Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Big Dog's Boom Boom Room -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jim_p who wrote (6261)	1/27/2002 2:20:10 PM
From: kollmhn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 206181

Regarding the HC trading halt.. It is my understanding that the reason for trading halts is to issue material news and to give all the opportunity to digest it before resuming trading. It seems to me that HC believed such news was in hand or, at least would be, momentarily. To continue the halt for the entire day means, to me, that what was imminent, got delayed. I don't believe a long, legally vetted response to the WSJ article is worthy of a halt. That doesn't strike me as very material and it could be done anytime...even after the close. At the risk of being unjustifiably optimistic, I'm of mind that there may have been a "deal" (what kind?) in the works but, that was delayed pending resolution of some details. Resolution didn't come (nor, may it ever come) in time to re-open by early Friday afternoon. So, keeping it halted and then spending the weekend to iron out the details, was a handy and safe option. An example (that makes a lot os sense to me)of a deal that may have been close and, then, became contentious, would be the swapping of the $150mm SLB loan (currently at 8.5%; going to 10.5% 3/01/02 and to 15% on 9/01/02) for X number of HC shares. With the strong recovery in UCO shares in the afternoon, it may have been difficult to nail down a mutually satisfactory number. IMO, HC would suggest that the number should be determined by using a stock price that was higher than the Thursday close of $16.05. That some, or all, of the GKH partnership shares MAY still be overhanging the market, could be grounds for disagreement of what's a good deal for BOTH sides. With book at $13, HC ought to be reluctant to swap based on that price. At $20, for example, SLB may have felt it was too large a premium to the last trade. It could have been resolved by now or, it could have fallen apart completely. I'm guessing we will have our "news", pre-opening, tomorrow. BWDIK?