Part of that link is that in 1998 the businessman spent three times what Bush & Co. spent in 1989 on the Texas Rangers. Well, investments are supposed to grow, and ten years is a long time for an investment to grow. And didn’t Conason just tell us about the Rangers’ new stadium?

In addition he complains about the businessman’s use of IRR as a measure of growth. Conason then says “In March 1998 Forbes magazine pointed out that ‘there is no standard way of calculating IRR, so returns are easily manipulated'” and then compares IRRs, which he just finished sayibg were invalid. Hmmm. One of these things is not like the other.

First, the 1991 stock sale is clearly a typo. The article later says that the first news story about it ran in October 1990. Things look a little fishy — and failure to file with the SEC until eight months after the deadline is wrong, although not on the same order of wrong as breaking into the Democratic convention headquarters at the Watergate hotel.

Second, the UTIMCO investment problem (that is, the junk investments made by the regents of the University of Texas, while similar investments were being made by other universities all over the country) is a result of poor planning, considering that Orange County, CA went bankrupt in December of 1994 — well before UTIMCO was formed — due to similar investment practices.

That isn’t to say that there aren’t any redeeming qualities to the investment strategy UTIMCO followed — VCs follow the same strategy. Basically 75% to 80% of the investments are expected to bust, 15% may get break even, and the last 5% to 10% are expected be so succesful that they make up for all the others. This requires incredibly risky investments in small start-up companies.

The article, however, spends several paragraphs simply trying to create smoke and only links Bush very tenuously to UTIMCO. Here’s a summary: lots of states reformed their university investment strategy, Bush did not cancel the appointment of a certain businessman that the us governor submitted, the businessman reformed the University of Texas’s investment strategy. The article implies Bush’s guilt, even though (1) the legislature had to approve the changes — not the governor — and (2) the article repeatedly says “although no laws were broken. …” It appears Bush was supposed to fire the businessman, but the article doesn’t say if the governor could do that. The Texas Governor is limited in what he can do — even the article refers to it as a “weak governor.”

Regarding emminent domain (the ability government has to seize property for various purposes), I don’t like seeing it used to seize property in order to build shopping malls or sports complexes. The government does have to pay “fair market value” for any seized property (Constitutional requirement), but I still don’t like it. However, Bush using it isn’t any worse than what normally happens. I still think it’s an abuse — emminent domain is meant for things like acquiring houses standing in the way of a new road — but it isn’t an unusual abuse.

The July 1991 reference was a mistake. I was referring to the June 1991 stock sale where Bush sold 2/3 of his stock. The date was still a year after Saddam invaded Kuwait (although the date could be a typo; since it’s publicly-traded stock, there’s a record of that transaction, and the record could be looked at).

In my previous post, I forgot to mention that “the agency�s general counsel was the same Texas attorney who had handled the sale of the Rangers baseball team for George W.” is also a non-starter, since “general counsel” only means main attorney, not only attorney. In this case, another attorney would have to represent the SEC because of conflict of interest issues.

what is the reference for this claim?

“concessions” with other people’s property. if the local government is going to force people out of their homes to give Bush II a sweet deal, they should get a significant stake in that investment to those that were forced out.

These several events culminated in a January 1990 announcement that astonished oil-industry analysts: the government of Bahrain had awarded exclusive offshore drilling rights to Harken. … Quite apart from Harken’s shaky financial condition, the company had never drilled a well anywhere but Texas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma, and had never drilled undersea at all.

But Conason never actually showed that Harken was on unstable ground. He simply said it was so. Why didn’t he back that up with a quote or numbers?

And, as the Bahrainis said, going for a smaller company brought certain advantages — that to the Bahrainis may have offset the inexperience disadvantages.

Only the presence of President Bush’s oldest son could explain Bahrain’s extraordinary decision.

Not necessarily. Conason could have explained why he drew this conclusion, especially since earlier in the article he implied the Bahrainis wanted to be their partner’s “only Valentine” (in the words of Linus Torvalds — who used them to describe something else entirely, btw), and Harken was the right size for that.

After creating more smoke to imply there was a fire, Conason continues:

However it was procured, the Bahrain contract pushed up the price of Harken stock from $4.50 to $5.50 in a matter of weeks. And on June 22, 1990 … George W. quietly sold off … two thirds of his interest. … He used most of the proceeds to pay off the bank loan he had taken a year earlier to finance his portion of the Texas Rangers deal. A few weeks later, in early August, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. Saddam’s aggression drove down the share prices of every oil company doing business in the Gulf, including Harken, whose shares fell to $3.12.

Sorry, but there is a glaring error, mistatement, or typo here. Saddam invaded Kuwait on Aug 2, 1990 — a year before Bush’s stock sale of July 1991 (the UN’s security council resolutions back this up).

Although there is no evidence that the president’s son was tipped off about the impending Gulf crisis, he certainly had reason to know that Harken was still in trouble. … Two months after Bush sold the bulk of his Harken holdings, the company posted losses for the second quarter of well over $20 million and its shares fell another 24 percent; by year-end Harken was trading at $1.25.

LOL. How about “although there is no evidence that Conason has is really a drug lord, …”? Better yet, insider trading isn’t an open and shut case. The article later says that the trade was run by corporate attorneys who approved it.

… Then in April 1991 the Wall Street Journal revealed that the Securities and Exchange Commission had not been notified of his timely trade until eight months after the legal deadline. The regulatory agency commenced an investigation that concluded in 1991 with no action against George W. It was hardly a surprise.

The SEC chairman at the time, Richard Breeden, was an especially ardent Bush loyalist, and the agency’s general counsel was the same Texas attorney who had handled the sale of the Rangers baseball team for George W. … Bush has insisted that he didn’t know about the firm’s mounting losses and that his stock sell off had been approved by Harken’s general counsel. Although no wrongdoing was proved, the suspicions surrounding Harken Energy and other dubious enterprises associated with the president’s sons-particularly Bush’s directorship of a crooked Colorado savings and loan-caused the family severe embarrassment during the 1992 election.

Yet another “I’ll make some smoke so you think there’s fire” section (especially with the “no wrongdoing was proved” part, which implies “I, Conason, know much more about this case than anyone around, just ask me”). However, the SEC’s president doesn’t get directly involved in the thousands of cases it handles a year.

Oh, and did you catch that drive-by accusation — “something was rotten about a savings and loan that I won’t identify, but believe me, Bush II is bad.”

Hardly Pulitzer quality.