- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Per Bloomberg: Halliburton and Baker Hughes deal is OFF
Posted on 5/1/16 at 3:13 pm
Posted on 5/1/16 at 3:13 pm
Posted on 5/1/16 at 3:27 pm to b-rab2
3.5 billion termination fee....ouch.
Posted on 5/1/16 at 3:32 pm to abitabrewed4LSU
I guess that allows GE to come in and swoop them up.
Posted on 5/1/16 at 3:41 pm to abitabrewed4LSU
Why are those fees always set so high? It's nuts that they owe that much in cash and the other company didn't do anything
Posted on 5/1/16 at 7:44 pm to lynxcat
quote:
d the other company didn't do anything
Except take market share and prevent us from restructuring due to the oil fallout.
Posted on 5/1/16 at 8:15 pm to abitabrewed4LSU
3.5 Billion termination fee on top of the millions upon millions paid the last 18 months trying to close the deal. Embarrassing.
Posted on 5/1/16 at 10:40 pm to dkreller
As if they took $3.5b in market share
Posted on 5/2/16 at 1:14 am to dkreller
Your suggestion is that the deal was a setback for the company due to market share being stolen.
Posted on 5/2/16 at 6:46 am to lynxcat
quote:
Why are those fees always set so high?
Often used by companies to get free money when they know the deal will sour or it won't be approved.
Posted on 5/2/16 at 6:54 am to lynxcat
It's not necessarily a "market share" issue, more of a company valuation issue. Baker Hughes took a ~30% hit in stock value since this started as opposed to Halliburton at half that (15%). This has left Baker de-valued big time. It may very well put Halliburton in the same position in the near future, but from the start, this leaves Baker weaker.
Only saving grace for Hal may be that people view it as cutting their losses and that losing 3.5B is better than taking on a company paying 78 bucks a share when it's now only worth 46. But it still is a very bad situation. I think Baker and Hal are both going to be getting some new CEO's in the next few months. What a waste of money for both companies at such a difficult time for the industry.
Only saving grace for Hal may be that people view it as cutting their losses and that losing 3.5B is better than taking on a company paying 78 bucks a share when it's now only worth 46. But it still is a very bad situation. I think Baker and Hal are both going to be getting some new CEO's in the next few months. What a waste of money for both companies at such a difficult time for the industry.
Posted on 5/2/16 at 6:55 am to lynxcat
quote:
Why are those fees always set so high? It's nuts that they owe that much in cash and the other company didn't do anything
That's the terms of a non-disclosure agreement. You grant another firm to look under your skirt and learn virtually everything about your business. You're due something if they look that hard, know that much about you, then go back to being a competitor.
Posted on 5/2/16 at 7:57 am to The First Cut
quote:
That's the terms of a non-disclosure agreement. You grant another firm to look under your skirt and learn virtually everything about your business. You're due something if they look that hard, know that much about you, then go back to being a competitor.
This.
Posted on 5/2/16 at 7:58 am to KG6
quote:
I think Baker and Hal are both going to be getting some new CEO's in the next few months
it won't be months.
Posted on 5/2/16 at 8:22 am to Cdawg
Hopefully for those companies it's a quick process. I just see it taking a little time to find someone new, etc. I'm sending my resume to both letting them know I'm available.
Posted on 5/2/16 at 8:57 am to b-rab2
As a former employee, I am never surprised by the stupidity of Halliburton higher ups, beginning with the Dresser fiasco
Posted on 5/2/16 at 10:55 am to b-rab2
Did they really think creating a duopoly between Schlumberger and Halliburton wouldn't raise some eyebrows in the Antitrust circle?
Posted on 5/2/16 at 11:07 am to TexasTiger90
They expanded with the distinct vision of oil never being under 100 a barrel and gas at 10.00 MCF, they both built huge new expansions in Shreveport/Bossier
Posted on 5/2/16 at 12:25 pm to TexasTiger90
quote:
Did they really think creating a duopoly between Schlumberger and Halliburton wouldn't raise some eyebrows in the Antitrust circle?
Well sure, but it isn't exactly fair to say Halliburton cannot be as big as Schlumberger just because they got big first. Assuming that was a hurdle for the deal, it sucks the DOJ penalized Halliburton because of Schlumberger.
Posted on 5/2/16 at 12:39 pm to Strannix
quote:I doubt that... Those yards were that big b/c the Haynesville was running 100 rigs... they needed it to keep up with demand. Both companies did not want to lose market share.
They expanded with the distinct vision of oil never being under 100 a barrel and gas at 10.00 MCF, they both built huge new expansions in Shreveport/Bossier
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News