Piturro escribió:Acabo de salir de una reunión en la que me confirmaron que PESA ya está vendida a Pampa.
En esta semana sale el aviso a la CNV.
me acaban de informar en asamblea se define venta y pago de dividendo....
espero sea asi
PESA Petrobras Energia S. A.
Re: PESA Petrobras Energia S. A.
me acaban de informar en asamblea se define venta y pago de dividendo....
espero sea asi
-
LEMAGISCIEN
- Mensajes: 1337
- Registrado: Lun Jul 30, 2007 5:10 pm
Re: PESA Petrobras Energia S. A.
Parece que el ADR (se muestra) comienza con apetito!!
Re: PESA Petrobras Energia S. A.
plata fresca escribió:NO SERA QUE QUIREN CERRAR ANTES DE LA ASAMBLEA
será para que los dividendos queden dentro de la empresa y no sean distribuidos.....uhhh no me gusta
quiero 0,40 por accion
-
plata fresca
- Mensajes: 1267
- Registrado: Mié Abr 23, 2014 4:16 pm
Re: PESA Petrobras Energia S. A.
Gigenes escribió:Los rumores dicen que hoy se cerró la venta, y que esta semana se hace pública la noticia...
NO SERA QUE QUIREN CERRAR ANTES DE LA ASAMBLEA
Re: PESA Petrobras Energia S. A.
Gigenes escribió:Los rumores dicen que hoy se cerró la venta, y que esta semana se hace pública la noticia...
tan rápido
Re: PESA Petrobras Energia S. A.
Los rumores dicen que hoy se cerró la venta, y que esta semana se hace pública la noticia...
-
chango salteño
- Mensajes: 4211
- Registrado: Vie Feb 05, 2010 8:44 pm
Re: PESA Petrobras Energia S. A.
LA JOYAS DE PESA
NEGOCIOS Por Patricio Eleisegui
Jueves 03 de Marzo de 2016 05:39:00
Con la llegada de Mindlin a Petrobras, el macrismo empezó a armar su "burguesía nacional"
Las "joyas" en juego
De formalizarse la compra en u$s1.200 millones, tal como propone Pampa Energía, Mindlin pasará a contar con:
- Alrededor de 30 reservorios petroleros en Neuquén
- Una refinería clave, ubicada en la ciudad de Bahía Blanca
- Su red de 100 estaciones de servicio
- Acciones en TGS (Transportadora Gas del Sur).
- Acciones en la central térmica Genelba.
- Participación en la hidroeléctrica Pichi Picún Leifú.
En caso de que se concrete la operación, Pampa tendrá que desprenderse de TGS, ya que el marco legal vigente le impide controlarla.
El protagonismo exclusivo de Mindlin en las negociaciones se confirma tras los rumores que daban cuenta de una nueva oferta lanzada por YPF, que luego fueron desmentidos por la propia petrolera.
Tal como ya diera cuenta iProfesional en diciembre de 2014, Petrobras Argentina presenta una capacidad productiva que la lleva a ostentar la cuarta posición en el ranking de productores de petróleo.
La contracara es que el volumen de extracción ha venido en declive en el último lustro. El interés de Mindlin por el negocio de exploración y producción de hidrocarburos no es nuevo, en especial por el gasífero.
Pampa viene de desarrollar de forma exitosa un proyecto de tight gas en Neuquén en asociación con YPF.
"Podemos crecer mediante la compra de activos, pero también tenemos otras formas para seguir creciendo en gas, con alianzas como las que tenemos con YPF en Rincón del Mangrullo o con Petrobras Argentina en El Mangrullo", aseguró Mindlin el año pasado.
Por otro lado, el empresario tiene intenciones de invertir u$s200 millones para construir el mayor parque eólico de la Argentina. Se emplazará en la zona del sur de Buenos Aires, cerca de Bahía Blanca.
Emilio Apud, experto del sector energético y actual director de YPF, sostuvo a iProfesional que la oferta por Petrobras Argentina fue cobrando forma con el correr de los meses.
"Son activos importantes en cuanto a capacidad de refinación, estaciones de servicio y participación en gasoductos. La realidad es que una compra de estas características potencia el mercado petrolero local", expresó.
"Al mismo tiempo, recupera para el país ciertas áreas por las que YPF ofertó en su momento sin llegar a acordar", añadió Apud.
En la visión de este experto, si la operación se concreta se dará una nueva perspectiva para el negocio, ya que ampliará de forma significativa la capacidad productiva de Pampa Energía.
"Una inversión como la que planea también deja en evidencia que en cuanto se empiezan a marcar reglas claras de juego, el negocio de los hidrocarburos rápidamente recupera interés comercial", agregó
NEGOCIOS Por Patricio Eleisegui
Jueves 03 de Marzo de 2016 05:39:00
Con la llegada de Mindlin a Petrobras, el macrismo empezó a armar su "burguesía nacional"
Las "joyas" en juego
De formalizarse la compra en u$s1.200 millones, tal como propone Pampa Energía, Mindlin pasará a contar con:
- Alrededor de 30 reservorios petroleros en Neuquén
- Una refinería clave, ubicada en la ciudad de Bahía Blanca
- Su red de 100 estaciones de servicio
- Acciones en TGS (Transportadora Gas del Sur).
- Acciones en la central térmica Genelba.
- Participación en la hidroeléctrica Pichi Picún Leifú.
En caso de que se concrete la operación, Pampa tendrá que desprenderse de TGS, ya que el marco legal vigente le impide controlarla.
El protagonismo exclusivo de Mindlin en las negociaciones se confirma tras los rumores que daban cuenta de una nueva oferta lanzada por YPF, que luego fueron desmentidos por la propia petrolera.
Tal como ya diera cuenta iProfesional en diciembre de 2014, Petrobras Argentina presenta una capacidad productiva que la lleva a ostentar la cuarta posición en el ranking de productores de petróleo.
La contracara es que el volumen de extracción ha venido en declive en el último lustro. El interés de Mindlin por el negocio de exploración y producción de hidrocarburos no es nuevo, en especial por el gasífero.
Pampa viene de desarrollar de forma exitosa un proyecto de tight gas en Neuquén en asociación con YPF.
"Podemos crecer mediante la compra de activos, pero también tenemos otras formas para seguir creciendo en gas, con alianzas como las que tenemos con YPF en Rincón del Mangrullo o con Petrobras Argentina en El Mangrullo", aseguró Mindlin el año pasado.
Por otro lado, el empresario tiene intenciones de invertir u$s200 millones para construir el mayor parque eólico de la Argentina. Se emplazará en la zona del sur de Buenos Aires, cerca de Bahía Blanca.
Emilio Apud, experto del sector energético y actual director de YPF, sostuvo a iProfesional que la oferta por Petrobras Argentina fue cobrando forma con el correr de los meses.
"Son activos importantes en cuanto a capacidad de refinación, estaciones de servicio y participación en gasoductos. La realidad es que una compra de estas características potencia el mercado petrolero local", expresó.
"Al mismo tiempo, recupera para el país ciertas áreas por las que YPF ofertó en su momento sin llegar a acordar", añadió Apud.
En la visión de este experto, si la operación se concreta se dará una nueva perspectiva para el negocio, ya que ampliará de forma significativa la capacidad productiva de Pampa Energía.
"Una inversión como la que planea también deja en evidencia que en cuanto se empiezan a marcar reglas claras de juego, el negocio de los hidrocarburos rápidamente recupera interés comercial", agregó
-
LEMAGISCIEN
- Mensajes: 1337
- Registrado: Lun Jul 30, 2007 5:10 pm
Re: PESA Petrobras Energia S. A.
El volumen que hace es irrisorio y el del ADR no existe.
Habrá que ver fin de la jornada para evaluar.
Las circunstancias debieran hacerla ya volar al menos aumentar precio y volumen progresivamente.
Sin embargo no se puede hacer ningun diagnóstico hasta aqui, salvo que falte aun para la definición de la compra (y a más tiempo se genera incertidumbre).
Habrá que ver fin de la jornada para evaluar.
Las circunstancias debieran hacerla ya volar al menos aumentar precio y volumen progresivamente.
Sin embargo no se puede hacer ningun diagnóstico hasta aqui, salvo que falte aun para la definición de la compra (y a más tiempo se genera incertidumbre).
Re: PESA Petrobras Energia S. A.
Continua presión de venta... hace más de 2 meses que opera de esta forma ,...hoy es nuevamente la mayor baja más del 6% también baja el aDR y es conocido en el mercado que el mercado NO SE EQUIVOCA.- por ende los que estan vendiendo van demostrando que tienen mejor análisis de como esta esta empresa.-
-
LEMAGISCIEN
- Mensajes: 1337
- Registrado: Lun Jul 30, 2007 5:10 pm
Re: PESA Petrobras Energia S. A.
Va recuperando muy despaciosamente.
Re: PESA Petrobras Energia S. A.
quien esta vendiendo a 9,,,,,,uhhh ese esta desesperado,,,,,
cuiden de que no se suicide
cuiden de que no se suicide
Re: PESA Petrobras Energia S. A.
uhhh un dia negro para todos
se la lleva pampa pero sigue pesa
uhhh no creo sea asi.....mantener dos administraciones,,,
bueno sigo lanzando a los que quieran comprar me avisan
se la lleva pampa pero sigue pesa
uhhh no creo sea asi.....mantener dos administraciones,,,
bueno sigo lanzando a los que quieran comprar me avisan
-
LEMAGISCIEN
- Mensajes: 1337
- Registrado: Lun Jul 30, 2007 5:10 pm
Re: PESA Petrobras Energia S. A.
Hasta aqui y con la escasa operatoria, (desinterés) y a la baja!, no parece haber se confirmado nada sino todo lo contrario, diria que dinamitaron su potencial gasifero
Veremos en el correr de esta rueda cuyo contexto general poco ayuda, en la medida que nos vayamos acercando a la Asamblea del 28.
Veremos en el correr de esta rueda cuyo contexto general poco ayuda, en la medida que nos vayamos acercando a la Asamblea del 28.
-
LEMAGISCIEN
- Mensajes: 1337
- Registrado: Lun Jul 30, 2007 5:10 pm
Re: PESA Petrobras Energia S. A.
Bien Piturro!!!
De New York Times afirma:
How Argentina Settled a Billion-Dollar Debt Dispute With Hedge Funds
By ALEXANDRA STEVENSONAPRIL 25, 2016
Dan Pollack, the court-appointed mediator for a deal between Argentina and its debt holders, had a rule of no pens and paper during crucial negotiations. Credit Sasha Maslov for The New York Times
The Waldorf Astoria hotel in Manhattan has long been a location for secret diplomacy, but few meetings there would have seemed as unlikely as the one that took place one day in early December.
In a hotel conference room, a top Argentine politician drank coffee with two hedge fund executives — a meeting that was nothing short of remarkable after more than a decade of bitter legal skirmishes between Argentina and a group of disgruntled debt holders who at one point seized an Argentine Navy ship. The previous Buenos Aires government reviled the hedge funds as “vultures.”
That meeting on Dec. 7 between Luis Caputo, who days later would be sworn in as Argentina’s finance secretary, and Jonathan Pollock and Jay Newman from Elliott Management, the $27 billion hedge fund founded by Paul E. Singer, was the start of a rapprochement leading to a momentous debt deal that has now allowed Argentina to rejoin the global financial markets that it had been locked out of for 15 years.
Last week, Argentina successfully sold $16.5 billion in bonds to international investors, a record amount for any developing country. And on Friday, Elliott and the other bondholders finally received their reward in the form of billions of dollars in repayment, representing returns worth multiple times their original investments.
“Today, we have put a definitive close to this chapter,” Alfonso Prat-Gay, Argentina’s economic minister, told an Argentine radio station on Friday.
The negotiations that led to the deal were set in motion by the election in November of President Mauricio Macri, who ran on a promise to reignite Argentina’s flailing economy. Striking a deal with the country’s aggrieved bondholders was central to getting that done.
How Argentina and the hedge funds were able to break the long stalemate and reach a deal in a matter of weeks is a story of furious back-channeling and clashes that nearly derailed an agreement. Details of those negotiations have emerged from interviews with eight people who were involved in those meetings, as well as court filings and emails reviewed by The New York Times. Many of those people spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.
Continue reading the main story
RELATED COVERAGE
Opinion Op-Ed Contributors
How Hedge Funds Held Argentina for Ransom APRIL 1, 2016
TIMELINE
Argentina’s Debt Settlement Ends 15-Year Battle FEB. 29, 2016
Court Opens Way for Argentina to End Battle With Hedge Funds APRIL 13, 2016
There were moments when the talks nearly fell apart. Three days before a deal was signed with Elliott, Mr. Caputo, exasperated by a back-and-forth with bondholders over whether they would return government assets they had seized, emailed the court-appointed mediator: “THIS IS A JOKE; NO DEAL.”
That mediator, Daniel Pollack — who had not previously met Mr. Pollock at Elliott — was appointed by the court in June 2014 and played a central role in the final negotiations.
Indeed, hours before his December assignation with the Elliott executives, Mr. Caputo had been just a few blocks down Park Avenue at the offices of the McCarter & English law firm. There, he introduced himself to Mr. Pollack, a prominent trial lawyer best known for arguing two landmark mutual fund cases before the United States Supreme Court in 1979 and 1983.
Mediating in closed-door negotiations, Mr. Pollack cajoled both sides, at times resorting to theatrical moves like getting a court order to summon Mr. Singer, the founder of Elliott, to his office.
Mr. Pollack’s rule of no pens and paper during crucial negotiations frustrated some, with two hedge fund managers complaining privately that the mediator was an obstacle to the settlement process.
Others spoke highly of Mr. Pollack’s ability to get a deal in a matter of weeks.
“You have to give Dan Pollack immense credit for creating an environment where, if they wanted to, they could get together and have a discussion,” said Michael Straus, a principal at Montreux Partners and one of the first in the group originally led by NML Capital, a unit of Elliott, to sign a deal.
Elliott executives also formed their own back channel, forged with an influential Argentine businessman, Marcos Mindlin, whom they met at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, in January. At times, Mr. Mindlin, who is managing director of Pampa Energía, one of Argentina’s biggest energy companies, was used to communicate with Argentina’s negotiators.
Photo
Luis Caputo, now Argentina’s finance secretary, attended a secret meeting with two hedge fund executives in December. Credit Kena Betancur/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
Despite the groundwork that had been laid, formal negotiations got off to a rocky start.
At a news conference in Davos, President Macri had insisted that Argentina’s proposal would be made public.
So on Feb. 1, when Argentine officials presented an informal agreement to a group of six hedge funds — Elliott’s NML Capital unit, Aurelius Capital Management, EM Ltd., Montreux Partners, Bracebridge Capital and Davidson Kempner — several people in the room loudly protested the public approach.
But two of the firms, Montreux Partners and EM, accepted Argentina’s proposal. EM’s deal, which was signed by its lawyer, Kenneth E. Johns, had been written out on a piece of notepad paper.
Argentina struck another deal that same week to pay $1.35 billion to a group of Italian investors who were holding defaulted bonds. The other four main bondholders instead submitted a document outlining their terms and the conditions of any agreement.
Undeterred, on Feb. 5, Argentina publicly announced an offer to pay $6.5 billion to the holdout bondholders.
“After a 15-year legal battle we’re going to agree to a long-form napkin?” Mr. Pollock said in an interview, referring to the deal with Montreux Partners and explaining the initial reluctance. He added that he had a duty to his investors to negotiate something more secure.
The core group of bondholders, led by NML, remained obstinate.
In a recent interview, Mr. Pollack, the mediator, said that the bondholders had wanted to turn negotiations into a complex debt restructuring, while he argued that a business transaction would be simpler. The holdouts were deeply cynical, he recalled.
Argentina’s recent history was still fresh on their minds. The populist administration of Mr. Macri’s predecessor, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, had an economy minister with Marxist leanings who lectured bondholders that they would never get more than 30 cents for every dollar of their bonds.
“If you are at war long enough, it’s very difficult to shift to a mode of peace,” Mr. Pollack said.
Concerned that they would not be able to get a deal with the conditions they wanted, one Elliott executive met with Mr. Mindlin on Feb. 17 in New York and expressed his concerns over dinner. The following day, Mr. Mindlin spoke with Mario Quintana, the secretary of the government’s economic cabinet. Argentina representatives met with bondholders later that day.
On Feb. 19, Judge Thomas P. Griesa of Federal District Court in Manhattan, who presided over the dispute in the courts, dealt a blow to the remaining holdouts by agreeing to lift an injunction that prevented Argentina from making any bond payments or raising new money.
Under his ruling, Judge Griesa had set a deadline of Feb. 29 for any deal to be recognized. While the economic terms of the deal with the holdouts had been agreed upon, some of the smaller details were still in dispute.
After several frantic meetings and heated discussions over conditions, including that the hedge funds continue to have a say in Argentina’s future domestic market fund-raising, NML, Aurelius, Davidson Kempner and Bracebridge signed a deal on Feb. 28. In the agreement, Argentina agreed to pay $4.65 billion to the hedge funds, which included bond principal, interest and “certain legal fees and expenses incurred.”
Two days earlier, Mr. Pollack, the mediator, requested that Judge Griesa sign an order summoning Mr. Pollock and Mr. Singer of Elliott to his offices.
On Friday, Argentina paid all of the holdout creditors who had agreed to deals — a total of $9.3 billion, the economy ministry said. Elliott received $2.4 billion, a 392 percent return on the original value of the bonds, according to the ministry.
Writing to Elliott employees hours later, Mr. Singer thanked them for “persisting through this lengthy, complicated and contentious process.”
Correction: April 25, 2016
An earlier version of this article referred incorrectly to the returns of the hedge funds. They were in the hundreds of percentage points, not hundreds times, their original investments.
Peso importante el de Mindlin en la cocina de los negocios, ¿no les parece?
De New York Times afirma:
How Argentina Settled a Billion-Dollar Debt Dispute With Hedge Funds
By ALEXANDRA STEVENSONAPRIL 25, 2016
Dan Pollack, the court-appointed mediator for a deal between Argentina and its debt holders, had a rule of no pens and paper during crucial negotiations. Credit Sasha Maslov for The New York Times
The Waldorf Astoria hotel in Manhattan has long been a location for secret diplomacy, but few meetings there would have seemed as unlikely as the one that took place one day in early December.
In a hotel conference room, a top Argentine politician drank coffee with two hedge fund executives — a meeting that was nothing short of remarkable after more than a decade of bitter legal skirmishes between Argentina and a group of disgruntled debt holders who at one point seized an Argentine Navy ship. The previous Buenos Aires government reviled the hedge funds as “vultures.”
That meeting on Dec. 7 between Luis Caputo, who days later would be sworn in as Argentina’s finance secretary, and Jonathan Pollock and Jay Newman from Elliott Management, the $27 billion hedge fund founded by Paul E. Singer, was the start of a rapprochement leading to a momentous debt deal that has now allowed Argentina to rejoin the global financial markets that it had been locked out of for 15 years.
Last week, Argentina successfully sold $16.5 billion in bonds to international investors, a record amount for any developing country. And on Friday, Elliott and the other bondholders finally received their reward in the form of billions of dollars in repayment, representing returns worth multiple times their original investments.
“Today, we have put a definitive close to this chapter,” Alfonso Prat-Gay, Argentina’s economic minister, told an Argentine radio station on Friday.
The negotiations that led to the deal were set in motion by the election in November of President Mauricio Macri, who ran on a promise to reignite Argentina’s flailing economy. Striking a deal with the country’s aggrieved bondholders was central to getting that done.
How Argentina and the hedge funds were able to break the long stalemate and reach a deal in a matter of weeks is a story of furious back-channeling and clashes that nearly derailed an agreement. Details of those negotiations have emerged from interviews with eight people who were involved in those meetings, as well as court filings and emails reviewed by The New York Times. Many of those people spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.
Continue reading the main story
RELATED COVERAGE
Opinion Op-Ed Contributors
How Hedge Funds Held Argentina for Ransom APRIL 1, 2016
TIMELINE
Argentina’s Debt Settlement Ends 15-Year Battle FEB. 29, 2016
Court Opens Way for Argentina to End Battle With Hedge Funds APRIL 13, 2016
There were moments when the talks nearly fell apart. Three days before a deal was signed with Elliott, Mr. Caputo, exasperated by a back-and-forth with bondholders over whether they would return government assets they had seized, emailed the court-appointed mediator: “THIS IS A JOKE; NO DEAL.”
That mediator, Daniel Pollack — who had not previously met Mr. Pollock at Elliott — was appointed by the court in June 2014 and played a central role in the final negotiations.
Indeed, hours before his December assignation with the Elliott executives, Mr. Caputo had been just a few blocks down Park Avenue at the offices of the McCarter & English law firm. There, he introduced himself to Mr. Pollack, a prominent trial lawyer best known for arguing two landmark mutual fund cases before the United States Supreme Court in 1979 and 1983.
Mediating in closed-door negotiations, Mr. Pollack cajoled both sides, at times resorting to theatrical moves like getting a court order to summon Mr. Singer, the founder of Elliott, to his office.
Mr. Pollack’s rule of no pens and paper during crucial negotiations frustrated some, with two hedge fund managers complaining privately that the mediator was an obstacle to the settlement process.
Others spoke highly of Mr. Pollack’s ability to get a deal in a matter of weeks.
“You have to give Dan Pollack immense credit for creating an environment where, if they wanted to, they could get together and have a discussion,” said Michael Straus, a principal at Montreux Partners and one of the first in the group originally led by NML Capital, a unit of Elliott, to sign a deal.
Elliott executives also formed their own back channel, forged with an influential Argentine businessman, Marcos Mindlin, whom they met at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, in January. At times, Mr. Mindlin, who is managing director of Pampa Energía, one of Argentina’s biggest energy companies, was used to communicate with Argentina’s negotiators.
Photo
Luis Caputo, now Argentina’s finance secretary, attended a secret meeting with two hedge fund executives in December. Credit Kena Betancur/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
Despite the groundwork that had been laid, formal negotiations got off to a rocky start.
At a news conference in Davos, President Macri had insisted that Argentina’s proposal would be made public.
So on Feb. 1, when Argentine officials presented an informal agreement to a group of six hedge funds — Elliott’s NML Capital unit, Aurelius Capital Management, EM Ltd., Montreux Partners, Bracebridge Capital and Davidson Kempner — several people in the room loudly protested the public approach.
But two of the firms, Montreux Partners and EM, accepted Argentina’s proposal. EM’s deal, which was signed by its lawyer, Kenneth E. Johns, had been written out on a piece of notepad paper.
Argentina struck another deal that same week to pay $1.35 billion to a group of Italian investors who were holding defaulted bonds. The other four main bondholders instead submitted a document outlining their terms and the conditions of any agreement.
Undeterred, on Feb. 5, Argentina publicly announced an offer to pay $6.5 billion to the holdout bondholders.
“After a 15-year legal battle we’re going to agree to a long-form napkin?” Mr. Pollock said in an interview, referring to the deal with Montreux Partners and explaining the initial reluctance. He added that he had a duty to his investors to negotiate something more secure.
The core group of bondholders, led by NML, remained obstinate.
In a recent interview, Mr. Pollack, the mediator, said that the bondholders had wanted to turn negotiations into a complex debt restructuring, while he argued that a business transaction would be simpler. The holdouts were deeply cynical, he recalled.
Argentina’s recent history was still fresh on their minds. The populist administration of Mr. Macri’s predecessor, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, had an economy minister with Marxist leanings who lectured bondholders that they would never get more than 30 cents for every dollar of their bonds.
“If you are at war long enough, it’s very difficult to shift to a mode of peace,” Mr. Pollack said.
Concerned that they would not be able to get a deal with the conditions they wanted, one Elliott executive met with Mr. Mindlin on Feb. 17 in New York and expressed his concerns over dinner. The following day, Mr. Mindlin spoke with Mario Quintana, the secretary of the government’s economic cabinet. Argentina representatives met with bondholders later that day.
On Feb. 19, Judge Thomas P. Griesa of Federal District Court in Manhattan, who presided over the dispute in the courts, dealt a blow to the remaining holdouts by agreeing to lift an injunction that prevented Argentina from making any bond payments or raising new money.
Under his ruling, Judge Griesa had set a deadline of Feb. 29 for any deal to be recognized. While the economic terms of the deal with the holdouts had been agreed upon, some of the smaller details were still in dispute.
After several frantic meetings and heated discussions over conditions, including that the hedge funds continue to have a say in Argentina’s future domestic market fund-raising, NML, Aurelius, Davidson Kempner and Bracebridge signed a deal on Feb. 28. In the agreement, Argentina agreed to pay $4.65 billion to the hedge funds, which included bond principal, interest and “certain legal fees and expenses incurred.”
Two days earlier, Mr. Pollack, the mediator, requested that Judge Griesa sign an order summoning Mr. Pollock and Mr. Singer of Elliott to his offices.
On Friday, Argentina paid all of the holdout creditors who had agreed to deals — a total of $9.3 billion, the economy ministry said. Elliott received $2.4 billion, a 392 percent return on the original value of the bonds, according to the ministry.
Writing to Elliott employees hours later, Mr. Singer thanked them for “persisting through this lengthy, complicated and contentious process.”
Correction: April 25, 2016
An earlier version of this article referred incorrectly to the returns of the hedge funds. They were in the hundreds of percentage points, not hundreds times, their original investments.
Peso importante el de Mindlin en la cocina de los negocios, ¿no les parece?
Re: PESA Petrobras Energia S. A.
Copio un comentario de PETR, que les parece?
fernandofmv2 escribió:
Tengo una duda ya que tengo acciones aca, si se compra pesa seria muy bueno para la empresa pero que pasaría con las acciones como las afectaría? Se mantienen igual suben o bajan al tomas deuda?
Alguien sabe maso como funciona
Por lo que tengo entendido la cosa funciona asi:
La que quiere comprar pesa es Pampa Energia PAMP(controlante de PETR)
Quiere comprar un paquete accionario. no la totalidad de la empresa.
Pesa no deja de cotizar. sigue igual solo que pasa a ser controlada por PAMP en vez de PBR.
Con respecto al cambio de las cotizaciones solo se deberían ver estos movimientos. Si los accionistas de PAMP creen que es un buen negocio y buen precio la accion PAMP sube por creacion de valor... si es un mal negocio debería bajar por destruccion de valor..
La acción de PESA en teoria debería ir a buscar el precio al que se cerraría el traspaso. si creen q va a ser un mejor controlante subir un poco mas... si creen que es peor deberia ir hasta el precio y despues bajar.
fernandofmv2 escribió:
Tengo una duda ya que tengo acciones aca, si se compra pesa seria muy bueno para la empresa pero que pasaría con las acciones como las afectaría? Se mantienen igual suben o bajan al tomas deuda?
Alguien sabe maso como funciona
Por lo que tengo entendido la cosa funciona asi:
La que quiere comprar pesa es Pampa Energia PAMP(controlante de PETR)
Quiere comprar un paquete accionario. no la totalidad de la empresa.
Pesa no deja de cotizar. sigue igual solo que pasa a ser controlada por PAMP en vez de PBR.
Con respecto al cambio de las cotizaciones solo se deberían ver estos movimientos. Si los accionistas de PAMP creen que es un buen negocio y buen precio la accion PAMP sube por creacion de valor... si es un mal negocio debería bajar por destruccion de valor..
La acción de PESA en teoria debería ir a buscar el precio al que se cerraría el traspaso. si creen q va a ser un mejor controlante subir un poco mas... si creen que es peor deberia ir hasta el precio y despues bajar.
¿Quién está conectado?
Usuarios navegando por este Foro: abeja_fenix, Ahrefs [Bot], Amazon [Bot], Bing [Bot], caballo, candado8, Capitan, Carlos603, carlos_2681, chinohayunosolo, CICLON2017, DiegoYSalir, El Calificador, el indio, EL REY, elcipayo16, ElCrotodelNovato, falute, fidelius, Funebrero, gastons, Google [Bot], Gua1807, Guardameta, GUSTAVOLB, hernan1974, iceman, j5orge, jose enrique, jpcyber2006, leoslipknot, magnus, Morlaco, mr_osiris, Richardkrhue, samas, Semrush [Bot], Tipo Basico, TteDan, zippo y 563 invitados