Hostile Takeover : Is BP PLC Vulnerable Enough For A Corporate Raid?

Originally posted by okbmd
A takeover is not only possible , it is more than likely probable .

BP hired Dick Cheney's press secretary as a spokeswoman .

Whoever succeeds in the takeover , be assured that Dick Halliburton Cheney will be right in the mix of it all .

So the corporation just sinks one step lower on the evolutionary ladder.

By associating with a criminal like Dick Cheney.

How appropriate how criminal's associate with the criminally negligent.

Sorry guys, not a chance that BP will be taken over. There are too many investment and pension funds that have too much stake in BP as a way to return income to their funds so many people in the UK and the US can continue to recieve their pensions.

Also, there is a mood in the financial centres that this can not be allowed to happen as it will set a dangerous precedent that the President of the US can make or break companies.

Originally posted by Freedom ERP
Sorry guys, not a chance that BP will be taken over. There are too many investment and pension funds that have too much stake in BP as a way to return income to their funds so many people in the UK and the US can continue to recieve their pensions.

Also, there is a mood in the financial centres that this can not be allowed to happen as it will set a dangerous precedent that the President of the US can make or break companies.

Well, I have never suggested Obama, or any other President for that matter had that much affect.

At least not on a corporation.

But, each and every day the Gulf of Mexico is saturated with oil, is another day where shareholders are questioning their original investment, as well as keeping their money sitting still and decreasing, that is how stocks work in the Stock Market.

An American President never wastes a moment of disaster, never, no matter how it might affect a corporation, or the people he is supposed to protect.

The Cult of the Presidency: America's Dangerous Devotion to Executive Power

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/995a50b011c3.jpg[/atsimg]

Amazon Review :

The Bush years have given rise to fears of a resurgent Imperial Presidency.

Those fears are justified, but the problem cannot be solved simply by bringing a new administration to power.

In his provocative new book, The Cult of the Presidency, Gene Healy argues that the fault lies not in our leaders but in ourselves.

When our scholars lionize presidents who break free from constitutional restraints, when our columnists and talking heads repeatedly call upon the "commander in chief " to dream great dreams and seek the power to achieve them--when voters look to the president for salvation from all problems great and small--should we really be surprised that the presidency has burst its constitutional bonds and grown powerful enough to threaten American liberty?

The Cult of the Presidency takes a step back from the ongoing red team/blue team combat and shows that, at bottom, conservatives and liberals agree on the boundless nature of presidential responsibility.

For both camps, it is the president's job to grow the economy, teach our children well, provide seamless protection from terrorist threats, and rescue Americans from spiritual malaise.

Very few Americans seem to think it odd, says Healy, "when presidential candidates talk as if they're running for a job that's a combination of guardian angel, shaman, and supreme warlord of the earth."

Healy takes aim at that unconfined conception of presidential responsibility, identifying it as the source of much of our political woe and some of the gravest threats to our liberties.

If the public expects the president to heal everything that ails us, the president is going to demand--or seize--the power necessary to handle that responsibility.

Interweaving historical scholarship, legal analysis, and trenchant cultural commentary, The Cult of the Presidency traces America's decades-long drift from the Framers' vision for the presidency: a constitutionally constrained chief magistrate charged with faithful execution of the laws.

Restoring that vision will require a Congress and a Court willing to check executive power, but Healy emphasizes that there is no simple legislative or judicial "fix" to the problems of the presidency.

Unless Americans change what we ask of the office--no longer demanding what we should not want and cannot have--we'll get what, in a sense, we deserve.

Because disaster's like the Deepwater Horizon are his political bread and butter.

Whether I agree with someone using that as a means to make a name with it.

Or not.

It equals polling points, re-election value, and a legacy, if handled correctly.

So far, I'm not impressed with Obama's handling of this disaster, in any way, shape, or form.

It is a sad shape in the world where a disaster allows anyone to profit.

No matter if it is financially profiting or politically profiting it makes a profit.

On several levels.

[edit on 8-7-2010 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

Great info as usual SKL,

This is most likely coming to a town near you. I see the U.S. taxpayer eventually getting the bill for years to come.

No company has the ability to pay unlimited claims, even one that earned $16.6 billion last year and more than $20 billion annually in the prior four years. At the same time, no one has any idea how big BP’s damages will be, Bloomberg reported in a commentary. That hasn’t stopped Wall Street analysts from churning out estimates that move up in lockstep with the number of barrels thought to be leaking from the collapsed well each day. How many companies are willing to face unlimited civil claims, the prospect of criminal prosecution and daily excoriation by the U.S. government before going on the offensive? If BP’s damages, or even “reasonably probable damages,” exceed the value of the company, or if it faces a liquidity crisis, bankruptcy would be a way to organize the claims into a “sensible, orderly, fair process,” said Jay Westbrook, professor of law and a bankruptcy specialist at the University of Texas, Austin. In the court of public opinion, BP is already about as low as it can go. So why shouldn’t it try, as a matter of business, to limit its liability? If BP were to file for bankruptcy, who would compensate Gulf residents whose livelihood and sole means of support were destroyed by the spill? The U.S. taxpayer.


www.businessweek.com...

S&F!

reply to post by burntheships


Ultimately, the taxpayers and society as a whole, will pay for this disaster.

Our economy is already in the crapper as if it did not need any help before.

This will surely kill off the economy of Louisiana as well as the fishing industry.

With the handling of Katrina under Bush one would think the Government learned it needs to respond immediately to a disaster, but in this instance, as well as Katrina, the theory within Government is the first person to touch a disaster is the last one standing holding the check, which is nonsense as far as I am concerned.

Obama should have acted immediately in regards to this disaster.

It might have guaranteed his re-election but now it will guarantee that never happens.

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


President Obama's illformed attack on BP had a very direct impact of the value of their shares, far beyond the impact that one would expect from such an incident as Deepwater.

Your president made an attempt to influence the share price of a global company, making the company worth less so shareholders would consider maintaining their investment. A strange thing to do as if BP is taken over or declares bankruptcy, the new company will more than likely walk away from any financial obligation and as posters have mentioned on this thread, the American taxpayer.

Originally posted by Freedom ERP
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

 

President Obama's illformed attack on BP had a very direct impact of the value of their shares, far beyond the impact that one would expect from such an incident as Deepwater.

Ill formed?

Pray tell explain to me how you see that please.

Over all in the larger scheme of things I realize BP PLC is not the only culprit who is to blame, but they hold the largest share, and all other corporate slimeballs connected to the Deepwater Horizon rig deserve the same.

Originally posted by Freedom ERP
Your president made an attempt to influence the share price of a global company, making the company worth less so shareholders would consider maintaining their investment. A strange thing to do as if BP is taken over or declares bankruptcy, the new company will more than likely walk away from any financial obligation and as posters have mentioned on this thread, the American taxpayer.

Woah.

Back the truck up Chuck.

So, in your thoughts, BP PLC was wholly blameless?

You do know the it is half-American and half-United Kingdom owned right?

This is not which country can kick the other while it's down here.

I could care less who owned the rig, who is cleaning it up, or who gets the bill.

I want the Gulf of Mexico cleaned up and I want those guilty of malfeasance to go to jail for life for their idiocy, and like the Alaskan people, in regards to the Exxon Valdez, the marine life back to normal.

But the coast of Alaska never fully recovered from the Valdez.

Even just over 20 years after that stupidity.

So I see the Gulf of Mexico taking a lot longer to recover.

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


Ill-informed. Calling the company British Petroleum when it has not been called this since since the 1990s. I would have expected the president to get this very simple fact correct. This was clearly an attempt to influence people to think this was just a British company and not a global company.

And the other companies are not getting the same press. Just look at the logo at the top of this forum. It is BP's!! And who is the chief cheerleader on this? O yes, Mr ill-informed, President Obama.

Look at the threads in this forum. How many of them mention all the other companies involved in this?

No, BP are not totally blameless in this, many companies are and all of us who want products made with crude oil.

My point has been that President Obama has not put pressure on all the other companies to stop dividends to their shareholders. Has the President asked Halliburton to stop payment of dividends?

Look at the percentage share price drop between BP and Halliburton shares?

Originally posted by Freedom ERP
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

 

Ill-informed. Calling the company British Petroleum when it has not been called this since since the 1990s. I would have expected the president to get this very simple fact correct. This was clearly an attempt to influence people to think this was just a British company and not a global company.

Okay, I see where you're coming from, completely.

So, what you're saying, is Obama intentionally name-dropped "British Petroleum".

Are you certain of that because an accusation, while it certainly has merit, might not be quite as accurate as you think it is, not that I am defending Obama?

What I mean to say, is it might be a few other things, or it could be as you say.

Personally, I could care less which it really was, because I see many potentials.

It could be the following :

1) White House fact-checkers : They ignorantly supplied him with the incorrect name.

2) Brand recognition : Because people remember names easily, the fact that it used to be "British Petroleum", and BP PLC counted on that, without changing the name to something completely arbitrary like "International Petroleum", so this is backlash from their rather lazy effort to separate from the old name because of the brand recognition factoring by marketing.

3) Character Assassination of Britain : Like you stated, a direct assault on England, but this makes little to no sense since England is known as the United Kingdom.

I'm not saying you're wrong and I'm right, neither am I saying you're right and I'm wrong.

I am however stating it could be a combination of anything from ignorance upon the politician residing in the White House, to lazy corporate practices, or intentional name-dropping.

Just speaking with you on many levels of how deep this crap goes because I understand, just as much as you do, that politics is an insane game of screwing the pooch.

Originally posted by Freedom ERP
And the other companies are not getting the same press. Just look at the logo at the top of this forum. It is BP's!! And who is the chief cheerleader on this? O yes, Mr ill-informed, President Obama.

Of course.

Possibly Halliburton covered their butts more so with political campaign contributions.

Considering Dick Cheney used to be C.E.O. of that decrepit oil corporation, it probably is more connected to him, than to Obama, but I see where you're coming from.

Halliburton Investigated for Gulf Spill Role


Cheney & Halliburton implicated in Gulf oil spill


When it comes to money, ruthless people, will do ruthless things.

The question is, is it being done just to thrash BP PLC, or is it just politics?

Both can be connected, both can be separate, both can be used for denial.

Originally posted by Freedom ERP
Look at the threads in this forum. How many of them mention all the other companies involved in this?

Of course.

I have been focusing primarily on BP PLC, but not for not knowing the other corporations connections, and I could care less if it were "British Petroleum PLC", or for that matter "Butt-Plug Petroleum", the name is unfortunately however one of a magnitude, like Blackwater, and look at their scandal in Iraq, and they dumped the brand recognition name for Xe.

One of the first things in business, when changing a corporate name, is considering whether to stick with the same emblem, and or initials, like BP PLC, formerly as you and several others have mentioned, "British Petroleum".

Or dump that and go in a new direction.

Originally posted by Freedom ERP
No, BP are not totally blameless in this, many companies are and all of us who want products made with crude oil.

If I had the money I would convert my own car to bio-diesel combined with solar.

And screw all businesses concerned with cashing in on my needs for petroleum.

Unfortunately, I am not in a position to do so, but who knows what the future will hold.

Originally posted by Freedom ERP
My point has been that President Obama has not put pressure on all the other companies to stop dividends to their shareholders. Has the President asked Halliburton to stop payment of dividends?

Of course not.

But neither has he done much in the way towards actually doing anything.

Think about the fact that it was how long before he actually spoke to BP PLC's C.E.O.

A whole lot of stalling, waiting, and twiddling of fingers was going on.

Political games of maneuvering to point the finger.

Originally posted by Freedom ERP
Look at the percentage share price drop between BP and Halliburton shares?

Yes, Halliburton might be better off, so it holds water, as far as I am concerned they had something to benefit from this entire endeavor from the beginning.

[edit on 9-7-2010 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

Did I respond earlier?

Corporations were created for one purpose, to remove physical or personal responsibility.

Yes, they have created other situations, but responsibility is their first and foremost detrimental parameters.

That is one thing I abhor.

Originally posted by endisnighe
Did I respond earlier?

Corporations were created for one purpose, to remove physical or personal responsibility.

Yes, they have created other situations, but responsibility is their first and foremost detrimental parameters.

That is one thing I abhor.

I guess you missed this thread earlier but that's okay.

I do think personal and physical responsibility is easier to sidestep, however, I do not agree with that being the primary reason corporations are created, in my estimation it is merely a by-product of creating the corporate structuring.

The first reason to create a corporation is for monetary gain.

There is nothing wrong with monetary gain providing it is done ethically.

It is the corporation's people who either have ethics, morals, and beliefs, or lack them.

A corporation is nothing more than an agreement to do business and pay taxes.

It is the C.E.O., Chief-Executive Officer, and those both above and below them, Board of Directors and shareholders, however they fit into the corporation who directly or indirectly affect how a corporation is run and Government merely has regulations, laws, and agreements with how that is done.

BP PLC is no different, with the exception some facilities are national and some international.

The Deepwater Horizon platform is in international waters, which is why Obama has come across as an impotent puppet without any legitimacy throughout this event.

While the Gulf of Mexico is our front yard, it is not owned by us, it is like the usual 3 to 5 feet of grass, where a city sidewalk goes through it, owned by the City/State/ and the Foreign Country it directly affects, the international community in this instance.

I fully understand the ramifications of Obama's plight towards trying to force an international corporation to clean up an international mess, because ultimately it washes up on our shores, but he has done little to nothing to assure Americans.

BP PLC has actually done more, through false propaganda, claiming all sorts of nonsense, putting a positive spin on this mess, than the Obama Administration has done.

That in itself is sad because our President is supposed to reassure us.

Not some corporation with everything to lose in this through their profit margins.

As far as I see this mess is all a smokescreen on many levels to change take advantage.