Since the means of Hauptmann's income often becomes an issue of debate regarding the ransom money vs. his claim of successful investments, I thought it would be helpful if we could investigate Hauptmann's claim. How plausible is it for him to have lived off the market in 32, 33. & 34? What type of trading and investments would or could make this possible? Is there a means via accounting to determine his possible gains ( and losses) ? What I am essentially asking here is could one work backward and assume the cost of living and expenses for the Hauptmann's to determine the minimum income required. This, of course, would be assuming that the ransom money was not included. Has anyone analyzed his stock trades, if that is possible, to determine what his profit/loss actually was or even the potential?
I do have some issues to be resolved with it though.... For example, the Geneau Report doesn't have all the information the Police found - there is apparently some source of income listed as "unknown" source, which implies ransom when it could have been via other means.
Hauptmann loaned people money for interest. Hauptmann also took other people's money and invested it for them. All of this money went into and out of his account and looked as though he was the source when he wasn't. Surely this doesn't account for $50,000 but I think it begins to chip away at some of it and leaves a question mark above the whole matter since we simply do not have all of the information we would need in order to know for certain.
Also, we certainly do not know the true state of his finances prior to April 2, 1932.
Last Edit: May 15, 2006 17:28:27 GMT -5 by Michael
Yes, of course Rab's excellent research is most helpful. But what I am curious about has more to do with potential. What type of investments and returns would Hauptmann have to make in 1932 to 34 in order to live as he did if we totally disregard the ransom. What was the typical return at that time on these types of transactions? I am trying to get a handle on the plausibility of living solely off the market at that time.
I don't think he had his "own" space, rather, a spot he was usually at. This is what enabled him to receive the phone calls coming in from Anna. If you want I could look this up. I believe its in Mulligan's statement.
His stocks seem to be all recorded on S&R's sheets. Steiner and Rouse handed over all records to the Police. I have seen quite a few at the NJSP Archives but I copied very few. There is also extensive records in Hauptmann's notebook. It might also interest you to know that while a meticulous record keeper....Hauptmann seems to pause in this record keeping during a specific period of time.
There is also extensive records in Hauptmann's notebook. It might also interest you to know that while a meticulous record keeper....Hauptmann seems to pause in this record keeping during a specific period of time.
I have to admit that this is an area outside of my knowledge. It seems to me, though, that in order to successfully trade stocks or invest in general one must accurately track the investments made. I am puzzled at the claim that Hauptmann ( and defense) makes that he is living by virtue of investment acumen. Is it not discernible whether there is any truth to this? What where his actual profit and loss statements during 1932 to 1934 regarding stock trades?
Post by rick3 Skeptic4 on May 20, 2006 12:41:28 GMT -5
At the risk of sounding too objective:
Did BRH and Annas standard of living change any or "shoot up" in the 1932-34 brackett when compared with the 1930-32 brackett? After all, they stay in the same apt. drive the same car, take a huge vacation in 1931 to California to the sisters.
Izzy Fisch on the other hand is laundering the Gold Certs, either bought cheep or acquired directly from JFC, and yet convinces the Young Mens Chuzpah Asso. that he is dead broke? And owns land in the Hamptons. Who inherited his property on LI? Will the real crook and con please stand up/
Did BRH and Annas standard of living change any or "shoot up" in the 1932-34 brackett when compared with the 1930-32 brackett? rick?
Of course their standard of living went up. Not only in the sense of expenditures, but more importantly the fact that Hauptmann no longer needed to work physically in a job short, low wage market. He could now don the suit and go to the office. How many of his peers could claim the same? Maybe I will just stop working and hang out at Paine Weber. Would I have to make any money?
Izzy Fisch on the other hand is laundering the Gold Certs, either bought cheep or acquired directly from JFC, and yet convinces the Young Mens Chuzpah Asso. that he is dead broke? And owns land in the Hamptons. Who inherited his property on LI? rick?
What where his actual profit and loss statements during 1932 to 1934 regarding stock trades? (Kevin)
What they tried to do was check the records from Carleton & Mott, and Steiner, Rouse and Company against his notebooks specifically looking at post April 1932. Hauptmann had once again began keeping meticulous records starting August of '32.
It was determined that everything matched up with the exception of the sales of (100) shares of Warner Bros. and (500) Curtiss Wright shares which had been on his account at Carleton & Mott but sold through Steiner, Rouse and Company.
According to records, Hauptmann lost $224.74 in the year 1932. Once again though, we don't know if this was all of his loses because he was investing for other people in addition to himself and Fisch. It should also be remembered that Hauptmann had a tendency to loan money out at a cost to the borrower.... Whether the Police ever found out about all of these ventures or not is important because all "unexplained" monies was/is being considered as ransom.
Also, what isn't being considered in this post is the fact that Hauptmann and Fisch did have a business partnership and money was being "invested" in furs. That should be for another post.
With this in mind, continued examination of the records for 1933 showed a loss of $1,240.65 in the stock market. This figure included the profit of $272.49 made in his named account and the loss of $269.35 in his commodity account where he bought and sold cotton.
In 1934, Hauptmann made a profit of $569.85 in his Pierce account from January to July '34. Up until his arrest he had a net loss of $1,128.64 in his named account with Steiner, Rouse and Company account. It is interesting to note that after the February 26th deposit into this account there were no more deposits made, rather, only withdrawals from the account. In his commodity account, Hauptmann made a few trades in silver and wheat which made a profit of $80.75. However, when totaling out all the accounts for the year it shows a total loss of $4,263.24.
The only "unexplained" deposits made for the entire year of 1934 were that Feb deposit of $1,350 and his small deposits totaling $260.00 in his bank account.
Anyway, the total net loss from all stock and commodity accounts appears to be $5728.63 post ransom delivery up to Hauptmann's arrest. As you will notice, this figure differs with what's in Agent Genau's report.
All of this information should be cross-referenced with Rab's research in the Archive section. If there are any questions concerning my facts I will be happy to try and reconcile them.
Last Edit: May 21, 2006 13:08:56 GMT -5 by Michael
Great response Michael. So it is clear that the notion of Hauptmann finding a "system" to beat the market is nonsense. Then we are left with the question of where and how he was obtaining his income plus losses in the market. Could he possibly have made this amount through his "loans" and or fur trading?
It's a real stretch to believe Hauptmann suddenly had a sudden turn of great fortune in furs or money lending returns, given the size of the cash deposits that went into his account in the months immediately following the ransom payment. Not to mention his out of place material purchases.
The totals were made to show that $50,000 were accounted for. There are several factors, which are legit, that show monies account for as "unexplained" or shown to be Hauptmann's - either weren't or may not have been - then the figure of $50,000 is false.
The point is there was other money making schemes being employed which should not be ignored. Judging by Joe's comment above it seems that he is doing just that.
Rab's own research shows a $10,000 short-fall and I don't think he's considered all of what I have - yet. So if we have a $10,000 short-fall AND other sources of income or income that really isn't - then any claim that Hauptmann had and spent the total $50,000 simply can not be supported.
This is an important element when considering others may have been involved in the collection (of the $50,000 ransom).
Despite a shortfall of $10,000, Rab's research does show Hauptmann was unexplainably enriched to the tune of $40,000 at a time when he had no income and was losing in the market. And this road to riches started immediately after the ransom payment.
Frankly, I'm a bit surprised the accounted total is that close to the original $50,000. Any losses due to floating costs of laundering the ransom money could well have skewed the accounting process much further off. It appears Hauptmann and company did quite well in the return department here.
It seems to me that the important point to remember is that claims that Hauptmann had a "system" to beat the market were patently false. And if he made any "income" from the post-kidnap period it was derived outside of stock investing. Now if you only look at 1932 fiscal year when he ( and others) claim to not have the ransom money one is left to wonder how the Hauptmann's got by. He is not doing any carpentry and has no savings to invest on speculative ventures. That leaves Anna's income. So to me clearly Hauptmann has somehow been enriched right after the ransom payoff.
Hauptmann did make money but lost more then he gained. Michael
Is that not the same as not making any income?
Additionally, I still say if we conclude this money was ransom how do we explain his actions in '31? He seems to have been "enriched" then too. Michael
You are certainly better versed on this subject than me. but I thought that while Hauptmann's California trip was costly, it was accounted for. Is there evidence of Hauptmann receiving/depositing money that is un-accountable? How much "enrichment" do you believe there was? Do we know exactly what BRH was up to prior to the cross country trip?
You are certainly better versed on this subject than me but I thought that while Hauptmann's California trip was costly, it was accounted for. (Kevin)
It depends on what you mean by that.
This Police research into Hauptmann's finances were much deeper on the back end of the ransom drop. Therefore we are hand-cuffed by what they turned up and can't consider what they didn't.
Here's what I found so far: Hauptmann's funds are in poor shape. He has a job, has the mortgage (which he doesn't touch), the 50 shares of Warner Bros. Pictures (which he doesn't sell), and a very small amount of cash.
Suddenly, Hauptmann's behavior changes drastically for no apparent reason:
He quits his job during the depression.
He buys a new car.
He takes off for California on a trip.
On paper, it just about exhausts his funds.
When he returns he has no job, and has to pay the margin call on his stock account $50.00 for May and $25 for December. It leaves him with about $76.00 in his Central Savings Bank Account.
Sounds very bad doesn't it?
So what's Hauptmann do in the face of such a terrible, and self-made tragedy?
He rents this new, more expensive apartment ($50 a month and $50 security) in October.
He pays for living expenses and temporary furnished quarters on East 174th Street
He pays storage fees for his property which had been there the entire length of his trip and up until his moving into Rauch's place.
What's this guy got a magic hat or something? How does he manage to do this unless he has a source of funds that no one knows about?
I am of the opinion that most people have "set" ways about them. Some don't but in this case Hauptmann certainly does. This is one example of several of these "out of character" occurrences or unusual type situations.... Most people tend to say "well who cares - the man is guilty" or refer to his gains post April 2nd and completely dismiss all of the other evidence. This is a big mistake if you ask me.
These types of things are clues (or clews) for us to solve. If we figure out the "whys" for these actions we can most definitely find ourselves on the road to solving this case.
I am still not clear on this issue. Are you saying that Hauptmann needed another income source prior to 4/32 or that he is spending ( and acting) like someone whose ship ( or boad) is about to come in?
I am still not clear on this issue. Are you saying that Hauptmann needed another income source prior to 4/32 or that he is spending ( and acting) like someone whose ship ( or boad) is about to come in? (Kevin)
There are many arguments which can be formulated from this information. They could be used independently, combined, or of course, none could be correct.
Let's go back to why Hauptmann was supposed to have kidnapped the child in the first place. Supposedly he's broke and learns he won't have the job he was expecting....you know....the one that's going to pay him $100 a month.
So the story goes that once he found out this tragic news he had no other alternative then to pull of this impossible crime.
Now by showing what I have above I believe it displays this certainly doesn't jibe because if it did - Hauptmann isn't taking a trip when he did to California - ya' dig?
Next, no one, especially Hauptmann, would do what he did under what appeared to be a financial crisis (on paper). Yet he did. Therefore, he either didn't have a financial crisis or was expecting to be relieved of one.
Think about it.... who would buy a new car, quit their job (when there were few to be had), and take off cross-country under these circumstances? Then you return and pull money (from where?) to upgrade you living situation.
For me, these facts have been ignored far too long and most every time I have ever brought them up I have been, for the most part - alone on the issue from all sides of this debate.
I can not understand why.
Furthermore, if he had money somewhere other then on paper then - he certainly could have had money somewhere else post April 2nd as well.
So again, I say if one points to his actions post April 2nd as evidence of something they must do it elsewhere as well if the circumstances exist there too.
Michael, I don't think you are alone on this issue. I certainly see the pre-kidnap time as extremely important and relevant. I just don't posses your knowledge regarding it so I am trying to make some sense of it. Off hand, I would think that if Hauptmann had received funds prior to 4/32 he would have done his accounting magic as he did post 4/32. But I could also see him obtaining a smaller amount of cash which he did not account for. I do believe that there was certainly some element of truth in the "planned already for a year" statement. It is also extremely difficult for me to believe that one's first re-entry into the world of crime would involve the kidnapping of the most famous man in the worlds son. But what to make of all of this? Is Hauptmann acting like a man completely confident of success at this first kidnapping endeavor?
Someone who used to post on Ronelle's board -- I'm pretty sure it was a guy named David Sims found information at the museum about the springs in Hauptmann's car having been reinforced and that was what bootleggers did to transport liquor. Hauptmann did travel to Maine and possibly Canada too, didn't he? Its one possible explanation as to why he could take a cross country vacation when he didn't seem to have any income or any savings either.
I do believe that there was certainly some element of truth in the "planned already for a year" statement. (Kevin)
Exactly my thoughts.
....I could also see him obtaining a smaller amount of cash which he did not account for.... But what to make of all of this? Is Hauptmann acting like a man completely confident of success at this first kidnapping endeavor? (Kevin)
Kind of makes you think doesn't it? There are a couple of scenarios that visit my mind. No one could be that confident unless it was guaranteed a success.
Someone who used to post on Ronelle's board -- I'm pretty sure it was a guy named David Sims found information at the museum about the springs in Hauptmann's car having been reinforced and that was what bootleggers did to transport liquor. Hauptmann did travel to Maine and possibly Canada too, didn't he? Its one possible explanation as to why he could take a cross country vacation when he didn't seem to have any income or any savings either. (Carol)
Good point Carol. My friend Kurt Tolksdorf has brought this up to me as well and I've been told he's made this very point in the past too. It could be that Hauptmann made the trip to pick up some cash, therefore "killing two birds with one stone" by making a vacation out of it. First we have to try and track down a source concerning those springs in his car....
I was intrigued when Kurt mentioned this point regarding Hauptmann's car modifications. But the problem with the rum running ( or whiskey in this case) is that Hauptmann's Dodge had a limited storage capacity. Unless he also added a huge tank for bulk storage I doubt he would be able to fit enough bottled whiskey to make heavier springs necessary. That is, unless he was unconcerned with concealing his illegal load. I doubt a run to Canada with such limited capacity would be profitable. Of course he could have been going to Jersey. We had many farms producing applejack, my place was one of them.
Carol - I am not sure what position Kurt holds concerning the money.... I'll have to ask Mark what he knows about the springs.
Kevin - This is a good common sense observation. (3) people in that car doesn't leave much room. And his trip to Maine he brought Henkel so there he would have the back seat....even so then it would make Henkel an accomplice and still its not very much room for such a long trip.
Michael: Talked to him a couple of months ago.
Feb 11, 2020 18:22:20 GMT -5
jack7: Heey Michael - seen Dave around?
Feb 21, 2020 11:55:55 GMT -5
Michael: Talked to him a couple of months ago.
Feb 22, 2020 10:30:59 GMT -5
Laurence24: Bonjour à tous les membres,et merci d'avoir crée ce forum. Je me présente à vous, mon prénom est mon pseudo. Je suis de France. Pendant mon sommeil,John Edgar Hoover m'a montré son vécu mais également une infinie partie d'indices concernant le nom du forum
Mar 3, 2020 12:02:53 GMT -5
Michael: Bienvenue Laurence. Allez-y et postez ce qu'il vous a dit - ça a l'air intéressant ...
Mar 3, 2020 12:26:06 GMT -5
stella7: Sorry for the short notice but there’s a documentary on Anne Morrow Lindbergh on at 8:30 tonight. Channel 23 New Jersey Public Television
Mar 11, 2020 19:24:43 GMT -5
wolfman666: the half hour one made in 2017? it was very good
Mar 14, 2020 9:23:46 GMT -5
Laurence24: Bonjour Mickael,ainsi que tous les autres membres de ce forum..
Mar 20, 2020 7:48:19 GMT -5
Laurence24: Et merci de m'avoir acceptée chaleureusement dans votre forum..
Mar 20, 2020 7:50:48 GMT -5
Michael: Je vais consulter le site. N'hésitez pas à publier ou à créer un fil de discussion sur le babillard à ce sujet. Vous pouvez également y poster un lien car je crains que beaucoup ne lisent pas cette shoutbox.
Mar 20, 2020 9:56:06 GMT -5
Laurence24: Moi qui comprend pas l'anglais, j'ai été surprise de sa première visite dans mon rêve, quand j'ai cherchée par mots clés, et que j'ai découvert qui il était ou ou il avait vécu, je me suis dis, wouah !! dans l'au delà, ils peuvent faire beaucoup de choses
Mar 20, 2020 10:41:07 GMT -5
Laurence24: Bonjour et merci à vous Michaël,je viens de suivre votre conseil..
Apr 29, 2020 7:52:33 GMT -5