To elaborate on my previous rushed post----
The article correctly stated that VRC shrhldrs would have their shares converted to .7125 shrs TBI, but then the article did _not_ go on to say that TBI changed its name to Varco and its symbol to VRC. On my original reading of the article, this left me with the impression that the writer believed that the merged entity would be TBI. Also, I had misremembered the details of the exchange. I thought 'old' VRC shrs were to be exchanged for 'new' VRC shrs, rather than 'old' VRC shrs for TBI shrs which then changed to VRC. Thus, this area of misunderstanding that I incorrectly attributed to the writer was really my misunderstanding.
--- I believe that the last sentence of the article could leave a reader puzzled, but rereading it I think it is just an oversight that the TBI to VRC namechange wasn't mentioned and I regret my 'DimBulb' comment and my remarks about his analysis.
---It seems it was me who was the DimBulb.
My misremembering of the details of exchange was more in error than his failure to include the namechange in his article.
---------------------------------------------------
However, I still disagree with his conclusions.
--- It is my understanding that, in general, the offshore rig fleet is aging and will need much renovating. The market for VRC's state-of-the-art equipment should be just at the early stages of prospering. The combination of TBI+VRC will make VRC equipment more readily available. VRC's reputation combined with more widespread availability at a time of Oil/NG demand growth make VRC a 'keeper' here, imho.
---Time will tell.
regards,
diana |
