Bob, an oversimplified hypothetical ABC type example of Anti Trust activity.
Each of these three companies A, B and C produce horse feathers.
Company B is the most efficient and wishes to grow thru acquisition of the
other two companies, A and C.
Company B has noticed that the price of horse feathers has dropped lower in
price and has not been effected by market conditions that in the past would
increase its price. Also noted by Company B was that during this long period
of years that the price of horse feathers remained low was specific activity
that viewed at a glance would not jump out and wave a red flag, but if one
took these seperate pieces and treated them as the contents of a zig saw
puzzle and moved them around that interconnections were made leading to a
final result that a picture was present.
Company B saw the picture as being like a view into a crystal ball that will
tell the future, and a conclusion was rendered thru an understanding that all
will not be well in the future unless either the forces that controled the
price of horse feathers was denied their goal, or Company B made up a new
business plan for the present and future based on the "fix" in the price of
horse feathers. Company B decided to go with the current flow and ran their
company knowing that the "fix" was present, and Company B also took the extra
step in not doing anything to go against the "fix", and Company B also took
another extra step in directly or indirectly opposing any activity that would
counter the "fix".
Time marched on with a trampling underfoot by the "fix" to cause Company A
and Company C to grasp for air as they were being choked to near bankruptcy
thru the low and always low price of horse feathers. Did they cry for HELP
or did "help" arrive to rescue them ? The later lets assume, and also lets
assume that the help was sent by the "fix" and contained a way for both of
companies A and C to remain as viable in the market, but with a sort of a
selling you soul, or "you have no choice", or "trust me, or else...".
The "fix" was not created by Company B.
Company B wish that the "fix" never existed.
Company B was under no law to fight or stop the "fix", except to protect
shareholder value.
But, Company B took more than advantage of the situation created by the "fix",
as Company B "entered" into a business practice to continue the "fix", plus
Company B "entered" into a business practice not to discontinue the "fix".
So time concluded with a hic-up and Company A and Company C found that the
"help" they obtained backfired and into the toilet they went eventhought
they both still has lots of horse feathers in reserve.
Company B entered and obtained Company A and C for a fraction of the cost
if the "fix" did not "deliver" them.
But now the Anti Trust laws kick in and inside out and upside down and with
a pounding of a judge's hammer Company B loses not only what it salvaged from
the wreckage of the "fix", but companies A and C suck in that of Company B so
as to recover losses cause by the laws being broken.
Now we all know of the phrase "the abc's..." as a general way to learn the
basics of something, and also as in "the xyz's..." in math where the three
variables X Y and Z are used as names. So it was done in the above example
where the abc's had the variables A B and C as company names.
Now it just a simple and amazing coincidence that the following gold producing
companies match up with a b and c, as follows:
A - Ashanti
B - Barrick
C - Cambior
So, IN NO WAY ARE A B AND C POINTING OR SUGGESTING THESE REAL COMPANIES.
And to make it official, please exchange Company B and C in the horse feather
trade so that Company C is the one that loses in the anti trust trial.
As for the initial parties that created the "fix", well time for that later.
Doug |
