Eric Schmidt selling nearly half of his Google stock

Eric Schmidt selling nearly half of his Google stock

Summary: Google's executive chairman is selling off a considerable portion of his Google stock portfolio -- and some voting power.


Google's executive chairman Eric Schmidt is selling off nearly half of his stock in the Internet giant.

The news came about on Friday afternoon through a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

According to the document, Schmidt owned roughly 7.6 million shares of Class A and Class B common stock, which represented about 2.3 percent of Google's outstanding capital stock and 8.2 percent of the voting power of Google's outstanding capital stock.

The former CEO is now planning to sell up to approximately 3.2 million shares of Class A common stock. That reduces his share in the Mountain View, Calif.-based corporation by approximately 42 percent.

Here's a snippet from the 8-K filing about Schmidt's (and Google's) explanation for the move:

The pre-arranged trading plan was adopted in order to allow Eric to sell a portion of his Google stock as part of his long-term strategy for individual asset diversification and liquidity. The stock transactions pursuant to this trading plan will be disclosed publicly through Form 4 and Form 144 filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Using this trading plan, Eric can diversify his investment portfolio and can spread stock trades out over a period of one year to reduce market impact.

Soon after the news broke, Google shares were down -- albeit slightly -- in after hours trading:


Screenshot via MarketWatch

Topics: Google, Tech Industry

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Google sucks

    even their chairman knows that
    • anonymous nice now

      It was Loverock Davidson who purchased all that stock.
      Over and Out
      • Loverock Davidson?

        that guy from under the bridge? who gave him money?
        • Better than the others, though

          Yeah? Google stood up for us against SOPA, while Msoft, Facebook, and Apple hid out and said to hell with Internet freedom.
          James Mooney
          • Google Stand's

            Yes, the above fact is correct, as you are right on target.
        • Prankster

          I heard it was renowned prankster Ronaiah Tuiasosopo
    • Why everyone is so ticked off with this move?...

      The man holds a nice chunk of potential change (do the math, even at $700 a share...). Why won't he cash some of this. What the sense in waiting any longer? What the point to wait for it to get even more rich in value?

      Let him be...
      • total money

        Doing the math suggests that he's going to walk away with about $2.4 billion by the time he's done. Does he want it in small unmarked bills, do you suppose? Is he just going to rent a helicopter and drop it all out $20 at a time while circling over Silicon Valley? The world wonders.
        • Diversification.

          It's diversification of his portfolio. It is a bad investment strategy to have too much of your wealth tied to a single company or business sector. He is probably looking to a future retirement/philanthropic pursuit and so the voting power in Google is no longer as important to him as making sure his wealth is protected. It makes total sense.
          • RE: Diversification.

            The first thing I thought of was "He thinks it's time to start giving some away, like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation". He needs some liquidity in order to do that.

            Why does everyone always think the worst?
          • You're Assuming Hes Not Already Diversified

            What makes you believe that Eric Schmidt is not already diversified? The clip does state ‘..his long-term strategy for individual asset diversification and liquidity’. That ‘liquidity’ at the end should not be ignored. Why give more weight to the ‘liquidity’ then to ‘diversification’? Because the explanation given is the defacto BS excuse always given when some major stock holder dumps a sizeable portion of stock.

            Eric Schmidt is preparing, making financial arrangements for the future. The question should be, what does Eric Schmidt know that’s NOT being mentioned in this story!

            Lets examine the facts

            1) US Federal Government Is Implementing wide scale automated drone surveillance domestically. These drones have the capability to assassinate human beings from above

            2) The US President claims the right to assassinate anyone including American Citizens without due process and without actual prof of any crime. So long as the president ‘believes’ there is significant reason to suspect the individual is associated with a terrorist or terrorist group then that’s good enough

            3) Leaders in various industry have been warning for some time that the collapse of the American Dollar was imminent

            4) Local Law Enforcement have been engaged in cooperative training exercises with Federal law enforcement and US Military for several years.

            5) Local Law Enforcement departments around the country have for many years been the recipients of surplus military grade supplies including arms and ammunition thanks to the Federal Governments 1033 program.

            6) Eric Scmidt dumps significant share of stock in highly valued GOOGLE

            Now you can claim Conspiracy Theory all you want but all 6 above are facts and not opinions even if you did not realize they were facts. Most are unaware of the Federal Governments 1033 program that has allowed even small police departments to acquire unnecessary armaments like SWAT Tanks. Google 1033 Police Departments and take a look at some of the pictures posted by local PD’s from around the country who are proud to show off their new toys compliments of Uncle Sam (that means you and me since we pay for it).

            The governments at every level are preparing and the big execs like Schmidt know this. Its time to get your head out of the sand and stop denying something just because it’s not published in the mainstream news media.
    • I guess you just cant win.

      As things currently seem to stand...there are always a number of people who think something in the IT industry sucks. Plenty enough that they are not afraid to say it and plenty enough to give rise to the notion that if we were to put any faith in the idea that posters on these boards were credible, that pretty much everything sucks.

      Apple sucks, Microsoft sucks, Linux sucks, Google sucks, Facebook sucks, Intel sucks, it all sucks. It seems likely that even many of the writers here suck and a great number of the posters here suck. It all sucks.

      It all sucks so much it almost makes one recollect the old saying that where everything is a priority, nothing is a priority. Maybe where everything sucks nothing sucks. At least not nearly so much as far too many people around here seem to be dying to let people know how badly it all sucks.

      While I can understand anyone’s personal tastes, if properly explained, how they may not care for some particular thing, it makes one wonder how so many can feel one thing or another “sucks” when there always seems to be quite a number of people, often large and vocal groups who feel it dosnt suck.

      I would hope that sooner or later at least some of the writers around here would get the message that there is seldom much credibility that can be attached to an opinion article that amounts to “It sucks” even if the words “it sucks” are merely implied if never actually used.
      • Linux doesn't suck!

        Linux is open source, and therefore unable to suck. It's not possible. Any suckyness that may arise is addressed by the community unlike proprietary softwares that keep code secrets and profit on ignorance.

        Linux for President, Linux for humanity!

        Linux FTW!
        • Right on, well, money

          Linux is a result of a 'we have a community' approach and it's so bad that it can't do pretty much anything. Can't even suck. Totally useless.
        • ZZZZZZzzzzzz....

          Your birkenstocks are falling off. If an opinion is Linux sucks then it sucks, its just and opinion. No it's not great, but it's not bad if that is all you have to choose from.
          Now if that was sarcasm - that was awesome.
  • The clown

    The clown who screwed-up Novell and Sun... Now that Google share prices are at its high, its good time for this clown to take his money and run...Google has no long term future and would at some point get exterminated by Microsoft
    • Maybe Eric Schmidt read these?

      Maybe he know something that many are starting to suspect
      NoMore MicrosoftEver
      • You're anticipating global trust...

        ...that "Siri" - or whatever mobile app - won't ever lie...that mobile apps won't ever be corrupted by - be a reflection of the corruption of - a corporate or government entity that is far more interested in mushrooming you in order to steer you down a particular path towards a particular purchase, vote, or behavior than it is in providing you with the truth.

        That is the great fallacy of mobile...the twin assumptions that humans are cattle and their herders are and always will be trustworthy., I'll never let a single-source, single point-of-control app drive. I at least hope that I am not alone.
      • Dubious Sources

        Given that Apple wanted to destroy Google I don't know if Mac News is a reliable source ;') As for Forbes (besides the idiot editorials from Steve that they are forced to print) they thought Credit Default Swaps were a grand idea before the crash of 2008 ;')
        James Mooney
      • Interesting article Challenger R/T...but...

        ...its totally packed with a lot of very speculative guess work.

        Its like so so much of the predictive articles we see right here on ZDNet.

        You have to be very very careful about predicting the end of any company in five years that is still doing very well and has no direct indicators of failure written anyplace on the wall.

        Its true, you can predict future potential problems, you can predict potential future twists and turns in the IT world that may take place, you can then predict a particular company failing to adapt to those changes, you can then begin to predict the demise of that company and predict it could eventually fail entirely.

        But wow.

        Is there like some kind of big prize, or award or something they give out for an IT writer who makes the most far flung predictions of a products or companies demise? The practice seems to run rampant throughout the world of IT writing.