You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
BP is gone. Under 5 in 12 months
- Thread starter myoffices
- Start date
wow, more rhetoric from a true ETler, no surprise ;-)
Other than that I did not see how you added any value with your own opinions or factual info. Which "goodwill impairment", there is none left, if that is not perfectly clear to you then I am happy to explain. Plus you strongly suggested in your previous post that 20bn may not be enough to cover it all. Is that not an opinion? I simply asked, albeit in an ironic way, how you came up with this number, if you thought thats the true cost then why did you not bring this to the table weeks ago? I simply inferred that you sounded very "inspired" by public opinion and demands the administration put out. Clarify if you disagree with my assessment other than using the terms you seemed to have grown up with.
Other than that I did not see how you added any value with your own opinions or factual info. Which "goodwill impairment", there is none left, if that is not perfectly clear to you then I am happy to explain. Plus you strongly suggested in your previous post that 20bn may not be enough to cover it all. Is that not an opinion? I simply asked, albeit in an ironic way, how you came up with this number, if you thought thats the true cost then why did you not bring this to the table weeks ago? I simply inferred that you sounded very "inspired" by public opinion and demands the administration put out. Clarify if you disagree with my assessment other than using the terms you seemed to have grown up with.
Quote from kinggyppo:
not at all, I never claimed I knew what the cost is, show me where I quoted the cleanup including lawsuits etc. Oh and by the way in case I forgot go fuck yourself you sniveling fucking excuse for a human being.
My question was rhetorical, is 20 billion enough to cover all claims? I don't know and have no problem admitting that. You are/were trying to put words in my mouth and that pisses me off. You seem to be downplaying the spill with your own brand of rhetoric. I agree with some of what you are saying. Americans, some of us, are ignorant fat and lazy, I am sure where you are from no one has those qualities. My first statement about this on the other thread was that there is a lot of political risk and therefore financial risk around this stock. I don't necessarily think that this slush fund controlled by politicians is the correct solution, there are issues with due process and it may skew the claims process which should be handled thru the courts. You have to understand people are really pissed about this. I agree that Americans should be concerned about the rest of the world and some of us are, but that is the nature of politics here. I have seen estimates of the total cost from as low as 5 billion to as high as 100 billion. I honestly think it will cost them in payouts more than 20 billion, I could wrong about that as well.
Oh dear. Another genius rises up.
Here's what the markets say:
BP Swaps Rise to Record at 36% Odds of Default
BofA to Limit Duration of Trades With BP. I trust you realize that limiting duration is an effective way of limiting risk, being as how you're an actual, like, trader?
So, why would Bofa limit its duration in trades with BP? Earlier Bofa said a conservative estimate would put the cost of the cleanup at 28 billion.
I have no idea whether their estimate is true or not. However, if a major bank with actual skin in the game thinks 28 bil is reasonable, then saying it's "American propaganda" is obviously not a serious argument.
Here's what the markets say:
BP Swaps Rise to Record at 36% Odds of Default
BofA to Limit Duration of Trades With BP. I trust you realize that limiting duration is an effective way of limiting risk, being as how you're an actual, like, trader?
So, why would Bofa limit its duration in trades with BP? Earlier Bofa said a conservative estimate would put the cost of the cleanup at 28 billion.
I have no idea whether their estimate is true or not. However, if a major bank with actual skin in the game thinks 28 bil is reasonable, then saying it's "American propaganda" is obviously not a serious argument.
well of course I downplay the spill because its simply not worth 20billion let alone more as some demand, I think that is very clear to see. Anybody who contests that I invite to do the calculation in front of us because I dont see what should add up to 20 billion other than numbers taken out of thin air. I am not talking about law suits, which I still believe will have ZERO MERIT for reasons I stated many times in related threads.
And let me ask you because you just mentioned it: Why should someone in California or Michigan be concerned about this spill? I think their business is to shut up because it does not concern them int he slightest way whatsoever. This is about
a) the costs of containing the spill
b) the costs associated with cleaning up the shore lines
c) the costs to reimburse fishermen and those who were unable to work due to this spill.
So simple. When a kid on the top of the mountain throws a snowball, it rolls down the hill and increases in size, hits a house, and subsequently kills people you also dont sue that kid for 20 million in punitive damages correct? And comparisons with Enron or Tyco also dont stand because they cooked their books over years, cheated the government and other corporations as well as consumers. This is not the case with BP, at least this is far from being established as a fact. I dont know which part of my arguments you dismiss as "rhetoric".
And let me ask you because you just mentioned it: Why should someone in California or Michigan be concerned about this spill? I think their business is to shut up because it does not concern them int he slightest way whatsoever. This is about
a) the costs of containing the spill
b) the costs associated with cleaning up the shore lines
c) the costs to reimburse fishermen and those who were unable to work due to this spill.
So simple. When a kid on the top of the mountain throws a snowball, it rolls down the hill and increases in size, hits a house, and subsequently kills people you also dont sue that kid for 20 million in punitive damages correct? And comparisons with Enron or Tyco also dont stand because they cooked their books over years, cheated the government and other corporations as well as consumers. This is not the case with BP, at least this is far from being established as a fact. I dont know which part of my arguments you dismiss as "rhetoric".
Quote from kinggyppo:
My question was rhetorical, is 20 billion enough to cover all claims? I don't know and have no problem admitting that. You are/were trying to put words in my mouth and that pisses me off. You seem to be downplaying the spill with your own brand of rhetoric. I agree with some of what you are saying. Americans, some of us, are ignorant fat and lazy, I am sure where you are from no one has those qualities. My first statement about this on the other thread was that there is a lot of political risk and therefore financial risk around this stock. I don't necessarily think that this slush fund controlled by politicians is the correct solution, there are issues with due process and it may skew the claims process which should be handled thru the courts. You have to understand people are really pissed about this. I agree that Americans should be concerned about the rest of the world and some of us are, but that is the nature of politics here. I have seen estimates of the total cost from as low as 5 billion to as high as 100 billion. I honestly think it will cost them in payouts more than 20 billion, I could wrong about that as well.
Lol, and BoA is the authority when it comes to correct estimates and ethical corporate governance? Give me break, GS in comparison looks like a unblemished child against BoA or Citi for that matter.
But I guess people always find support for whatever shady arguments they try to bring forth.
But I guess people always find support for whatever shady arguments they try to bring forth.
Quote from trefoil:
Oh dear. Another genius rises up.
Here's what the markets say:
BP Swaps Rise to Record at 36% Odds of Default
BofA to Limit Duration of Trades With BP. I trust you realize that limiting duration is an effective way of limiting risk, being as how you're an actual, like, trader?
So, why would Bofa limit its duration in trades with BP? Earlier Bofa said a conservative estimate would put the cost of the cleanup at 28 billion.
I have no idea whether their estimate is true or not. However, if a major bank with actual skin in the game thinks 28 bil is reasonable, then saying it's "American propaganda" is obviously not a serious argument.
please see above post, it was as logical and sticking to the facts as it gets. I find this a lot less "dramatic" and emotional than listening to bank estimates which are taken out of thin air.
Sometimes rational and simplistic ways of thinking get you the farthest even though you may disagree.
Sometimes rational and simplistic ways of thinking get you the farthest even though you may disagree.
Quote from trefoil:
How about you cite something in support of your case? Your love of your own self and hearing yourself talk ain't an argument, just in case you were wondering.
Quote from [Proximo]:
Decent chance this gaps up tomorrow.
Looking to position myself into the close (small) if the price is right.
I agree. Went long into the close last night thinking everyone would have figured it out that as soon as Obama said he was going to make BP put money into an escrow I knew a deal was done or about to be finished.
Its easy to see what happened. Obama and BP came up with an agreement of how much oil spilled out and what the cost per barrel would be and that BP would not lose government contracts along with some other concessions I would not doubt (maybe a no criminal charges to be filed etc...). Without a doubt the fines will be someone high but it is now set and BP can calculate (they already have with GS and the other bankers) what the government costs will be.
Its not like BP is going to pay workers for six months of watching TV because they are nice guys. Besides it would be against their fiduciary duty to have done so without a benefit.
This was easy for Obama as well because it makes him look tough and in control when in fact it would not have taken much before BP pulled the plug and let the BP USA go BK. BK London could then setup a new shop and buy the assets and try to start over without the liabilities. What really gives the whole thing away is that all the money going into the escrow account will be money that is generated from North American operations anyway. The taxpayers take a hit though. Money that is paid into the escrow is better than paying fines. You can not deduct fines from income taxes but BP will be able to deduct all the expenses that are not fines. I would not doubt that many government costs are waived or reduced in a large amount.
lastly, Why would BP seem to be willing to lay down for this? BP USA was getting to the point of being dead money anyway. The main BP was not about to put any money into trying to save it when a BK would be the cheaper option. The dividend cut works for everyone as well. The company saves the money so they do not have to borrow and if they do they are stronger financially and again it makes Obama look like he did something.
In the end this still may not work. The civil lawsuits could be big and it is a big unknown what the juries will award but with the 9/11 aka pay czar setting the amounts of the awards it would be reasonable to assume that claims will be paid not based on emotion but rather out of true financial loss. Since this will be most likely the fastest route to getting money lawyers may stand to lose large fees by suing BP if clients/victims decide to go the "mediation" route.
Lots of people in London will wake up being pissed as hell to find out that a check they were expecting in a few days is not going to be in the mailbox. Even so I would not be at all surprised if they cap the well in August and by November BP gives an announcement that things are going well enough to start paying a dividend again.
Everyone wins except for maybe the taxpayer and anyone stupid enough to think that Obama actually "made" BP do anything that was not in BP's best financial interest.
I bought near the close and after watching after hours trading bought a few more shares. I am also short some calls and puts that expire Friday. slightly long but very long with lots of naked puts wrote with an Oct expiration date. I think the IV starts to really fall especially as more and more oil in terms of the percentage leaking is collected.
One last thing to note for those that bought today. The dividend that is now not being paid out makes the company worth about 70 cents more valuable per share. Pretty much sucks for those that held through the x-date but for some of us it was almost as good as getting the dividend as the stock was priced as if it was gone.
All in all I think today was a much better day than the price reflected. I think the market will catch up quickly to what happened today.
Best of luck to all
Robert