Brits angry at Obama as BP shares fall

[Moonlight Graham]

This is hilarious/ridiculous:

Britons angry over fall in BP share price after Obama attack

June 11, 2010

LONDON: Barack Obama has been accused of holding ''his boot on the throat'' of British pensioners after his attacks on BP were blamed for wiping billions of pounds off the company's value.

Investors said the US President was jeopardising the pensions of millions with his ''excessive'' criticism of the energy company after the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Before the accident on April 20, BP was Britain's biggest company, with a sharemarket value of £122 billion ($212.6 billion). Since then the share price has dropped 40 per cent, from 650p to 391p, and £49 billion has been wiped off its value.

Clean-up costs are estimated at between £10billion and £20billion ... but a bigger cost to BP will be investors dumping stock.

Experts have said the clean-up costs will be between £10 billion and £20 billion but the biggest cost to the company is from investors dumping stock.

Those fears have been heightened by Mr Obama's increasingly aggressive rhetoric towards BP.

In the past week, Mr Obama has suggested its chief executive, Tony Hayward, would have been sacked if he worked for him, and said his own job was finding out whose ''ass to kick''.

Mr Obama has offered condolences to the families of the 11 workers killed in the accident. He has invited them to visit the White House on Thursday.

BP's position on the London Stock Exchange and its previous reliability have made it a bedrock of almost every pension fund. Its value is crucial to millions of workers. The company's dividend payments account for £1 in every £6 paid in dividends to British pensions.

BP is so concerned about Mr Obama's effect on share value that it has urged the Prime Minister, David Cameron, to appeal to the White House on its behalf but he has refused to become involved.

Mark Dampier, of the financial services company Hargreaves Lansdown, said: ''[Mr Obama] is playing to the gallery but is not bringing a solution any closer. Obama has his boot on the throat of British pensioners. There is no point in bashing BP all the time. It's not helpful.''

There is particular anger at US interference in the company's dividend policy. On Wednesday more than 40 American politicians called for the company to suspend its dividend, stop its advertising and spend the money cleaning up the spill.

One British fund manager said: ''Who is Obama to dictate whether UK pension funds are paid a dividend?''

Ken Salazar, the US Interior Secretary, said the administration would require BP to pay the salaries of any workers laid off because of the government's moratorium on offshore drilling, imposed while safety reviews take place.

''BP is responsible for all the damages,'' Mr Salazar told the Senate's energy and natural resources committee.

He reassured congressional representatives from the states affected that the six-month moratorium, which many have called economically ruinous, could be lifted sooner if new studies and protections were put in place.

A new poll shows only a quarter of Americans support the expansion of offshore drilling since the spill, and most blame regulators for the environmental disaster.

link

Boo-hoo!!

Edited June 12, 2010 by Moonlight Graham

[Oleg Bach]

ONE must be harsh with those that shit in your house then sweep the turds under the carpet. BP's most severe sin is the use of chemicals to "hide" the toxins.

The use of chemicals to weigh down the oil and get it to sink out of sight should never have happened - It shows complete and utter disrespect for nature and all human natural wealth - a spit in the eye of humanity and America in particular. This company simply took the oil that would have been cleanable if left on the surface and simply put it on the bottom where it will take 200 years to rot.

As for the pensions..no old age pensions should sit within private corporations to be used as leverage by the rich and powerful. Pensions are part of the public purse - the savings account of those that worked all their lives - It is public money and not private money - It irks me when bankers in Canada for instance use the Canada Pension Plan as collatoral to do huge business deals that only a few are enriched by and there is really no good return to the pensioners..but that is always the case _ the rich never spend their own money or pay their fair share of taxes - they get the less fortunate to pay the bill - also - it is the commmon person that will eventually get stuck with the clean up bill NOT BP.

BP is a the last flag ship of what was the tail end of the dying British Empire - all things come to an end.

[Topaz]

I don't understand why the US won't allow other nations who say they can help stop the oil spill, from doing so. On the pension front, I heard that the Tories want to bring in business owners and others who aren't allow to get CPP, like they did with EI. They also said the premiums will have to go UP, if this way is done. So its seem now the Canadian worker has to pay more for EI and CPP and I wonder if this is for part timers too?

[Shady]

Any chance you can provide a link to the story? I'd like to read more.

[msj]

I don't understand why the US won't allow other nations who say they can help stop the oil spill, from doing so. On the pension front, I heard that the Tories want to bring in business owners and others who aren't allow to get CPP, like they did with EI. They also said the premiums will have to go UP, if this way is done. So its seem now the Canadian worker has to pay more for EI and CPP and I wonder if this is for part timers too?

As usual you get it wrong.

Flaherty is talking about increasing CPP premiums in order to increase CPP benefits.

He also mentions allowing the self-employed to participate in RPP's (registered pension plans). Self-employed already participate in CPP (and pay 9.9% premiums vs an employee who pays 4.95% while the employer chips in the other 4.95%. There are ways for self-employed to not pay into CPP if they want to (usually not worth it, though).

Of course, self-employed can already set up IPP's (individual pension plans) but the option to allow them into an RPP would be a welcome change.

See Flaherty's letter in this story from the Globe and Mail.

As for BP - is the market really this stupid? The words of a person mean this much?

Nope, this is a political story.

[punked]

As usual you get it wrong.

Flaherty is talking about increasing CPP premiums in order to increase CPP benefits.

He also mentions allowing the self-employed to participate in RPP's (registered pension plans). Self-employed already participate in CPP (and pay 9.9% premiums vs an employee who pays 4.95% while the employer chips in the other 4.95%. There are ways for self-employed to not pay into CPP if they want to (usually not worth it, though).

Of course, self-employed can already set up IPP's (individual pension plans) but the option to allow them into an RPP would be a welcome change.

See Flaherty's letter in this story from the Globe and Mail.

As for BP - is the market really this stupid? The words of a person mean this much?

Nope, this is a political story.

I support it the NDP has had this idea for 5 years now. Another great NDP idea stolen by the parties of no thought.

As for the Brits it would be a different story if it was a US company in British waters so spare me.

[Moonlight Graham]

Any chance you can provide a link to the story? I'd like to read more.

oops. link added to the OP.

[Smallc]

I support it the NDP has had this idea for 5 years now. Another great NDP idea stolen by the parties of no thought.

You mean the parties that can actually make decisions.

[punked]

You mean the parties that can actually make decisions.

Tell that to Paul Martin for me will you? Or those workers who didn't fall off the EI rolls because after 2 months of getting no where for the Liberals the NDP stood up and got the Cons to agree to a compromise.

[Smallc]

Tell that to Paul Martin for me will you? Or those workers who didn't fall off the EI rolls because after 2 months of getting no where for the Liberals the NDP stood up and got the Cons to agree to a compromise.

They made the decision to work with the NDP. It sure as hell wasn't up to the NDP themselves.

[punked]

They made the decision to work with the NDP. It sure as hell wasn't up to the NDP themselves.

It was after the Liberals wouldn't even show to the meetings because they were angry they weren't in power.

[sharkman]

I think that the Brits have a right to be a little upset, for Obama has been talking down BP for at least 3 weeks, blaming and finger pointing, after first saying the buck stops with him. And they certainly have a responsibility to pay for clean up, although paying out what people would have earned starts getting into a grey area. Yet they have committed to doing that as well.

BP's shares were going to take a hit for this, no doubt, but Obama has made the stock dive much worse. He really seems to have no idea that what he says can really cause the market to tank. Yet on the other hand he constantly talks up the economy. One year from now if he isn't careful, BP could be in financial trouble and unable to pay anything.

[punked]

I think that the Brits have a right to be a little upset, for Obama has been talking down BP for at least 3 weeks, blaming and finger pointing, after first saying the buck stops with him. And they certainly have a responsibility to pay for clean up, although paying out what people would have earned starts getting into a grey area. Yet they have committed to doing that as well.

BP's shares were going to take a hit for this, no doubt, but Obama has made the stock dive much worse. He really seems to have no idea that what he says can really cause the market to tank. Yet on the other hand he constantly talks up the economy. One year from now if he isn't careful, BP could be in financial trouble and unable to pay anything.

Cry me a river BP should have thought about that when they ignored all the warning signs. Tough crap.

[kimmy]

Pensioners invested their money in stocks of a publicly traded company? And the shares took a hit?

WAAAAAAHHH!

Does anybody seriously think the share price has fallen because Obama said mean things about BP?

The share price has fallen-- and everybody knows this and has been saying since long before Obama started talking tough-- because everybody has recognized for a long time that the aftermath of this disaster was going to be a devastating, and possibly fatal, financial blow to BP.

-k

[Oleg Bach]

I WANT MY LIFE BACK.....and a few bucks to boot - and no boots on the throat...I guess I had better go back to Britian and cash in my shares while they are still worth something.

[sharkman]

Pensioners invested their money in stocks of a publicly traded company? And the shares took a hit?

WAAAAAAHHH!

Does anybody seriously think the share price has fallen because Obama said mean things about BP?

The share price has fallen-- and everybody knows this and has been saying since long before Obama started talking tough-- because everybody has recognized for a long time that the aftermath of this disaster was going to be a devastating, and possibly fatal, financial blow to BP.

-k

I actually do think Obama's comments hurt the stock with his repeated refrain that BP would pay. Also his insistence that they pay no dividends. They've been quite cooperative, and no doubt they should, this is the worst oil spill ever. But my point remains, if they aren't a viable company in a year because Obama has made it impossible for them, and they can no longer pay anything, who'll be Waaaaaahing then?

[kimmy]

I actually do think Obama's comments hurt the stock with his repeated refrain that BP would pay.

Everybody has always known that BP was going to pay.

Also his insistence that they pay no dividends.

Paying dividends with the bill for this catastrophe about to hit the balance sheets would be utterly ridiculous. It would also be among the stupidest public relations moves in history.

They've been quite cooperative, and no doubt they should, this is the worst oil spill ever.

They can cooperate, or they can end up in legal Ragnarok.

But my point remains, if they aren't a viable company in a year because Obama has made it impossible for them, and they can no longer pay anything, who'll be Waaaaaahing then?

If they're not a company in a year, it won't be because of anything Obama said. It'll be because clever accountants and lawyers have figured out a way to collapse the company in a way that evades legal responsibility while still keeping the assets in the hands of the shareholders. Again, the possibility of BP using bankruptcy laws to evade paying the bill for this disaster is something that people were talking about practically since day 1.

-k

[GostHacked]

Kimmy

I agree with your sentiments.

If BP did not have an oil rig had exploded this year and spilled the oil into the gulf.

If BP had an oil refinery in Texas City, Texas in 2005 had not blown up.

If BP did not have a track record of safety violations.

If BP has properly outfitted their equipment with the correct safety mechanisms.

IF If if if if if if..

If all this was done, the shares would not be tanking as they are. Obama's words may not help, but the evidence of this catastrophe is spilled out for all to see. Blame BP for screwing up so bad that people are pulling their investments out of the company.

Can't blame Obama for the 11 people who died on the oil rig.

Can't blame Obama, or even Bush for the 15 people who died in the 2005 oil refinery explosion.

There is only one place to point that finger at.... BP.

[eyeball]

There is only one place to point that finger at.... BP.

Two places if you count the government that allowed BP to operate in an unsafe manner and three if you count the society that allowed their government to regulate in an unsafe manner.

I'm surprised BP hasn't pointed this out.

[sharkman]

You can blame Obama for the slow response to the spill.

You can blame Obama for the unorganized circus that has become the clean up effort.

You can blame Obama for ridiculously deep drilling offshore which is much more risky than drilling close to shore.

But I'm not doing any of that, I'm just saying the guy needs to watch what he says. Everyone knows that in this economy you can say things that cause the market to drop a 100 points or more, and Obama knows that since he has been attempting to talk up the economy in the last year.

Apparently I'm wrong about that.

Anyway, things are getting interesting, now Americans are boycotting the gas stations that are owned by BP, which is dumb for several reasons(Arco?).

1)The American owner of each independent station had nothing to do with the spill, and they'll take the bulk of the financial hit for this.

2)The boycott will result in the lay offs of Americans.

3)It was Americans working on the oil rig that caused the explosion.

The environmental damage from this spill will probably take several years to be cleaned up and could well be the black eye that turns Obama into a 1 termer. And it was certainly not his fault.

[Shady]

And Obama's only making things worse. His 6 month ban on all existing oil rigs will cost 200,000 jobs. It's a punch in the stomach to the states already dealing with the aftermath of the leak.

[GostHacked]

And Obama's only making things worse. His 6 month ban on all existing oil rigs will cost 200,000 jobs. It's a punch in the stomach to the states already dealing with the aftermath of the leak.

Well, in order to prevent another incident like this, you bet your ass that things are going to get put on hold and things investigated and scrutinized. I'd expect Harper to do the same for Canada if this happened or will happen off our coast.

Something is obviously broken. Let's pause, take a step back, learn and understand what happened to prevent it from happening again.

[msj]

Everybody has always known that BP was going to pay.

Well, some Republicans seem to be confused and quite apologetic to BP so maybe not "everybody."

The questions are: what are they responsible to pay for, how much will it cost, how much will they actually end up paying and how much will the lawyers make?

No one knows this but at least the lawyers are happy.

Paying dividends with the bill for this catastrophe about to hit the balance sheets would be utterly ridiculous. It would also be among the stupidest public relations moves in history.

We like to call that "surplus stripping." This is where you strip out the assets (or retained earnings) of the company by paying out dividends.

Sell off the other assets (capital, reserves etc) to related parties and, voila, BP is a shell of its former self and can't be a good responsible corporate citizen and pay the bills like we all know it would like to do.

If they're not a company in a year, it won't be because of anything Obama said. It'll be because clever accountants and lawyers have figured out a way to collapse the company in a way that evades legal responsibility while still keeping the assets in the hands of the shareholders. Again, the possibility of BP using bankruptcy laws to evade paying the bill for this disaster is something that people were talking about practically since day 1.

This is just it - it's not Obama's fault that BP would rather try to preserve its oil find than to close the leak permanently.

It's Obama's duty to protect the taxpayers from having to pay for something that clearly should be paid for by BP.

If only he protected taxpayers by ending GWB's TARP and other bailouts to the banks, too.

But hey, government gifts to corporations is the name of the game. Fortunately BP's name is mud and the longer they are in the doghouse the more likely the taxpayers will get some relief.

[dre]

I actually do think Obama's comments hurt the stock with his repeated refrain that BP would pay.

I actually think dumping millions of litres of oil into the gulf of mexico didnt help either

[dre]

Kimmy said...

Everybody has always known that BP was going to pay.

Im still not sure. The laws are heavily skewed against major polluters being held accountable for their messes.

The thing some people dont realize here is that when you talk about the companies that caused this mess paying for the damages youre ACTUALLY for the most part talking about the American investor class. 40% of BP is owned by American investors, and 35% of the well is owned by US companies like Anadarko, and operated by companies like Transocean, and services by companies like Halliburton. I find it quite odd actually that all the focus is on BP, but as I said even THEY are 40% US owned.

The reason I mention this is because the Americans invested in all these companies are exactly a bunch of people you can push around. Theyre well connected people, very smart, and the type of people that cover their asses.

Despite the fact that BP is seemingly co-operating with the government on cleanup costs now, and setting aside money, cancelling dividends etc... Thats most likely because of the huge public pressure on them. Once this thing is in the books, these companies will lawyer up I PERSONALLY GUARANTEE IT, and they will sue the US taxpayer for every red cent they can get, and as much as I hate to say I think they will probably have a great deal of success, and my GUESS is that when all is said and done the US taxpayer will be stuck with most of the bill.

Dont get me wrong Kimmy... I really hope youre right. But thats how I see it.