Opening Bell: 5.14.08

clearchanlogo.jpgClear Channel, Banks, Lenders Agree On Deal So in the end they got the deal done, as the funding banks probably realized that they couldn't just step away from their obligations, just because they didn't like the economics any more. They did agree to lower the price, so that'll save a couple people their jobs, but it's still a big 'ol pile of debt that should be very fun to move.


Icahn Enters Yahoo Fray (WSJ)
So Carl Icahn is expected to decide today whether he wants to wade into this Yahoo mess. Well he better decie today, as tomorrow is the deadline to file a slate of candidates to the company's board. It's hard to imagine that the guy has purchased 50 million shares at a value of around 1 billion and doesn't have a clear idea of what he wants to do, so all these media reports that say he's "deciding" seem a little naive, but whatever. It probably comes down to what assurances he can get from Microsoft, that they're still willing to buy Yahoo. Indications so far are that they've moved on, but maybe at the right price, who knows.

H-P Takes Aim at IBM (WSJ)
So HP has gone done made another monster purchase, but unlike Compaq, which was a double-down on its core business, this is about diluting its core business. The name of the game right now in corporate IT: get big and bland. If you're really diversified, with a million product lines, in 150 countries (so basically currency neutral) and have a nice spread of consumer and corporate products, you don't have too much to worry about. Yeah, you'll never be Apple, even if Jay-Z starts touting EDS services on his tours. But only Apple is Apple so might as well move into the other direction. On the other hand, we do like the Jay-Z/EDS synergies.

Congress Votes to Stop Stockpiling Oil (NYT)
The whole Stategic Petroleum Reserve things seems like much ado over nothing to us, at least in the sense that whether we add or subtract from it, it's unlikely to affect the price of oil much. That being said, it probably makes some sense for the government to stop buying for it at $125/barrel. But if the government kept adding to it, it wouldn't bother us too much.

A Second Night for Comedy at CBS (NYT)
Wait, are there still sitcoms?

Clinton's Wide Margin in West Virginia Won't Cut Obama's Lead (Bloomberg)
The Clinton team never even bothered to lower expectations on this one, nor did team Obama ever try to raise them. Some jerks in the media were even talking an 80-20 victory, so yeah, this pretty much changes nothing.

Markets: As Good With Elections As They Are With The Economy (Big Picture)
Blog fight!! Barry Ritholtz points to a WSJ article about the failure of betting markets to accurately "predict" the outcome of political elections. And since Barry has been a long time critic of the betting markets, it's right up his ally. But Eddie at CrossingWallStreet has a different take, and it's one he's repeated before: that these aren't prediction markets, they're odds-setting markets. Their goal isn't to be right, it's to make a market. Here's our question for Barry: If you think they're so messed up and inaccurate, are you betting on them to take advantage of how inaccurate they are?

Home court advantage in basketball (MarginalRevolution)
We've often wondered what the deal is with home-court advantage. No seriously, what's the deal with home court advantage? Why do teams play worse on the road. Here are some theories being bandied about. The last one is interesting.

U.S. stock futures flat as Greenspan predicts bottom (MarketWatch)
We find it very hard to believe that markets are actually flat because Greenspan is predicting a housing bototm. Does anyone care what Greenspan's views are on housing? AND if he had any actual insight into the matter, wouldn't he keep it quiet and feed it to the private companies that pay his salary? Sort of a good test on whether someone has anything worthwhile to add. If they're saying it in public: probably not.

Comments

Posted by guest, May 14, 2008 9:23AM

On the SPR article:

I heard somewhere that oil companies are able to contribute to the SPR in lieu of paying taxes. Does anyone know if they get a $125 "credit" for each barrel they give now, or is it set at some fixed price and adjusted quartely/anually/etc.? Just curious as to the dyamnics of it all...

Also, if Congress thinks that by stopping the addition of only tens of thousands of barrels a day to the SPR will have any affect at all on gas prices, they've lost it. Typical showmanship with nothing to really back it up...

Posted by AJ, May 14, 2008 9:32AM

Can we discuss how the government is just making up CPI numbers?

Posted by guest, May 14, 2008 9:46AM

Can we discuss bedding hot chicks by offering them poetry?

Posted by guest, May 14, 2008 9:58AM

http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=azBHgA8Vjhxg&refer=home

more layoffs.......

Posted by guest, May 14, 2008 10:02AM

The companies give oil in kind in lieu of paying royalties, not taxes. And they are allowed to do so when they sign-up a bid for an in-kind contract.

The amount of oil they need to give is determined by the price of oil at the time of the transaction. However, as oil prices increase, royalties increase as well, so the "buying oil at $125/bbl" analogy isn't exactly right.

Posted by guest, May 14, 2008 10:15AM

Thanks for the SPR clarifications, what are oil "royalties" though exactly?

Posted by ab, May 14, 2008 10:36AM

royalties are essentially taxes. they're owed by oil companies drilling on federal land.

Posted by guest, May 14, 2008 11:02AM

Well they aren't taxes, but 10:36 is right they are 'essentially' taxes.

You sell a barrel of oil for $100, royalty rate is 30%, you owe the government $30.

Rather than pay that $30 in cash, they can give the government 0.3 of a barrel of oil (based on the oil price that was charged for the royalty).

That is simplying things but basically how it works. Oil companies also pay taxes like other companies, but royalties come out of the revenue line before those taxes, similar to an operating expense.

Posted by guest, May 14, 2008 11:07AM

@11:02 Interesting. Is this how private landowners monetize their oil (i.e. by giving others the rights to extract, in return for a % of revenues)? How about the alternative: pay someone the fixed cost of extraction and collect 100% of the revenues. Is that done in the private sector? Could govt do that as well with their reserves?

Posted by guest, May 14, 2008 11:09AM

@11:02 To clarify, what I'm getting a here is that a lot of revenue seems to be at stake. Any abuse going on, or are the terms received by the govt really indicative of market conditions.

Posted by guest, May 14, 2008 11:16AM

@11:09 - I don't think so - this is pretty transparent. They know how much was sold in a given jurisdiction and you know the revenue so you know the royalties owed to the government. Plus the companies bid on the oil in kind contracts so the government can keep track of it pretty easily. Never heard of any problems...

Posted by guest, May 14, 2008 11:36AM

@11:16, but with a royalty arrangement the govt is getting only 30% of the benefit from an increase in the price of oil. If they paid someone the fixed cost of drilling and kept 100% of the revenue, they would get 100% of the benefit of the price increase. I know its probably been analyzed to death and looked at in the free market, but as an amateur it seems like buying drilling rights for a 30% royalty is a cant loose prop for the oil companies.

Posted by guest, May 14, 2008 12:10PM

@ 11:36 sounds like you want to move to Venezuela. What you're talking about is nationalizing oil companies.

Your thinking is way off base. First, they don't only get the royalty, they get the tax benefit (which is huge) from the income generated by the energy co's. Second, keep royalties low(er) encourages exploration which is needed for increased US production or else companies will explore elsewhere (and of course the US will need to import more oil & gas getting economic zero value form it). Third, the energy companies take the risk (exploration & development) for a return based on their expectation for the future price of oil and gas, it is hardly can't lose. That is the basis for the private system, take a look at Mexico if you want to see how well that happens when it is a government controlling the strings.

Posted by guest, May 14, 2008 12:11PM

For those looking on a primer on royalty structures, google "alberta royalty review". Add "tristone" to the search terms to get a reaction from the financial guys. Lots of stuff to look at there, as Alberta went through this last year and there has been visible fallout as a result of the changes.

--Calgary Schmooze

Posted by Novice, May 14, 2008 12:57PM

Thanks Cal, looks like interesting reading.

Post Your Comment