Why is Hull even the focus of the story in the Trib today detailing ties to pharmaceutical companies?
Despite those stances, records show, Hull is a partner in trading companies with substantial investments tied to pharmaceutical interests. His financial statements filed with the Federal Election Commission show he is a partner in firms that trade securities and invest in stocks linked to Pfizer, Cardinal Health Inc. and Amgen Inc., three pharmaceutical companies. And he has invested in bonds that were converted from stocks of drugmakers and suppliers, the records show. The value of those bonds now is tied to the performance of the drug company stock.
Hull noted that he owns no direct stock ownership in pharmaceutical companies–and he holds only passive partnerships in funds that have investments that are linked to drug company stocks, mostly index funds.
To be sure, Hull, whose net worth is between $150 million and $600 million, has a vast portfolio of indirect investments in literally hundreds, if not thousands, of stocks. Most of Hull’s links to pharmaceuticals are found in index funds that contain top stocks and rise or fall based on the performance of indexes such as the Standard & Poor’s 500.
It’s a fair story to say, X has this kind of stock, but making him the focus is silly given both Obama and Hynes have such ties in mutual funds and in campaign donations.
The key quote is “Despite those stances”. Hull may own stock, but he appears to be taking positions that at least those companies claim will hurt them. Is a reverse conflict of interest really worth the focus of the story?