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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: energyplay who wrote (65705)	6/30/2005 9:40:09 AM
From: TobagoJack	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

hi bill, i think cnooc-unocal is a test i think china will not likely buy foolish, because the decision process is fundamentally different, philosophically and approach, from japanese corporates and arabic kings peeling off usd 20 bil (one year's interest or 12 months' devaluation/depreciation) from a usd 600 bil and growing hoard is not that difficult a decision, especially given that the usd care-taker, professor burnandkaput announced on international television what his intentions were j6p may not mind being printed into the poor house, but a sitting government and ruling party do mind, terribly, especially if they intend to remain sitting and ruling this is why i cracked about walmart, it is purchase-able, if not in its entirety, than perhaps a strategic 10-20% stake, and if not walmart, then someothermart, distressed or healthy, kicking and screaming or laughing and high-stepping interesting times, but i, and so does everyone else, expect PROTECTIONISM and FEAR MONGERING, and lots of TwoAPuc (The Worst of ALL Unintended Consequences) buy gold, because its intrinsic value is not zero

To: energyplay who wrote (65705)	6/30/2005 5:02:53 PM
From: TobagoJack	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 74559

Hi Bill, another national security issue, according to some, has surface ... freerepublic.com concerning Huffy I am thinking back on what Mary said only a few weeks back, about China having no international brands. She also at the time voiced something about no worthwhile innovation, and no name brand education. The boy of a friend just got into a not so name brand US school, and the cost appears to be USD 50k per annum. I am guessing the name brand schools are about the same. What happens when the moolah for student loans dry up, and the professors still cost the same? Liquidation of endowment funds, stuffed to the gills with housing assets of all flavors and GOOG no doubt. It is amazing to me that folks still believe money that is just paper and ink, and trust the caretakers of same to keep honest and true. Learning is a process, less fun when hard, but less memorable/useful when easy. reuters.com UPDATE 2-China poised to take over U.S. Huffy bikes Tue Jun 28, 2005 07:40 PM ET (Recasts with background on China's bid for American corporate assets, Huffy's history) NEW YORK, June 28 (Reuters) - Chinese suppliers and an agent of China's government are poised to take control of Huffy Corp. (HUFCQ.PK: Quote, Profile, Research) , a venerable U.S. brand name, as the bicycle maker restructures under bankruptcy protection, it said on Tuesday. Huffy, making bikes for Americans for more than a century, said it had agreed to a reorganization plan which would allow it to terminate its staff pension plans. The company would turn responsibility for the benefits over to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., a unit of the federal government that insures pension plans. The proposal also would give the suppliers that make its bicycles in China and the China Export & Credit Insurance Corp. the right to elect a majority of its board of directors and earn up to 51 percent of its new common voting stock over five years. The move comes as debate rages over Chinese state-owned oil company CNOOC's (0883.HK: Quote, Profile, Research) $18.5 billion bid for the U.S. oil and gas company Unocal Corp. (UCL.N: Quote, Profile, Research) . And just last week, China's largest home applicance maker, Haier Group, along with two private equity firms, made a $1.28 billion bid for Maytag Corp. (MYG.N: Quote, Profile, Research) , the maker of Hoover vaccums. Earlier this year, China's Lenovo Group Ltd. purchased International Business Machines Corp.'s (IBM.N: Quote, Profile, Research) personal computer business over objections from some China critics and a review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. Huffy's potential takeover by Chinese suppliers and Sinosure, the Chinese government's export credit insurance agency, is likely to add another twist to an increasingly tortuous debate over China's thirst for American companies. Huffy, based in Miamisburg, Ohio, has been operating under bankkruptcy protection since last October. Huffy, which plans to emerge from bankruptcy as a private company, said it was working to file its proposed reorganization plan with the bankruptcy court in July. Existing equity holders would not receive any distributions under the plan. Huffy's unsecured creditors would get a 30 percent stake in the company in the form of Class A shares, along with a $3 million note to Sinosure. Other unsecured creditors would get the rest of the company's equity in Class B shares and a $9 million note to Sinosure. Huffy, which drove its early fortunes by capitalizing on the need for cheaper mode of transportation during the U.S. Depression, said it had about 3,600 retired and 130 current employees.

To: energyplay who wrote (65705)	7/1/2005 4:07:07 AM
From: Taikun	Respond to of 74559

<They have shown that they have a huge bankroll, courtesy of the central government> WSJ this week had an article putting the value of CNOOC's zero percent financing (courtesy fo the gov't) at $200m per year. With that kind of finanncing they're bound to inflate asset prices (a la US housing). This is far from a capitalist company, nor is it a fair deal. However, they chose an interesting way to show their hand. They could have gone alot further acquiring remote assets (remote for the US, but India and Indonesia are not remote for China)without showing this hand, but now they've put themselves under the microscope, and triggered the hiring of PR agencies and at least 2 US law firms. So...why? Why now? Why UCL? They could have operated under the radar, offshore and buying private companies, for years. One answer is real burning demand. Another is a struggle over oil with the US.