I'm visiting the Gannett Foundation's offices at headquarters in McLean, Va., to examine the charity's public tax reports to the IRS. Under federal law, these Forms 990-PF are available for public inspection during business hours. Things I'll need:1. Post-it notes.
2. iPhone.
3. General Counsel Kurt Wimmer's phone number, for legal questions.
4. In the event Wimmer isn't available, the last known home address, home phone number and other contact information I got for presiding Director Karen Hastie Williams:
Please post your replies in the comments section, below. To e-mail confidentially, write gannettblog[at]gmail[dot-com]; see Tipsters Anonymous Policy in the green rail, upper right.
When you look at these returns, pay attention to the investment decisions. When I looked at these forms several years ago, I thought they were making horrendous investment decisions, and not getting the sort of returns on their investments that they should. This raises a suspicion of why and there are several possible explanations ranging from incompetence to things that would get me in legal trouble if I mentioned them. Compare the Freedom Forum's investment strategy with the Rockefeller Brothers and you will see what I mean.
ReplyDeleteNow you are in the belly of the beast, give us an explanation where all of our money has gone.
ReplyDeleteWhy not simply schedule a meeting with the general counsel? What does this sensationalism accomplish?
ReplyDeleteGood morning, Jim. How's our favorite millionaire doing on a beautiful day in DC? A couple tips for your visit to the Gannett compound today: 1) Please don't ask us readers to chip in for your cab fare. 2) Best not to day trade from Gannett HQ, remember the IT department can see everything you do.
ReplyDelete6:47: He obviously won't be able to do that while at Gannett HQ this morning. Remember that Freedom Forum has no official connection with the Gannett Foundation these days.
ReplyDelete@9:32 Of course! By labeling him a millionaire, of course he is now discredited. I'll have to remember that for my next argument.
ReplyDelete9:41: No, Jim's not discredited in the least. I'm just trying to figure out why he bothers asking for our hand outs. I've got a family to support while he's off traveling to Spain and Brazil. I'm pulling down less than 30K a year while he's off playing secret agent in DC.
ReplyDeleteIf this were an entirely self-financed operation, I'd have no problem at all.
I don't know...It would seem to me that 120 stock trades in a year would be doable simply by trading out the Gannett 401K stock prior to leaving Gannett and during his time of severance pay.
ReplyDeleteDoesn't mean he's a millionaire, nor does it mean he isn't.
Either way, trading them out, then purchasing back a single share isn't a crime.
Just thinking outside the box on this one, and is only a guess on my part.
The first 120 trades would have cost $1,554, which is a big chunk of change for me at least. If he were only trading out of the Gannett stock that he got in his 401K wouldn't that only be quarterly?
ReplyDeleteWasn't implying that any of Jim's transactions are illegal.
But I am pointing out that his refusal to respond to any of these questions is odd for someone who's normally an open book, and that he either has a hell of a lot of money in the bank (in which case I don't appreciate him asking for mine), or that he was an awfully active trader for a man with a day job.
And although Jim is an open book for the most part, his personal finances are no ones business but his own.
ReplyDeleteAnd regardless of your personal views, Jim doesn't require anyone to purchase a subscription. He is, however, attempting to run a blogging business, Independant Journalist focusing on Gannett Company Inc., and as any business is want to do, make some money from his time and effort.
If Jim trades stocks in his spare time, either making or losing money on the deals, that is his personal business as well.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteAnd although Jim is an open book for the most part, his personal finances are no ones business but his own.
And regardless of your personal views, Jim doesn't require anyone to purchase a subscription.
We all have the right to know how our donations are being spent. As long as I'm donating to his blog I want to know about the man who is receiving my hard earned money. Maybe he has a drug problem and is using my money to support his habit. Who knows.
If Jim is commingling donations with his own money then I want to know how my donation is being used.
ReplyDelete10:36: I completely agree that Jim's personal finances are none of our business.
ReplyDeleteThe only area of contention is that Jim has established himself as a business reporter and blogger, covering the Gannett Co. beat. And any business reporter worth his salt knows, there has to be a mechanism for establishing journalistic credibility.
Typically that mechanism takes two forms: 1) a corporate ethics policy which requires journalists who trade stocks and bonds to abstain from covering companies in which they have holdings, and report these holdings to a compliance officer or
2) in the case of independent or freelance journalists, ironclad disclosure policies are the norm. After commenting about a company, the author will disclose "long GCI" or "No holdings". If you need an example, check out seekingalpha.com or any number of financial news and analysis sites.
To eliminate the appearance of a conflict of interest (and to discredit claims that Jim is profiting from shorting Gannett common equity), it would simply be prudent to set the record straight and to establish a consistent and ongoing disclosure policy.
How big of a twit must one be to fail to understand a simple concept.
ReplyDeleteNO ONE IS REQUIRED to donate to this blog. In doing so, you are donating to a personal independant business.
GannettBlog is not a 501 not-for-profit, therefore Jim has no obligation to report his personal finances to anyone or to disclose how he uses the donations.
If you can't understand the concept, don't pay for the service he provides and read your Gannett information elsewhere.
Jim can choose to disclose...but he's not obligated to. One has to be quite thick to not comprehend this.
A quick future value calculation shows that a million dollar account balance over twenty years would be difficult to achieve on a typical Gannett salary.
ReplyDeleteLet's say you start working, you're young, green and eager to start saving. You start with a modest $3K in the bank, then contribute $10K each year for the years 1-10. Then you get a raise and for years 11-20 you contribute $20K each year. If we assume an annual percentage rate of 7% (which is closer to 9.5-10% returns after you normalize for inflation), then you come up with: $598,096.82
That's assuming a LOT of savings! If I'm making $30K a year and then save $10K after tax, ...
And that's only 2/3 of the way to the amount of money that I need in my Schwab account in order to get $8.95 commissions.
And that's not factoring in living in SanFrancisco, one of the most expensive cities in the US, nor does it account for fancy trips to Spain and Brazil.
But it does strike me as a tad hipocritical to throw oneself in the camp of the poor worker bees outraged that some manager got a bonus this year... and then turn around and hit up those same folks for a $5 donation each quarter.
... while twittering about how to examine someone else's tax-return! LOL
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
ReplyDeleteHow big of a twit must one be to fail to understand a simple concept.
NO ONE IS REQUIRED to donate to this blog. In doing so, you are donating to a personal independant business.
GannettBlog is not a 501 not-for-profit, therefore Jim has no obligation to report his personal finances to anyone or to disclose how he uses the donations.
If you can't understand the concept, don't pay for the service he provides and read your Gannett information elsewhere.
Jim can choose to disclose...but he's not obligated to. One has to be quite thick to not comprehend this.
4/27/2009 11:04 AM
The true twit is the person who give his money away without knowing where it's going and how it's being used. Do you not understand that concept?
4/27/2009 11:17 AM
ReplyDeleteThe true twit is the person who give his money away without knowing where it's going and how it's being used. Do you not understand that concept?
Do you ask your barber how he spends the $12.95 you pay him for your haircut?
Of course you don't. You pay for his service. Same concept here...
I pay because I find this blog a valuable service.
If this is any measure of who this company keeps employed, it's no wonder it's in such trouble. Dim bulbs...the lot of you!
Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete4/27/2009 11:17 AM
The true twit is the person who give his money away without knowing where it's going and how it's being used. Do you not understand that concept?
Do you ask your barber how he spends the $12.95 you pay him for your haircut?
Of course you don't. You pay for his service. Same concept here...
I pay because I find this blog a valuable service.
If this is any measure of who this company keeps employed, it's no wonder it's in such trouble. Dim bulbs...the lot of you!
4/27/2009 11:27 AM
My fee I pay the barber is not a DONATION!
o⋅na⋅tion [doh-ney-shuhn] Show IPA
–noun
1. an act or instance of presenting something as a gift, grant, or contribution.
2. a gift, as to a fund; contribution.
Do you understand the difference? Who's the dim bulb?
My fee I pay the barber is not a DONATION!
ReplyDeleteo⋅na⋅tion [doh-ney-shuhn] Show IPA
–noun
1. an act or instance of presenting something as a gift, grant, or contribution.
2. a gift, as to a fund; contribution.
Do you understand the difference? Who's the dim bulb?
4/27/2009 11:36 AM
Simple answer then...don't give the gift.
No one twisted your arm to give a gift. YOU nor any of us are "entitled" to demand information on what Jim does with our GIFTS.
He isn't obligated to tell you, me or anyone what he does with it.
Don't like it...don't give the gift, and go elsewhere. What an EGO you have.
Yes you are still the twit!
If this is any measure of who this company keeps employed, it's no wonder it's in such trouble. Dim bulbs...the lot of you!
ReplyDelete4/27/2009 11:27 AM
I don't work for the company never have, never will. I'm assuming you don't either because if you do, that would make you a dim bulb.
11:04 said, If you can't understand the concept, don't pay for the service he provides and read your Gannett information elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteNow that's funny. Just where would "elsewhere" be?
@4/27/2009 11:57 AM
ReplyDeleteNow that's funny. Just where would "elsewhere" be?
I could be mistaken, but I don't think I am. That is exactly the point I believe 11:04 was making.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteWhy not simply schedule a meeting with the general counsel? What does this sensationalism accomplish?
4/27/2009 9:26 AMROTFLMMFAO
That's right, just direct all questions to the Forum's lawyer and take his/her word for it. No need to check the veracity of a stinkin' lawyer operating on behalf of the client's interests, not the public, readers or stockholders.
No need to check the records for ourselves before we repeat whatever the lawyer wants us to repeat as reality. Nah!!!
You have just become a caricature even of a troll, Capt. Obvious.
12:31: You appear to be very misinformed. First of all, I guess we have to repeat for your benefit that the Gannett Foundation is not associated with the Freedom Forum in any official capacity any longer. So asking the "Forum's general council" would, in fact, accomplish nothing.
ReplyDeleteJim's post indicates that he has Gannett's general counsel on speed dial, ready to pepper him with questions after examining the past three years of returns for the GANNETT FOUNDATION, and that if he couldn't track down Kurt Wimmer, that he would try to contact Karen Williams, one of the directors at her home address and home phone.
The earlier post seems pretty reasonable now, doesn't it? If you can't get an immediate response from Wimmer, why not just schedule a meeting? Why post a director's personal contact information just so everyone can see that you have it? Is that necessary?--sensationalism?
Why is this board so hostile today?
@1:13
ReplyDeleteWe're not sheep, and we can spot red herrings and argumentum ad hominem.
We're not sheep, and we can spot red herrings and argumentum ad hominem.
ReplyDelete4/27/2009 1:53 PM
________________________________
If we are supporters of Jim we are sheep? If we support the asshat suits are we good valuable employees who's jobs are secure?
Ummm scratch that last question.
Jim's supporter has lots of excess room on both sides.
ReplyDeleteJim:
ReplyDeleteIgnoring the assholes here, I'm wondering just what you're hoping to gain from an in-person examination.
I can get the Foundation's 2007 IRS Form 990 for free at Guidestar.org. Judging by the blurry IRS "received" stamp, it was filed in late 2008, making it the most recent form. No need to visit enemy territory in person.
He's too retarded to do that. He probably thinks Guidestar is affiliated with Gannett.
ReplyDeleteHe's already lying now and claiming he never said he would go to the offices on Monday, even though it's been posted here for days.
10:48 pm: I still need the 2008 Form 990-PF, but that'll be in the fall. Otherwise, I'm all set.
ReplyDelete