![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lagilmanShares of United Airlines lost nearly all their value Monday morning when a false rumor swept financial markets that the struggling carrier had filed for bankruptcy protection.
United’s stock fell 76 percent to $3 before trading was halted at 11:08 a.m. Trading resumed at 12:30 p.m. and shares closed down $1.49, or 12.1 percent, to $10.92, on a volume of 54.6 million shares.
A United spokeswoman, Jean Medina, denied the bankruptcy rumor. The circumstances surrounding the rumor were still being sorted out Monday afternoon. In a statement, United said the rumor occurred when the Web site of The Sun-Sentinel, a Florida newspaper, posted a six-year-old article from The Chicago Tribune archives about United’s previous bankruptcy filing. The airline operated under bankruptcy protection from 2002 through 2006.
Anyone else get a chill at reading that? I mean, anyone who isn't a UA shareholder?
Nice to know some of the safeguards installed post-Great Crash are still working...
Meanwhile:
"LONDON (AP) — Three men were convicted Monday of conspiracy to murder in a terrorist bombing campaign, but the jury could not reach a verdict on allegations they plotted to use liquid explosives to down trans-Atlantic airliners.
The jury failed to reach any verdict at all for four defendants, and one man was acquitted in a case that caused travel chaos in 2006 at the height of the summer vacation season. Prosecutors said they were considering a retrial."
Since these were the bastids that made the "3oz liquid carry-on" restriction, thereby reducing my ability to bring home wine from various locations, I was hoping they'd get the book slammed down on them. *grumble*
EtA:
Holeeee fkcu.
"Speaking before voters in Colorado Springs, the Republican vice presidential nominee claimed that lending giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had 'gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers.'
Okay, I'll be the first to admit that Fannie and Freddie make my head hurt, not being a Financial Wonk, but, um, what part of "privately held" did she not understand? Lady, I don't expect you to be a Financial Wonk either. But you are clearly in need of some remedial financial vocabulary lessons.... (eta to the eta: yes, I know it's going to cost the taxpayers [us] to bail them out, and the squealing you hear are the shareholders getting sheared. But neither of those things = "too expensive to the taxpayers" as a reason for the companies to fail. The companies failed because too many of their holdings [the mortgages they bought from banks] were suddenly worthless or close to it [and first person to ask me to define 'tranches' is going to see a grown meerkat cry.])
United’s stock fell 76 percent to $3 before trading was halted at 11:08 a.m. Trading resumed at 12:30 p.m. and shares closed down $1.49, or 12.1 percent, to $10.92, on a volume of 54.6 million shares.
A United spokeswoman, Jean Medina, denied the bankruptcy rumor. The circumstances surrounding the rumor were still being sorted out Monday afternoon. In a statement, United said the rumor occurred when the Web site of The Sun-Sentinel, a Florida newspaper, posted a six-year-old article from The Chicago Tribune archives about United’s previous bankruptcy filing. The airline operated under bankruptcy protection from 2002 through 2006.
Anyone else get a chill at reading that? I mean, anyone who isn't a UA shareholder?
Nice to know some of the safeguards installed post-Great Crash are still working...
Meanwhile:
"LONDON (AP) — Three men were convicted Monday of conspiracy to murder in a terrorist bombing campaign, but the jury could not reach a verdict on allegations they plotted to use liquid explosives to down trans-Atlantic airliners.
The jury failed to reach any verdict at all for four defendants, and one man was acquitted in a case that caused travel chaos in 2006 at the height of the summer vacation season. Prosecutors said they were considering a retrial."
Since these were the bastids that made the "3oz liquid carry-on" restriction, thereby reducing my ability to bring home wine from various locations, I was hoping they'd get the book slammed down on them. *grumble*
EtA:
Holeeee fkcu.
"Speaking before voters in Colorado Springs, the Republican vice presidential nominee claimed that lending giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had 'gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers.'
Okay, I'll be the first to admit that Fannie and Freddie make my head hurt, not being a Financial Wonk, but, um, what part of "privately held" did she not understand? Lady, I don't expect you to be a Financial Wonk either. But you are clearly in need of some remedial financial vocabulary lessons.... (eta to the eta: yes, I know it's going to cost the taxpayers [us] to bail them out, and the squealing you hear are the shareholders getting sheared. But neither of those things = "too expensive to the taxpayers" as a reason for the companies to fail. The companies failed because too many of their holdings [the mortgages they bought from banks] were suddenly worthless or close to it [and first person to ask me to define 'tranches' is going to see a grown meerkat cry.])
