John Edwards' pirate booty

120. Mollusk Sam, the Squid, originally uploaded by mattharvest.

Earlier this month an obscure Florida-based firm called Odyssey Marine Research hauled up $500 million in sunken treasure from an undisclosed location in the Atlantic ocean.
Brett Arends of the Street did some exploring of his own and learned that John Edwards may be among the beneficiaries of OMR's haul:

Biggest shareholder: New York-based Fortress Investments, a private equity and hedge fund manager. Senior adviser and major investor: John Edwards.

Edwards' personal financial disclosures show he's an investor in the exclusive Drawbridge Global Macro Fund, which owns the 9.9% stake in OMR.

Ten percent of $500 million. After costs, of course. [TS]

Well played, Senator.

Comments

[Anacher Forester]

The costs associated with this kind of recovery effort are substantial. Odyssey Marine Exploration is notable in that they are one of the few outfits that employs rigid archaeological protocols during their excavations. While this further adds to the expense, it will allow scientists to gather the best possible information from the wreck. This is a staggering haul so even after expenses this will be a very profitable venture.

More here: Black Swan

[dan]

(of course, note that it's ten percent of 500m times whatever fraction of DGMF Edwards has. Also note that it's unlikely they'll just be distributing the cash out, so we're talking about what capital gains he'll get, and it looks like the share price has sort of stabilized at about double what it was going for before the announcement. On the other hand, looks like their market cap is less than their cash on hand, which is...interesting)

[Hawise]

Odyssey Marine Exploration is well-respected and can be expected to have a well documented trail. I would not be surprised to see several television documentaries to be produced after they finish the excavations. That being said- John Edwards wins the pirate vote- aaargghh, pass the grog and lower the mainsail.

[Alon Levy]

Yeah, it makes sense that pirates will support John Edwards, if you think about it.

[Lesley]

That'll keep him in $400 hair cuts.

[ChrisR]

$500 million? That's almost two whole Iraq-days!

[rollingindough]

So, Edwards stands to possibly make a share in the profits from the company that will haul in (ha ha) a whopping 50 million historical, scientific, and perfectly legal discovery. Before costs etc. Then there are costs, then this will be passed on to investors, who might earn, those among them with the largest shares, several million dollars. My good lord. That's so much money even Dick Cheney doesn’t make that much in one day. To get that kind of money you'd have to go all the way to the UAE like our defense contracts. Of course, Edward’s rivals make that on a yearly to monthly basis. What a rich guy he is. Hey, if your parents own a house and sell it - it’s like they discovered pirate booty too! Compare that to 7 trillion. You do the math. Compare that to Bush's annual returns. Hey I bet the apartment you live in NY is worth several times what Edwards will make. How crafty of you to see the true enemy. I’ll vote for the man who supports labor, thank you very much. I could point out that if you’re so socially conscious that no one around you should earn money you might ditch the makeup, hairdye, and trendy tee shirts and donate all that 20 + $ a month to a Katrina relief agency that uses volunteers or unionized workers. How about it? Is your vanity worth more than people’s homes and livelihoods? How about moving somewhere cheaper than NY and donating the money you save on rent? If you find you need a public persona or certain locals to keep your gig going, well don’t throw rocks at the Edward’s glass house. He’s not rolling in the dough, and all of the USA knows it. Right now he’s doing pretty well for himself, but the difference between well and the wealthy has never been larger in the history of the nation. Focus the criticism where it belongs. Of the three front runners, he’s the most liberal, the only outright pro-union, and tied with Clinton on women’s issues. He’s also the poorest. Instead of democratic in fighting lets focus on crimes commited by the GOP and administration, like perjury, treason, theft, abuse of power etc etc.

[Alon Levy]

Actually, Rolling in Dough, I think your comment is one of the strongest arguments one can make for Edwards. That's why he's the worst serious candidate in the Democratic field.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

I don't see a controversy at all. I just think it's cool that he and his fund had the foresight to invest in a high-tech industry that delivered results.

Pluse, the pirate tie-in.

[DJA]

That's why he's the worst serious candidate in the Democratic field.

You mean, other than the fact that he's the most progressive and the most electable.

[Alon Levy]

There's nothing progressive about cosponsoring the Iraq War resolution, turning against the war when it becomes unpopular, and advocating military action tagainst Iran.

There's nothing progressive about fiscal irresponsibility. When pressed about funding his social programs, he mentions repealing the 2001 tax cuts on people making over $200,000 a year. What he won't tell you is that the total revenue from that would be $25 billion a year.

There's nothing progressive about taking potshots at Hillary Clinton's health care plan. "We're glad that she's on board with our plan," said the Edwards campaign, neglecting to mention Clinton's universal health care ideas predate Edwards' by about 14 years.

There's nothing progressive about ignoring immigration issues. Bland statements about labor rights don't equal an immigration plan. If he doesn't say how he'll legalize the 12 million illegal immigrants residing in the US, and subsequently let it many more legal immigrants than are currently allowed to enter, he's weak on immigration.

And there's nothing progressive about being clueless about foreign policy. When asked to clarify his statements about Iran, Edwards started raving about development aid, coming off as a new Robert McNamara. Giving aid to Iran will only prolong the regime. Unfortunately, the correct approach, letting it implode on its own, requires someone who actually cares about foreign policy, as opposed to having a Johnsonian view that it's a distraction from domestic policy.

[Cass]

"And there's nothing progressive about being clueless about foreign policy."

And who, pray, would you describe as being clueful? (Amongst those who have a prayer of winning, I mean.)

[cf4]

DJA: You mean, other than the fact that he's the most progressive and the most electable.

You think Edwards is electable?!

Don't you realize that in times of national crisis, our country cries out for leadership from Ivy-educated Democratic lawyers from the Northeast? Don't you realize the mission of the Democratic Party is to try to con 50.1% of those bible-thumping hicks in the red states that We know what's best for Them?

John Edwards's values are totally antithetical to those of the Democratic Party: he believes we should actually listen to Those People. That's a surefire losing strategy. Better to follow the examples of Michael Dukakis, John Kerry, and Howard Dean.

[DJA]

neglecting to mention Clinton's universal health care ideas predate Edwards' by about 14 years.

Uh, Alon, Hillary's health care plan was horrible, and her bungling of the issue set back the cause of health care reform in America by, oh, about 14 years. She is the last person anyone should trust to effectively manage a transition to single-payer.

Of course, Hillary voted for the war as well and has only just now starting talking about withdrawal, Barack was planning on voting for the recent toothless supplemental bill until he was faced with a constituent revolt, Hillary only voted against it because Barack did, and Hillary and Barack have both at various times made comments RE: Iran similar to Edwards. And it's incontestable that Edwards would have a more progressive fiscal policy than either of them, one that would actually do something to reduce inequality.

I don't want to turn this thread into a Democratic primary open thread -- there are lots and lots of other places you could have that discussion. But okay, so you don't support Edwards -- at this point, we get it. It's not necessary to remind us of that every single time his name comes up.

Besides, who doesn't want to hear John Edwards say, "Arrr, that's quite a haul, me hearties" with a southern drawl?

[Hawise]

It is all about the after party- pirates throw the best parties after the haul is safely stowed. We have tried electing people based on issues- maybe we should elect them on how much pirate booty they have. Get the man an eyepatch and a parrot and he is good to go.

[Ruchira]

I am despairing over the Democratic slate. None of the front runners has me jumping with joy - yet. Edwards is the weakest of the lot. His progressive stance is mostly talk and I for one am not convinced at all. Obama and Clinton? Both leave much to be desired. And Alon, Hillary whom you call strong on health care, is promising universal care only in her SECOND term. How is that for a SICK joke? And this came out last night. Then there is the perennial 800 pound gorilla Bill, whose larger than life persona overshadow all who are close to him. Are we sure we are not going to be in for a nasty surprise if she is the eventual nominee? My only solace right now is that the Repugs look even more inept, insincere and ridiculous than our side. But things might change if Uncle Freddy (Thompson) throws his hat in the ring.

What we Dems need is a man/woman who:
1.has had some distance from the back rooms of Washington politics for a while but otherwise has solid experience on matters of the state.
2. whose ego has taken a bruising and therefore he/she has had time to be introspective.
3. has a weighty and credible record on public policy and speaks truth to power.
4. is unimpeachable on Iraq
5. is a figure who is both popular and sympathetic (an impeccable marital life will be an icing on the cake for those concerned with bed room fidelity).

Al Gore, anyone?

[Alon Levy]

Yeah, I know about Iran and Obama and Clinton. At least Obama's opposition to the Iraq war started before the war's popularity collapsed. And at least Clinton didn't cosponsor the resolution, and doesn't consider foreign policy a distraction from domestic affairs.

And, pray tell, what's progressive about mega-deficits? It makes sense to have them when you're in a total war, or when you're in a depression. The US is in neither. The whole bit about reducing inequality is a sham. Edwards' taxation and spending proposals are too weak to do anything of that sort. If I'm not getting a 5-point reduction in the Gini index, why shouldn't I support the candidate who didn't have to flip-flop on Iraq, or the candidate who's reliably pro-choice?

[Alon Levy]

Gore's strength comes from his record as an activist. As a politician, he's Bill Clinton minus the charisma.

[cf4]

Al Gore, anyone?

God, no. I've never voted Rep for President; I don't want to have to start.

The NYT story is quite scary; InfoUSA is one of the scummiest companies in the universe. "Hello, is this InfoUSA? I'm calling from Nigeria -- could you send me names of people who are over 70, live alone, and have at least $100K in savings?" Good thing for her the story came out at the start of a long weekend.

[Alon Levy]

My take on those stories is that every politician should be presumed a corrupt, self-serving liar unless proven otherwise.

[DJA]

and doesn't consider foreign policy a distraction from domestic affairs.

Not sure that's a virtue in and of itself, Alon. You know who else is really into foreign policy? Dick Cheney.

At any rate, I really don't think that at this stage of the game, it makes a whole lot of sense to pick at the potential Dem nominees, especially if you're going to spend all your time microing in on campaign promises and campaign rhetoric at the expense of looking at where their base of support is coming from.

But unlike Ruchira, I'm quite pleased with our slate and once Joe Biden drops out, I'll be basically fine with any of them as the nominee. Look, the GOP roster is so awful that they are hoping that Newt frickin' Gingrich will swoop in and save them. I'd way rather be us than them. And no matter which Democrat is elected, we will still need grassroots/netroots groups to keep the heat on (as evidenced by the Iraq supplemental debacle).

[Alon Levy]

where their base of support is coming from

That's actually where Edwards is the weakest. Edwards' base of support is basically the netroots and vestiges of the economically left-wing white South. Blacks and, I think, Hispanics, don't support him at all. He's weak in the Northeastern suburbs, where Giuliani will slaughter him.

Clinton's base of support consists of traditional Democratic demographics: racial minorities, the poor, the Northeast. Obama's strongest among demographics that lean left but tend to register as Independents; the only demographic that prefers him to Clinton by a serious margin is secular voters.

The appeal to Independents is probably why right now, Real Clear Politics' meta-poll has Obama performing the best against Giuliani - leading him by an amount almost outside the margin of error, while Edwards' lead is almost 0 and Giuliani's lead over Clinton is well within the margin of error.

[DJA]

Real Clear Politics' meta-poll

Okay, I begin to see the problem here...

[Alon Levy]

Is there something I should know that makes RCP not an accurate aggregator of polls?

[DJA]

1) National polls at this point in the game have zero predictive value.

2) Dude, it's Real Clear Politics. I wouldn't trust those guys to accurately calculate a tip.