BP's Stock plunges, Talks of Bankruptcy

[bicker]

One of the greatest tools a consumer has, is our buying power. I have and do boycott businesses I feel engage in practices that go against what I believe in, whether they be big, small or in between.

The time to boycott BP for its operating practices that led to this oil spill was before it happened. You boycott to get a company to change, not to drive it into bankruptcy.

Folks need to understand that BP is a multi-national company. The only part that the United States can touch is the North American operations. You can be sure that the rest of the company is working to insulate themselves from this gross American vindictiveness. That'll sure help the folks who live in the gulf area.

 

[bicker]

More disgusting behavior yesterday, this time by CNN, harassing cleanup workers, pursuing them across parking lots and fields, as they leave work for the day, demanding statements, even after being told that all statements must come from BP itself.

It saddens me how bloodthirsty some of us Americans are.

 

[Imzadi]

BP is certainly a good stock to sell short on as it will more than likely go down before/if it goes back up. It's still near 30. It has a ways to go before it drops off the charts. Everyone who has sold short on it since the end of April - to the beginning of May made $25 - $30 PER SHARE. Dang, I wasn't paying attention to it back then.

 

[bicker]

Does anyone know what it would take to legally separate the North American operations from the rest? The SEC would, of course, object to it, but really all it needs is approval from the EU, right?

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

Does anyone know what it would take to legally separate the North American operations from the rest? The SEC would, of course, object to it, but really all it needs is approval from the EU, right?

They would have to spin it off (essentially, launch that division as a separate company, offering shares split off from existing BP shares), but all debt incurred before the spin off could be tracked back to the larger company so it wouldn't make any sense. Companies do this to raise more capital, not to limit liability.

 

[bicker]

Right but if the EU agrees to separate the companies, essentially insulating "their" BP from the losses associated wiht BP in North America, then there isn't anything the US could do to attach those foreign assets held on foreign soil. Liability would effectively be capped at the value of the North American operations (assuming the standard $10B cap is removed).

 

[loveadobie]

Can then BP of North America file Bankruptcy, limiting it's liability?

Please explain, thanks

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

Right but if the EU agrees to separate the companies, essentially insulating "their" BP from the losses associated wiht BP in North America, then there isn't anything the US could do to attach those foreign assets held on foreign soil. Liability would effectively be capped at the value of the North American operations (assuming the standard $10B cap is removed).

It would amount to a decision to break our laws. I don't see the UK government doing that. It would amount to a declaration of war with the US (economically). In that scenario, the UK (and the EU) would suffer far greater losses than a complete collapse of BP would represent. Americans are their primary consumers in almost every market. America comsumes over 30% of the entire world's goods and services. That is why the failure of our economy set off a global meltdown.

 

[loveadobie]

Could not believe CNN's report this morning about the permits that were issued to BP.

Honestly, who is not sleeping at the switch. BP had submitted a plan to protect seals and walruses. Good Grief! This was approved.

 

[bicker]

It would amount to a decision to break our laws. I don't see the UK government doing that. It would amount to a declaration of war with the US (economically).

Perhaps, but the US lifting the $10B cap on liability, without limiting liability to the value of North American assets, would amount to a declaration of war (economically) with the rest of the world where BP has assets.

As such, I believe that the US government would be (reasonably) forced to accept some type of liability cap; they cannot possibly simply lift the $10B cap, as some have suggested.

 

[bicker]

Could not believe CNN's report this morning about the permits that were issued to BP. Honestly, who is not sleeping at the switch. BP had submitted a plan to protect seals and walruses. Good Grief! This was approved.

A lot of things our government does reflect our own self-centered perspectives as consumers, taxpayers and voters. When government starts turning the screws on business, as perhaps they should have in this case, we voters get out the torches and pitchforks and "throw the bums out", because the economy tanks as a result of the additional government regulation and government limiting economic activity. I think it is a mind-wrenching thing, to place the value of human lives into a probability formula, and craft economic policy based on the result, yet I doubt that anyone in this thread would be happy with a society which applies the kind of criteria to business operations that some folks are asserting. It is very easy to assert such things, without having to take responsibly for the consequences of doing so, and our society is structured so that it is those (economic) consequences that have impact on what our society does and doesn't do, not the fine and morally-superior principles that would have us place lives and the environment over jobs and consumption.

Anyone ever wonder why we get such crappy people to lead us? It's because we've crafted the ultimate no-win situations for them. The best and brightest direct their energies to things where they can succeed, rather than just achieve.

 

[sparklynails23]

BP should only pay dividends if their income exceeds their expenses, not only this quarter but in the forseeable future. Obviously, that is not the case. The investors are bailing, have bailed, and will bail. The dividends are to pad the wallets of the BP executives and their buddies. That money should be going toward the clean-up and the people effected by BP's negligent operating decisions.

This oil disaster is now 8 times worse than the Exxon Valdez disaster. Remember when the pundits said that the real news outlets were exagerating? Which of their listeners is holding them to task?

 

[cteddiesgirl]

Investors do not necessarily care if they have stock in a "nice" company. They care if they have stock in a profitable company. A company that can't survive can't pay for damages and reparation.

Yeah. Right. Investors love to invest in companies that don't care if they kill someone or not. As long as they can make a buck for themselves.


If that was the truth, then I would truly be worried about the future of this world.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

Yeah. Right. Investors love to invest in companies that don't care if they kill someone or not. As long as they can make a buck for themselves.


If that was the truth, then I would truly be worried about the future of this world.

Again, I point to tobacco stocks - among the best performers and most popular stocks since the inception of the market. Tell me, what companies are worse than tobacco companies? They sell death.

 

[loveadobie]

Why on June 4th, did BP of North America, spin off from BP?

Are these just legal manuevers?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/6/4/872928/-Breaking:BP-Hives-Off-American-Operations!

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

Perhaps, but the US lifting the $10B cap on liability, without limiting liability to the value of North American assets, would amount to a declaration of war (economically) with the rest of the world where BP has assets.

As such, I believe that the US government would be (reasonably) forced to accept some type of liability cap; they cannot possibly simply lift the $10B cap, as some have suggested.

Agreed, and we will not. We are a country of laws. Lifting the cap after the fact would not stand up in our own courts.

Only BP can decide to pay more. Now, we can put a lot of political pressure on them to pay more than the cap demands, but we cannot require it.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

Why on June 4th, did BP of North America, spin off from BP?

Are these just legal manuevers?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/6/4/872928/-Breaking:BP-Hives-Off-American-Operations!

They are trying to insulate blame - to protect the reputation of their global operation. This does not effect liability, as the article mentions:

According to the Guardian, BP's main operation would still be responsible for the costs of the clean-up.

 

[Imzadi]

Again, I point to tobacco stocks - among the best performers and most popular stocks since the inception of the market. Tell me, what companies are worse than tobacco companies? They sell death.

I know a couple people who invest in tobacco companies to purposely take those profits and turn around and invest them into health/medical stocks which deal with saving the very lives the cigarette smoking kills.

 

[DawnCt1]

Yeah. Right. Investors love to invest in companies that don't care if they kill someone or not. As long as they can make a buck for themselves.


If that was the truth, then I would truly be worried about the future of this world.

Cigarettes have no useful purpose and by their very nature, hasten death, yet investors still love RJ Reynolds. At least energy stocks provide a commodity that we all need and use.

 

[cteddiesgirl]

Again, I point to tobacco stocks - among the best performers and most popular stocks since the inception of the market. Tell me, what companies are worse than tobacco companies? They sell death.

Cigarettes have no useful purpose and by their very nature, hasten death, yet investors still love RJ Reynolds. At least energy stocks provide a commodity that we all need and use.

But, those are deaths chosen by the people who smoke them. I'm talking about companies who end up killing people because of their unsafe practices.

Also, those who invest in cigarette companies are not All investors.

I know a few investors who know the companies and the histories before they buy stock in them. They make concerted efforts to avoid companies with bad safety records.