BP's Stock plunges, Talks of Bankruptcy

[loveadobie]

As far as the British who have invested in Bp and their pension funds.

They assumed some risk by investing in a company that has a record of slip ups and taking some short cuts for profits.

Could their loss of a dividend be their consequence to the catastrophe this company caused this quarter?

 

[bicker]

They assumed some risk by investing in a company that has a record of slip ups and taking some short cuts for profits.

The real question, IMHO, is whether this is specific to BP. I suspect that if you dig deep enough, you'll see that BP's practices are not uncommon, prompted by

• Consumer demand for low prices,
• Investor demand for high returns,
• Voter refusal to reward legislators that impose costly regulations on business, and
• Taxpayer refusal to spend what is necessary to adequately police the regulations that are in place.

 

[eliza61]

The real question, IMHO, is whether this is specific to BP. I suspect that if you dig deep enough, you'll see that BP's practices are not uncommon, prompted by

• Consumer demand for low prices,
• Investor demand for high returns,
• Voter refusal to reward legislators that impose costly regulations on business, and
• Taxpayer refusal to spend what is necessary to adequately police the regulations that are in place.

Heck no, these safety cutbacks are through out the industry. My dh works for a large oil refinery in South Philadelphia. They just had 6 safety violations this weekend and a few environmental violations for discharges into the river.

 

[eliza61]

So you just consume consume consume and only worry about the implications of your consumption after people die? ... and start withholding your support just when that company is working to remedy what they did wrong? That makes no sense.

No, but some times you don't find out a company's practice until after the fact. I actually try to be an educated consumer. I stopped supporting walmart after I began working for them, until then I had no idea of how horrible they treat employees.
It makes perfect sense to me, my dollars so yes, I get to decide when enough is enough or when I think a company has a blantant disregard to the principles I feel important.

Why is time an issue? Any time a company acts unethically is a good enough time for me to stop supporting them.

Is there a statue of limitation on causing some one's death? Is there some point where it becomes cool?

 

[bicker]

No, but some times you don't find out a company's practice until after the fact.

In other words: Too late to prevent the catastrophe that is driving the actions being taken. Let's put this together with the facts we've just discussed:

Heck no, these safety cutbacks are through out the industry.

So what is the intention of actions against BP? Revenge? Retribution? If so, then that's immature and counter-productive. Making sure things like this don't happen again? Then the actions taken should be taken against all who engage in the type of operations that lead to things like this catastrophe, i.e., the whole industry.

That's true, of course, only if you want to be reasonable. If the objective is to be irrational, then that's another matter, of course.

I actually try to be an educated consumer. I stopped supporting walmart after I began working for them, until then I had no idea of how horrible they treat employees.

Not to mention how their suppliers treat their employees. And how the way they operate tends to drive the consumer marketplace to lower and lower quality. But (paraphrasing Alton Brown) that's another thread.

It makes perfect sense to me, my dollars so yes, I get to decide when enough is enough or when I think a company has a blantant disregard to the principles I feel important.

However, from what you've just admitted, other companies in the industry engage in similar practices. Shouldn't you simply avoid patronizing all gasoline companies? That's what an educated, rational consumer, who is interested in taking a moral stand on this issue, would be doing.

It makes no sense to single out BP. They were just the one that "got caught" this time.

Why is time an issue? Any time a company acts unethically is a good enough time for me to stop supporting them.

No, sorry, your logic fails here. BP didn't act unethically in having an accident. BP (arguably) acted unethically in operating the way they operate - the way most of the industry operates. So you now know that the whole industry acts unethically, according to your standards: What are you going to do? Are you going to be rational? or irrational?

 

[Guy Incognito]

In other words: Too late to prevent the catastrophe that is driving the actions being taken. Let's put this together with the facts we've just discussed:So what is the intention of actions against BP? Revenge? Retribution? If so, then that's immature and counter-productive. Making sure things like this don't happen again? Then the actions taken should be taken against all who engage in the type of operations that lead to things like this catastrophe, i.e., the whole industry.

That's true, of course, only if you want to be reasonable. If the objective is to be irrational, then that's another matter, of course.

Not to mention how their suppliers treat their employees. And how the way they operate tends to drive the consumer marketplace to lower and lower quality. But (paraphrasing Alton Brown) that's another thread.

However, from what you've just admitted, other companies in the industry engage in similar practices. Shouldn't you simply avoid patronizing all gasoline companies? That's what an educated, rational consumer, who is interested in taking a moral stand on this issue, would be doing.

It makes no sense to single out BP. They were just the one that "got caught" this time.

No, sorry, your logic fails here. BP didn't act unethically in having an accident. BP (arguably) acted unethically in operating the way they operate - the way most of the industry operates. So you now know that the whole industry acts unethically, according to your standards: What are you going to do? Are you going to be rational? or irrational?

I'm going to have to ask you to stop being logical




in all seriousness, Bicker (as usual) is on target.... while my knee-jerk/emotional reaction would initially be to boycott BP and do my part to 'punish' them, that doesn't really do much to fix the problem or prevent it from happening again in the future (that doesn't mean that someone shouldn't avoid patronizing BP stations if they so choose.... around here, there's very few BP stations, so it's pretty easy to not buy from them if you don't want to).

I think if you want to boycott companies for unethical actions, you'd be crossing off a lot of things from your list of available products to buy/use. As far as the Gulf situation, more companies than BP were involved with that platform. If you really want to be consistent, you'll have to do some research on the other companies, find out what industries they have ties to/what products they produce/etc, and ensure that you do not let any of your $$$ go to them as well. Unfortunately, that kind of thoroughness takes a lot more time/dedication than most people are willing to invest.

 

[bicker]

I'm going to have to ask you to stop being logical

That would be exceedingly difficult, Captain.

 

[loveadobie]

The real question, IMHO, is whether this is specific to BP. I suspect that if you dig deep enough, you'll see that BP's practices are not uncommon, prompted by

• Consumer demand for low prices,
• Investor demand for high returns,
• Voter refusal to reward legislators that impose costly regulations on business, and
• Taxpayer refusal to spend what is necessary to adequately police the regulations that are in place.

All is true, but BP caused the catastrophe in the Gulf. They are the company who's dividend is in question.

Their shareholders bought stock in the company, and assumed the risk of whatever that company did.
They share in the profits, should they also not share in the loses.

 

[bicker]

You missed my points. (1) BP is not unique with regard to what they do, and it makes no sense to single them out because of probability; and (2) we are all responsible for the way things are.

 

[loveadobie]

You missed my points. (1) BP is not unique with regard to what they do, and it makes no sense to single them out because of probability; and (2) we are all responsible for the way things are.

I do not think that this was just an accident waiting to happen, and BP just threw the a bad set of dice. "singling them out because of probability?"

This should cost the company money, it should also cost the shareholders something.

I do not get a dividend when BP is rolling in the profits.

 

[Art 1]

I do not think that this was just an accident waiting to happen, and BP just threw the a bad set of dice. "singling them out because of probability?"

This should cost the company money, it should also cost the shareholders something.

I do not get a dividend when BP is rolling in the profits.

What proof do you have? Or is this just a hunch.

 

[bicker]

I do not think that this was just an accident waiting to happen, and BP just threw the a bad set of dice.

Then you haven't been reading the news, nor paid attention to what Eliza alluded to earlier in this thread.

The whole industry.

Probably many industries.

This should cost the company money, it should also cost the shareholders something.

It is. So far it is cost the shareholders about $50,000,000,000.00.

The issue is that if irrational sentiment prevails, then that number will get so high that the irrational sentiment itself will cause severe harm to the folks who have been adversely affected by the oil spill.

Or is that the objective of the mob irrationally working to wreak petty revenge - get a pound of flesh - from BP? To harm the folks who have been adversely affected by the oil spill...

 

[loveadobie]

What proof do you have? Or is this just a hunch.

Their safety record. Check earlier in this thread-

Interviews with the men on the rig the day of the explosion

 

[loveadobie]

Then you haven't been reading the news, nor paid attention to what Eliza alluded to earlier in this thread.

The whole industry.

Probably many industries.

It is. So far it is cost the shareholders about $50,000,000,000.00.

The issue is that if irrational sentiment prevails, then that number will get so high that the irrational sentiment itself will cause severe harm to the folks who have been adversely affected by the oil spill.

Or is that the objective of the mob irrationally working to wreak petty revenge - get a pound of flesh - from BP? To harm the folks who have been adversely affected by the oil spill...

Don't assume I have not been reading the news.

BP safety record is in the news.
Interviews from the men on the rig, has been in the news.

If Shell Oil did this, I would feel the same. BP caused the accident. Whether this was the climate that Oil companies operate is immaterial. Therefore it certainly still holds them responsible.

Shareholders share in the profits, they also should share the loses. It's called investing.

 

[loveadobie]

Looks like BP is considering doing what is right because of public backlash.

BP should pay all oil spill claims, before it pays it's investors. BP can no longer operate in a climate of business as usual, for we are no longer dealing with business as usual.


http://www.thestreet.com/storycomments/10781533/1/bp-dividend-cut-may-come-monday.html

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.9a8a2a0b024c1dcd3b504cd0ff46c2ea.391&show_article=1

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Dispatch/default.aspx?feat=1768744

 

[TheZue]

For me it isn't so much their safety record because it could happen to any of the companies, but how they've handled themselves SINCE the spill. They should have given out those high def videos to US experts immediately, they haven't been open with how much is leaking, they brought out cleaning crews just for show when the president came to the beach, and they haven't listened to the EPA's request for safer dispersants. They just seem to be spending a lot of time trying to cover their rears and hide how bad it is rather than being honest, open, and spending a lot of time trying to fix the mess. If they really were trying hard and working with the US government I don't think people would be so pissed at them.

 

[Chuck S]

If I patronize a BP station, am I not paying for the clean-up?

Would their profit on my purchases be less than my share as a taxpayer if they legally squirm out of their obligation?

I realize that the station owner is penalized, but changing brands seems to be a simple process.

BP operates no gas stations in the US, they sold them all off to the station operators a few years ago. Some of them have a 20 year contractual obligation to carry BP product.

On the other hand, even if nobody buys BP branded gas, it likely would have little impact on the greater corporation itself, they would simply wholesale out their refinery output to the other oil companies and the independent stations would either file suit against BP to switch brands, or more likely, the station operators could create a "new" marketing brand, or reactivate an old brand now owned by BP (like Dixie Oil, Indiana Standard, American Oil Co., Utoco, etc.) with the product still actually being supplied by BP.

It would likely be much cheaper for both the stations and BP to use an old brand owned by BP, than for the station operators to file a lawsuit to break their distribution/retailing contract with BP.

 

[bicker]

Don't assume I have not been reading the news.

It wasn't an assumption; it was a projection based on the fact that you keep implying that BP is substantially different from the rest of the industry. (Also: It is more charitable to project that you haven't been reading the news than to project other possibilities for your insistence.)

BP safety record is in the news.

So is Shell's...

FT Data: Is Shell’s Record Worse Than BP’s?

... that's the portion of the news you appeared to have been ignoring.

Shell, BP and Exxon... the whole industry is like this... as a reflection of how much consumers want prices to stay low, as a reflection of how investors want returns to stay high, and as a reflection of how taxpaying-voters don't care enough to enact laws and apply enforcement that would make things safer (but also make prices and/or taxes higher). We need to stop blaming others for things that we are a major contributor to. When you point a finger, loveadobie, there are a few fingers pointed back at you.

 

[bicker]

BP can no longer operate in a climate of business as usual, for we are no longer dealing with business as usual.

Indeed, the whole industry was on its best behavior after the Exxon Valdez spill too.

For me it isn't so much their safety record because it could happen to any of the companies, but how they've handled themselves SINCE the spill.

Remember how Exxon handled themselves after Exxon Valdez? If you look at it fairly, there really isn't a significant difference.

 

[mikron]

With the money they make I don't thonk they will go out of business soon. When this is all done and cleaned up the could raise prices by pennies and make back there loss.