective of politics.
The $10 billion tied to the contract can’t hurt either. Whatever his motivation for sucking it up and taking one for team tech, Bezos’s public justification is a poor one, and it isn’t hard to see why. The Pentagon has a long history of immoral and reckless behavior, actions that objectively aren’t beneficial to the defense of the United States. Any company that blindly works with them does so at its own peril.
Employees at Google and Microsoft have already made a powerful case for why tech giants shouldn’t collaborate with the Defense Department. They don’t want to be responsible for developing technology that causes substantial harm, surveils others in violation of international norms, or contravenes human rights. The Pentagon can be counted on to do all three, and more.
Furthermore, the Pentagon’s growing interest in artificial intelligence (A.I.), particularly as it relates to warfighting, sounds out of the preamble for a dystopian novel. Hence why Google employees forced their company not to renew a controversial Pentagon contract in June involving A.I. While Amazon will be signing on to cloud computing, not A.I., it’s still more than a little concerning that Bezos was so adamant about the virtues of the DoD. (For what it’s worth, Amazon already works with the CIA.)
But Amazon has an interest that extends far beyond this single deal. The real prize is to become the military’s sole procurement source for off-the-shelf components.
» Lees verder
150 Milliarden Dollar ist Jeff Bezos schwer. Fleiß oder Einfallsreichtum reichen nicht um auf ein 12-stelliges Konto schauen zu können. Vielmehr waren es Steuertricks, Ausbeutung und ein unfaires Steuersystem – das ihn zum reichsten Mann der Welt machte.
Der Amazon Gründer Jeff Bezos ist reich. Wie reich kann man sich nur schwer vorstellen. Sein Vermögen macht 150 Milliarden Dollar aus. Damit ist er der reichste Mensch der Welt und besitzt: 50 % mehr als Bill Gates, doppelt so viel wie Mark Zuckerberg und wahrscheinlich 100 Mal mehr als Donald Trump. Er müsste täglich 28 Millionen ausgeben – nur um nicht reicher zu werden.
Ursprünglich wollte Bezos seinen Online-Shop Relentless nennen. Freunde rieten ihn von diesem Namen, der soviel wie „unbarmherzig, „unerbittlich und „gnadenlos bedeutet, ab und er entschied sich schlussendlich für Amazon. Der ursprüngliche Namen ist jedoch bis heute Programm. Amazon setzt seit Beginn auf eine aggressive Preisstrategie. So erzielte der Online-Shop von Jahr zu Jahr neue Umsatzrekorde, aber schrieb dabei gleichzeitig rote Zahlen.
Mit Krediten finanzierte der ehemalige Hedgefonds-Manager Bezos nicht nur die günstigen Preise im Online-Shop, sondern baute weitere Geschäftsfelder für Amazon auf. So öffnete Bezos seine Logistik- und Online-Shop-Strukturen für Dritthändler, die seither ihr Business auf der Amazon-Plattform betreiben können und sich untereinander eine Preisschlacht liefern. Kann Amazon trotz Subvention einmal nicht den günstigsten Preis anbieten, verdient es durch die Gebühren, welche für Dritthändler anfallen, dennoch mit. Mittlerweile tritt der Konzern bei populären Produkten mit Eigenmarken auch als Hersteller auf und baut seine Dominanz im Online-Shopping-Bereich aus.
Trotz dieser Dominanz würde Amazon im Shopping-Bereich rote Zahlen schreiben, wären da nicht noch weitere Sparten wie Amazons Cloud-Service. Der Amazon Web Service ist derzeit das profitabelste Segment des Konzerns und erzielt Milliarden-Gewinne. Amazon vermietet weltweit IT-Infrastruktur und lässt dabei Konkurrenz wie Microsoft, Google oder IBM hinter sich. Webseiten wie Netflix, Spotify oder Reddit haben ihre Webinfrastruktur teilweise auf Amazons Server ausgelagert.
Amazon zahlt kaum Steuern
Der Internetriese bezahlt kaum Steuern – und Bezos als einer der wichtigsten Aktionäre profitiert davon. Amazon überwies beispielsweise in den USA im vergangen Jahr keinen Cent an den Fiskus, obwohl der Konzern einen Gewinn von 5,6 Milliarden Dollar machte. Auch lokale Steuern umgeht der Internetriese. Er setzt die Städte unter Druck und fordert Steuernachlässe – ansonsten droht der Konzern mit Abwanderung und dem Verlust von Arbeitsplätzen.
» Lees verder