iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Mitt Romney's Family Trusts Continued To Buy Stocks That Clashed With Divestment Pledge Until 2010

By STEPHEN BRAUN 02/ 2/12 02:08 PM ET AP

Mitt Romney
Mitt Romney (AP)

WASHINGTON — Presidential candidate Mitt Romney promised in 2007 he would shed any investments that conflicted with Republican positions on hot-button domestic and foreign policy issues. But Romney's family trusts kept some of those holdings and repeatedly bought new ones until 2010, when they were finally sold off for more than $3 million, according to a detailed review of Romney's financial records by The Associated Press.

Recently disclosed tax returns for three family trust funds for Romney, his wife, Ann, and their adult children show scores of trades in companies whose business operations are inconsistent with Republican Party stances that Romney favors on Iran, China, stem cell research, abortion and other issues.

A Romney campaign spokeswoman, Andrea Saul, said the former Massachusetts governor has no control over the investments made by his blind trust, but the trustee has tried to manage the trades "in a manner consistent with Gov. Romney's publicly expressed positions."

The continual trading between 2006 and 2010 raises questions about why the investments continued for three years, even after Romney said in 2007 that the trust would sell off any conflicted holdings. Those trades came during a period when Romney has sought to convince voters of his conservative Republican values. The trades also raise questions about whether any of the transactions were vetted for possible conflicts or political perception before they were made.

"Financially, these would seem to be completely legitimate investments," said Thomas B. Cooke, a professor of business law at Georgetown University and former president of the National Society of Tax Professionals. "But for someone running for president, there's also a smell test."

Romney's spokeswoman would not respond to questions about the timing or vetting of his investments in his blind trust. She said, however, that the lawyer running the trust occasionally makes adjustments in holdings with Romney's positions in mind.

Romney has kept many of his investments in a trust he describes as blind since he entered the Massachusetts governor's race in 2002. The trust is designed to eliminate conflicts of interest by preventing Romney from knowing about trades made on his behalf and from making specific financial decisions. A Boston attorney who runs the trust oversees Romney's far-flung holdings in stocks, mutual funds and securities.

Romney can set the general direction of his finances, Cooke and other tax experts said. Romney made that clear in August 2007, as he tried to quell a growing furor about his ownership of some stocks that clashed with Republican positions on Iran, China and other issues.

"The trustee of the blind trust has said publicly that he will endeavor to make my investments conform to my positions, and I have confidence that he will do that well," Romney said in 2007. The lawyer heading Romney's trust, R. Bradford Malt, had said earlier in 2007 that he was trying to eliminate conflicts between Romney's holdings and his policy positions.

In some cases, though, it took more than three years for Romney's trust to sell off stocks in companies whose operations appeared to be problematic for him. The AP review of Romney's capital gains financial statements indicate that he lost about $70,000 on the trades.

In 2007, Romney held between $100,000 and $250,000 worth of shares in Novo Nordisk, a Danish pharmaceutical company that engages in limited use of stem cells for research. But it was not until October 2010, on the eve of his second White House run, that Romney's trust sold off the last 27 shares of Novo Nordisk stock – among 90 shares worth $7,700 that Romney's trust sold that year.

Romney supported stem cell research during his 2002 race for governor but changed his mind before the 2007 presidential race, saying the turnabout led him to oppose abortion. Now, like many social conservatives and his Republican campaign rivals, Romney opposes any use of human embryonic stem cells for research into diseases and other medical issues because the work could destroy viable human embryos.

Romney's trust also waited until 2010 to sell more than 900 shares – worth nearly $50,000 – that it held since 2006 in Teva Pharmaceutical, an Israeli company that engages in stem cell research. Teva also manufactures "Plan B One-Step," the emergency contraceptive known as the "morning-after pill," which is opposed by anti-abortion groups.

In 2005, as Massachusetts governor, Romney vetoed an attempt by the state legislature to require hospitals to provide morning-after pills to rape victims and make them available to women and teenaged girls without a prescription. Romney said at the time he opposed the contraceptive's distribution because the pill would not only prevent conception but "would also terminate life after conception." His veto was overruled.

The Obama administration recently drew criticism from pro-abortion rights advocates by allowing the Teva contraceptive to be sold over the counter, but not to girls younger than age 17, who would still require a prescription.

As late as 2009, the Romney trusts bought 600 new shares in Fresenius Medical Care, a German firm that also did stem cell work. The trust sold the Fresenius holdings, worth more than $30,000, in 2010.

The head of the Susan B. Anthony List, a political committee that supports anti-abortion candidates, said she was concerned about Romney's investments in firms whose work is opposed by social conservatives.

"Embryonic stem cell research is the issue that was the catalyst for the governor's pro-life conversion," said Marjorie Dannenfelser, the committee's president. "He should explain what appears to be a lack of follow-through in coming to terms with an issue about which he expresses great passion."

Romney's tax returns, which he released under pressure on Jan. 24, also described numerous recent stock trades in companies tied to the Chinese government or to its censorship and crackdown on free speech. As recently as October 2009, Romney's trusts were buying stock in companies like China Northshore Oil and China Merchants Holdings. More than 130 shares of the oil company were sold in late January 2010 for $19,000, along with 630 shares of China Merchants worth $21,000. The Chinese government has long incurred criticism for its tight control of the country's media and internet and for its suppression of dissent.

Shares of other Chinese assets that Romney's trust bought and sold in 2010 included the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, China Life Insurance and New Oriental Education, a company sued in 2003 by a U.S. firm for copyright infringement.

The director of an international organization advocating human rights in China said Romney's personal investments were as important as his political statements in trying to gauge the depth of his support for change inside China.

A presidential candidate "is accountable to the public for his full record, including financial investments and the potential human rights impact of the companies he has invested in," said Sharon Hom, executive director of Human Rights in China.

Some of the largest stock trades made by the Romney trust involved companies that have operated in Iran. Romney has urged toughened sanctions and military steps against Iran and has called for strategic divestment of firms that do business there. In 2007, his trustee said he had sold off Romney investments in French and Italian energy companies with business ties to Iran.

But between mid-2009 and mid-2010, the Romney trusts made large investments in securities from BNP Paribas, a French bank with long-standing operations in Iran. The bank halted new business in Iran in 2007 but is still trying to terminate outstanding loans there. In all, Romney's family trusts bought more than 2.6 million shares, which were all sold in late 2010 for about $2.5 million.

Romney's trust for his grown children also bought and sold shares in China North Oil, recently named by the Congressional Research Service as a likely violator of the Iran Sanctions Act, and in Intesa Sanpaolo, an Italian bank that has been under investigation by U.S. authorities for handling of Iranian funds. There were also trades in stock of Gazprom, Schlumberger, Komatsu and Unilever – all firms that have had business in or with Iran.

Many of those companies are included among an extensive list compiled by United Against Nuclear Iran, a bipartisan group urging pressure on firms with business in Iran. A spokesman for the group, Nathan Carleton, declined to comment on Romney's holdings. But Carleton noted that the group's list – it named several of the firms the Romney trusts bought stock in – "is available for anyone to investigate."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON — Presidential candidate Mitt Romney promised in 2007 he would shed any investments that conflicted with Republican positions on hot-button domestic and foreign policy issues. But Rom...
WASHINGTON — Presidential candidate Mitt Romney promised in 2007 he would shed any investments that conflicted with Republican positions on hot-button domestic and foreign policy issues. But Rom...
Filed by Jade Walker  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,964
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (59 total)
12:35 PM on 02/22/2012
As many have noted, I too find this less than news worthy. In my opinion this article uses hyperbole in an attempt to manipulate the reader. The author states " it was not until October 2010, on the eve of his second White House run, that Romney's trust sold off the last 27 shares of Novo Nordisk stock – among 90 shares worth $7,700 that Romney's trust sold that year."
Seriously? The last 27 shares? Are we to believe that this is some how deceitful? Those 27 shares were worth approximately $2100.00 at the time. Yet the author suggests the timing of this sale was tied to the announcement of Mr. Romney's run for the White House. Isn't it possible that the original sell order was placed for 90 shares at a "limit price" and thus the final 27 shares executed at a later date? Why wouldn't the author mention this?
Finally, for those who find Mr. Romney's investments suspect, I highly suggest you read the prospectus for all companies, mutual funds or ETF's in which you are invested. You may find that you are indeed the proverbial "pot calling the kettle black."
08:18 PM on 02/05/2012
__militarylover.c om__ The first luxury Internet dating website and offers the highest quality dating experience available online.
05:48 PM on 02/05/2012
Mitt Romney promises are a joke
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ben Roth
Interests include politics, history, world affairs
06:20 PM on 02/04/2012
What is the issue, the blind trust is not a blind trust or is it that the investment strategies remianed the same.That is, Mr Romney says to the trustee(s), I don't want to know the specifics of how my money is being invested but I fully expect that my investment strategies to continue. Now, if the trustees are the same people he has been working with for along time, then none of the results of the blind trust surprise me. The real questions about what is being bought and sold is the reasoning and that leads us to the real issue/problem with all of this, which is that this blind trust is really not in the business of traditional investment which is to focused on making money rather, its focused is on a specific political agenda. How can this be stated? It very simple with the kind of money Mr Romney has he should be making a lot more money.
04:48 PM on 02/03/2012
Mitt may actually have a form of Asbergers
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mansterEZ
searching for secular humanist fact-based truth
03:23 PM on 02/03/2012
Romney said back in 2007-08 that he instructed his "trust" administrator to divest his portfolio to not include off-shore holdings BECAUSE he is running for President. This implies that if he wasn't pursuing the highest office it would be full speed ahead for pursuing wealth at the expense of American jobs.

At the very minimum he is a crass manipulator of facts and at worst a lying liar who only comes close to telling the truth for political expediency. Is this the kind of person we want running the country and by default being the leading voice of the world?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Duke of Abq
11:22 PM on 02/04/2012
Romney donates more than 15% of his money to charity and has donated 28 years of unpaid work to public, religious and political causes. I am glad he has earned enough money that he can afford all of this charity. Charity is GOD'S way to care for our less fortunate neighbors. Having the government extort our money to be used to buy votes and power is not charity. Forced socialism is the devils way to enslave us. I have now decided to support Romney even though I would like him to be more conservative. Lets work for a conservative congress. I trust Romney will sign the conservative bills passed into law.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:02 AM on 02/03/2012
Hey, let's all get our noses up in the air for the "smell" test....such as The Constitution, Rev. Wright and Kitchen coffee cup Obama chit chat....not that Obama ever heard anything negative from the Wright over how many year? The Executive Branch of Government should have an Executive, not a community organizer (great job done in that department....we are all so not divided and not so transparent). And rich....the new moral crime! That means there is no hidden bias and blatant jealousy meaning what.....no one wants to be rich. And how many poor people are hiring how many ? OMG.....translated: Obama Must Go.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Shawn Wheeler
Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici!
01:52 PM on 02/03/2012
'Rich' is not a moral crime AND your hyperbole doesn't change the fact that the top 1% wealth has grown 250% in the same thirty year period that everyone else has dropped. If this were due only to the success of a free market then maybe we could all live with it, but it WASN'T. The rich aren't getting richer because they are providing more jobs, better products, happier customers, or anything else that benefits society. They're getting rich by sucking it dry and they're doing that by BUYING laws, tax codes, subsidies, and tariffs. NOT by being better business men or providing better services. I do not have anything against success but I do have a problem when that success comes at the expense of this countries DEMOCRACY and any semblance of financial/legal fairness.

HATE Obama if you want, he is just another corporate stooge/professional politician, but for GOD'S sake hate him for the right reasons! Not because he is black, or a community organizer rather than whatever you think he should be. Hate him because he is continuing this countries decent into crony capitalism and corporate plutocracy. GET RID OF HIM if you want, but know this: NO MATTER WHO ELSE GETS ELECTED THEY WILL BE AS BAD!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
elkinken
10:48 AM on 02/04/2012
The top 1 percent make 360,000 dollars a year.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sammmo
10:54 AM on 02/03/2012
This good old morman guy is a liar and can not be trustd. Period. Simple. He can not sing, either!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
time2talk
An eye for an eye and we'll all be blind
07:33 PM on 02/03/2012
I liked the old Mitt better than the new Mitt. He changed everything I liked about him to match the Republican platform. This Mitt I can't vote for.
09:48 AM on 02/03/2012
Romney's one claim to competency for the presidency is his "business experience." Yet he claims that he doesn't know what's going on with his business, that it's actually handled by others without his knowledge. So what is his "business experience?"
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
time2talk
An eye for an eye and we'll all be blind
07:34 PM on 02/03/2012
Some of the companies he ran went bankrupt after he "fixed" them. This sounds like the Bush Doctrine. The country is already broke. We don't need Mitt's plan. We're already there.
09:11 AM on 02/03/2012
I'm glad his 5 able-bodied sons who never served in our Armed Forces are taken care of with a $100 million trust fund. Like the Bush family, Romney likes to rattle swords without doing any of the messy work himself. He didn't serve the U.S. Military; instead, he served for 30 months in France evangelizing Mormonism! This is not a "classic" American family. It's a freak show.
10:06 AM on 02/03/2012
And what did Obama do?
10:39 AM on 02/03/2012
He is not rattling swords. He is doing his best to end and avoid wars. Meanwhile, the Republicans are chanting "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran." If Obama fails, whose fault would that be?
photo
sogden
47% UNITED
11:03 AM on 02/03/2012
or bush or dick chenny
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Duke of Abq
11:31 PM on 02/04/2012
As Governor he was the commander and chief of the MA National Guard. Obama is also the Commander a Chief of the US armed forces. I sure wish more American family's children donated two years of unpaid service to GOD. How can you say that could be bad in any way? Stop the Hate!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
trashcup
08:23 AM on 02/03/2012
Mitt says Obama is detached from reality? Really? Please - someone ask Mitt how much a gallon of milk is and see how detached Mitt is from living the life the rest of America lives. Instead, he flies in a chartered jet to Las Vegas for an endorsement by The Donald IN a TRUMP property with gold fixtures and gold windows. There could be no one who is more detached from reality than Mitt (WILLARD) Romney.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:07 AM on 02/03/2012
Like using the Jet to scoot around the USA making campaign speeches on tax payer dollars while fund raising how Many Many Millions? Nice touch of "leadership reality" between vacations the Obama exhibits.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
time2talk
An eye for an eye and we'll all be blind
07:41 PM on 02/03/2012
Look up the number of times Airforce One and how many vacations your little shrub took while in office. Nitpicking will not help our country, and since your guy was in it's in real trouble. You can be for the Republicans, for the Democrats or for the country. I'm pro-America, and I believe Obama has demonstrated that he is too. I can't say the GOPTP House or Senate are pro-country. They just want to win the White House back for the prestige of position. They sure haven't said anything or done anything that would help their country get back on its feet, and they are the ones who destroyed it.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
time2talk
An eye for an eye and we'll all be blind
07:36 PM on 02/03/2012
I haven't been able to buy a whole gallon of milk since Bush was in. It's quarts or nothing.
08:12 AM on 02/03/2012
Who knows what this man is doing? He changes positions all the time. My main concern with Mitt Romney is his beliefs of which I believe as a Christian that God should be in every part of my life in every decision I make in my family, government or whatever. After all, he did Create all of us. My husband of 54 years and I studied Mormanism when we were first married and thier beliefs do not match up with Scripture & we did NOT BECOME MORMONS. In fact, Joseph Smith himself changed some things around in Scripture to match up with what he believed such as polgamy. He had nearly 50 wives and Brigham Young, Smiths's successor, married 27 wives. The Bible says, man is to have one wife, so in order to do have more, you have to change Scripture. They claim that Jesus had 3 wives. Jesus came here on earth for a purpose and that is to save mankind from their sins and he never married. He preached in the temples about sin and he died for us so we could be saved through His Name. They believe in baptizing for the dead relatives they have between the time they believe that the Church died after the Apostles died until Joseph Smith started his new Church. We did not need a new Church, for when Christ died, he said "IT IS FINISHED". We do not need NEW REVELATIONS.
09:32 AM on 02/03/2012
Where does the Bible say that man is to have one wife? If it does, it contradicts itself. King Solomon, one of God's favorites, had 700 wives. King Rehoboam had 18 wives. King Abijah had 14 wives. King David had many wives (it doesn't say how many exactly). Mosaic law included provisions for multiple wives (ex., Deut. 21:15). God specifically condoned polygamy (II Sam. 12:11). I could give more examples. The Bible does not say that Jesus never married. According to the Bible, God changes his positions all the time. In fact, He is easily swayed by supplications and sacrifices. (Why else would one bother praying?) In fact, there is nothing wrong with changing your mind if you find that you were wrong. To do otherwise is to be pig-headed. Have you ever tried actually reading the Bible?
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
11:22 AM on 02/03/2012
We as Christians, do not live under Old Testament Laws. We are under the New Covenent (Hebrews chapter 7). In (I Timothy 3:2) the leaders of the Body of Christ were examples to the flock "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife". In (I Corinthians 1:2 )"Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband". Read (I Corinthians chapter 7.) In (Hebrews 13:8) "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today and forever". Jesus did not need to be married, for he only came to save us and die for our sins so that we could live with him forever. There is no marriage in heaven (Mark 12:25). My husband and I of 54 years have been in Bible Study since we were married and not connected to any denomination. We believe in following Christ daily and witnessing about our Faith in Christ. We have studied with a number of churches including Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Baptist, (Acts 17) says that God's temple is not made with hands. (I John 2:27) The Holy Spirit is the teacher and let no man teach you, but the Holy Spirit and it will bring you to the Truth. We do study everyday & we change our minds when we grow, but God had a plan and he already finished His plan with Christ on the Cross, so we do not need any more changes.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
time2talk
An eye for an eye and we'll all be blind
07:37 PM on 02/03/2012
Only his wife knows the position he favors. I'm betting it is the missionary one.
07:14 AM on 02/03/2012
But hypocrisy is a Republican Party value!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jamico Bob
One can put a price on gold, friends are priceless
05:49 AM on 02/03/2012
For sure, Mitt Romney is a smart investor. For sure, he is trying to buy 'not so smart' voters. Let's all forget Mitt, Newt, and the other two for sure and support Barack to complete his goals. I am Jamico Bob and I approve this message, for sure!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:10 AM on 02/03/2012
spend spend spend opm! good thinking, you think! like this fund raising USA tour by the Obama is for what purpose....to buy "not smart" voters?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
time2talk
An eye for an eye and we'll all be blind
07:47 PM on 02/03/2012
Can you name one Republican president who, while running for a second term, did not do this?
photo
Olivio
Why are the republicans waging a war on women??
05:55 PM on 02/04/2012
If your neurons are still functioning, you would recall that G.W Bush did exactly the same in 2003-2004.
05:20 AM on 02/03/2012
Why do you think this is news, it's not, just a smear. How many rich Democrat polticians do the same thing? Answer, lots, reason, money. It's only the liberal media that has declared Mitt the nominee. Why is that? Either way, Newt or Mitt in a dabate with Obama, without cue cards or a teleprompter, Mr. President is toast, all one has to do is start talking about his record.... It's over for the American people, Obama, that is. He has done it to himself
07:17 AM on 02/03/2012
Information is not a smear. Name the Democrats running for office who have done this. Information!! It scares Republicans.
Spelling and grammar information would be a good start for you.
It might lend some credibility.
10:09 AM on 02/03/2012
John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, any of the Kennedy's, .....
08:17 AM on 02/03/2012
Name ONE Democrat who is anywhere near as guilty of hypocrisy as ALL of the Republican nominees. Can't, can you. There is no "liberal media." ALL of the MSM are owned by right-wing corporations. The few small left-wing publications have little to no influence over Republicans. You obviously have no idea why teleprompters are used. They are used when the speech has be pre-released, so the speaker must adhere strictly to what was written. Obama does not use teleprompters where the speech was not handed out beforehand. Remember Sarah? Her cue card was her hand. And, that was not a prepared speech. Republicans always think that the truth about Republicans is "smear" because the truth is virtually always damaging to Republicans.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:17 AM on 02/03/2012
Name One. Okay! Obama. Why use a teleprompter? Maybe because you can not remember what it is you want to say, or are afraid you will forget "the facts", or "the punch line"; and where did this idea come from that a speaker MUST adhere strictly to what was written?