View Full Version : In case you missed it...
Exxon Mobil broke Wal-Mart's four-year run at the top of the Fortune 500 list (http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/31/news/companies/exxon_f500_fortune/index.htm).
With $339.9 billion in revenue and profits of $36.1 billion, Exxon earned more than any U.S. company in history last year -- more than the profits of the next four companies on the FORTUNE 500 combined. Exxon Mobil had over $12 billion more profit than the second closest profiteer (Citigroup).
SOONER44EVER
4/4/2006, 12:19 AM
Its supply and demand. :rolleyes:
chriscappel
4/4/2006, 12:29 AM
time to invest in eXXon
Jimminy Crimson
4/4/2006, 12:44 AM
I'm just happy Wal Mart lost at something! :D
Vaevictis
4/4/2006, 12:48 AM
And yet, for some crazy ol' reason, building new refineries is too unprofitable, so we have to roll back the EPA requirements on them.
OUAndy1807
4/4/2006, 05:04 AM
And yet, for some crazy ol' reason, building new refineries is too unprofitable, so we have to roll back the EPA requirements on them.
yes, because they seem to be opposed to making money.
KC//CRIMSON
4/4/2006, 08:58 AM
they still employ the most people out of any company in the US.
boomersooner28
4/4/2006, 09:10 AM
Oh, I wish I could stop buying gas....bastages.
1stTimeCaller
4/4/2006, 09:21 AM
I'm of the school of thought that you can't take a % to the store and buy something but it looks like a 10.62% profit is very reasonable.
All of the upper management folks I've worked for were interested in making 15% or more overall for the company. Hell, I know a guy that over the past 4 years has made between 26 and 38% with his stock and bond portfolio. Should he give back his 'excess' profits?
Tear Down This Wall
4/4/2006, 11:49 AM
I like this news. My grandfather is a retired chemist for Exxon. He began buying stock as an employee in the 1960s. Smart man. Humble and quiet...and very smart.
Hamhock
4/4/2006, 11:59 AM
I like this news. My grandfather is a retired chemist for Exxon. He began buying stock as an employee in the 1960s. Smart man. Humble and quiet...and very smart.
don't forget stupid rich.
mdklatt
4/4/2006, 12:04 PM
All of the upper management folks I've worked for were interested in making 15% or more overall for the company. Hell, I know a guy that over the past 4 years has made between 26 and 38% with his stock and bond portfolio. Should he give back his 'excess' profits?
When I try to make as much as money as possible I'm only looking for my best interests; when anybody else does they're just being greedy. Duh!
mdklatt
4/4/2006, 12:08 PM
Its supply and demand. :rolleyes:
Since oil prices keep going up and people keep buying Hummers, the oil companies have figured out that America doesn't really care what it pays for gasoline. Yet.
Hamhock
4/4/2006, 12:09 PM
hummer pun post in 3....2.....1....
OklahomaTuba
4/4/2006, 12:36 PM
Since oil prices keep going up and people keep buying Hummers, the oil companies have figured out that America doesn't really care what it pays for gasoline. Yet.
Yup, thats exactly how it works.
:rolleyes:
crawfish
4/4/2006, 12:40 PM
Almost makes it worth it to be paying $2.70 a gallon...
:rolleyes:
OklahomaTuba
4/4/2006, 12:45 PM
And yet, for some crazy ol' reason, building new refineries is too unprofitable, so we have to roll back the EPA requirements on them.
Its not just the EPA requirements, but the premiting. That can take a decade now thanks to our more liberal friends in state and local governments.
So, why tie up the capital here when they can invest that money overseas?
Its pretty simple really.
OklahomaTuba
4/4/2006, 12:47 PM
Almost makes it worth it to be paying $2.70 a gallon...
:rolleyes:
You want cheaper gas? Build more refining capacity.
JohnnyMack
4/4/2006, 12:48 PM
Its not just the EPA requirements, but the premiting. That can take a decade now thanks to our more liberal friends in state and local governments.
So, why tie up the capital here when they can invest that money overseas?
Its pretty simple really.
Isn't the current administration about to roll back the amount of pollutants a plant can give off in a year?
mdklatt
4/4/2006, 12:49 PM
Yup, thats exactly how it works.
:rolleyes:
Well then why don't you explain to us how it works. Are profit margins increasing or staying the same?
OklahomaTuba
4/4/2006, 12:54 PM
Isn't the current administration about to roll back the amount of pollutants a plant can give off in a year?
They did for Katrina because of the shortage, I believe. I think that only lasted a little while.
As for the TRI's, they might have shortened the list to conform with new air pollution control technology, in hopes of spurring investment in refineries, which happened even when Clinton was in office. Of course the biased Bush hating media will spin that.
OklahomaTuba
4/4/2006, 12:57 PM
Well then why don't you explain to us how it works. Are profit margins increasing or staying the same?
I think the margins are up a little but flat overall. Record profits don't always mean record margins considering the amount of capital it takes oil companies for E&P, refining, distribution, etc. And there is a lot of re-investment going on now to find more sources of crude, etc.
What we are talking about is the price of gasoline. This is marketed on the spot market like any other commodity is.
When you see a gallon go up 10% overnite, its probably the people who buy the gas from the spot market and such that jack the price up in order to buy future gas. in reality, the big oil companies have little to do with what you see on the signs at quiktrip.
Tear Down This Wall
4/4/2006, 12:58 PM
don't forget stupid rich.
Something else about my Paw Paw, he's never owned a house. The dude's lived in rent houses his entire life. He just never cared about owning one.
There's no telling how much money he has with 30+ years of Exxon stock. But, you'd never know it. He's always driven non-descript sedans, lived in average rental houses which were never larger than 2,000 square feet.
The guy registered over 50 patents in his days as a chemist, but turned them all over to Exxon because he felt loyalty to them for giving him a job. Other guys with his smarts would have struck out on their own.
Truly, there have been few people with his talent and means that have cared as little about material possessions. And, the guy is happy and healthy at 82 years of age. I love my Paw Paw. He's a great inspiriation to me. :)
TheHumanAlphabet
4/4/2006, 01:05 PM
And yet, for some crazy ol' reason, building new refineries is too unprofitable, so we have to roll back the EPA requirements on them.
Not unprofitable, not possible with NIMBY, the legal system, the lawsuits and the Government red tape...But the first three are the biggest block to a new facility.
JohnnyMack
4/4/2006, 01:05 PM
They did for Katrina because of the shortage, I believe. I think that only lasted a little while.
As for the TRI's, they might have shortened the list to conform with new air pollution control technology, in hopes of spurring investment in refineries, which happened even when Clinton was in office. Of course the biased Bush hating media will spin that.
No I was talking about this one.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5321132
TheHumanAlphabet
4/4/2006, 01:07 PM
I like this news. My grandfather is a retired chemist for Exxon. He began buying stock as an employee in the 1960s. Smart man. Humble and quiet...and very smart.
And 'prolly a multi-millionaire today...
mdklatt
4/4/2006, 01:09 PM
I think the margins are up a little but flat overall. Record profits don't always mean record margins
Oh, okay. If profit margin as a percentage is staying the same, then record profits just mean the oil companies are selling a record amount of oil--which is certainly not the fault of the oil companies.
Even if they are increasing their profit margins, should we blame them for that? My original comment about the Hummer was an indictment of us as consumers, not the oil companies. I bet a lot of people spend more money at the bar than the gas station every week; gas prices really aren't a significant economic factor for most people. Oil prices are going to have to hit drastic heights before we significantly alter our behavior.
OklahomaTuba
4/4/2006, 01:21 PM
No I was talking about this one.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5321132
Only thing that they mention changing is the reporting. I say either record them all, or back off.
Maybe I missed the rollback part, I just skimmed it.
And second, the only way a refinery can just start polluting more is if they remove the equipment that they have already installed and put in older equipment that wouldn't get permited in the first place.
OklahomaTuba
4/4/2006, 01:24 PM
Oh, okay. If profit margin as a percentage is staying the same, then record profits just mean the oil companies are selling a record amount of oil--which is certainly not the fault of the oil companies.
Even if they are increasing their profit margins, should we blame them for that? My original comment about the Hummer was an indictment of us as consumers, not the oil companies. I bet a lot of people spend more money at the bar than the gas station every week; gas prices really aren't a significant economic factor for most people. Oil prices are going to have to hit drastic heights before we significantly alter our behavior.
It will have to be over $100 per barrel to see changes in behavior.
To think the economy is doing as well as it is with such high energy is really astounding I think.
I would have never thought we could have $60 barrel crude and near full employment during a period of war.
Oh, okay. If profit margin as a percentage is staying the same, then record profits just mean the oil companies are selling a record amount of oil--which is certainly not the fault of the oil companies.
Even if they are increasing their profit margins, should we blame them for that? My original comment about the Hummer was an indictment of us as consumers, not the oil companies. I bet a lot of people spend more money at the bar than the gas station every week; gas prices really aren't a significant economic factor for most people. Oil prices are going to have to hit drastic heights before we significantly alter our behavior.
the number of units doesn't have to change either, right? the margin is the %, isn't it? so if they make 20%(an arbitrary number i picked), and the price doubles, they make double the profit on the same number of units
mdklatt
4/4/2006, 01:37 PM
the number of units doesn't have to change either, right? the margin is the %, isn't it? so if they make 20%, and the price doubles, they make double the profit on the same number of units
Right, but nobody looks at the percentages. They just see "RECORD OIL PROFITS" and assume the oil companies are price gouging; of course, to most people any attempt for oil companies to make a profit is price gouging.
If a company's revenues double, it's profit in dollars will double as well. And if the margins are low enough they couldn't make less money even if they wanted to. Say it costs $1/gallon to produce gasoline, and you sell it for a 1 cent profit. If you sell 1 million gallons you'll make $10,000. If you sell twice as much you'll make $20,000. Are you price gouging? No--you're still making the same amount on ever gallon. What if you feel bad about making that much money? Can you give some of back by lower prices? No--if you lower your price even 1 cent you've gone from making $20,000 to $0 because your margin was already low.
i'm just defining terms, not making accusations
those come now ;)
my problem are the rules they have about pricing, if i understand correctly, they can raise the price at will, but they can't lower them to have price wars.
is this correct? this seems a good way to **** over the consumer to me
Stoop Dawg
4/4/2006, 02:23 PM
What if you feel bad about making that much money? Can you give some of back by lower prices? No--if you lower your price even 1 cent you've gone from making $20,000 to $0 because your margin was already low.
Errr, why couldn't you lower your price by half a cent? Or a tenth of a cent?
yeah, and i still don't understand that .009 thing
caphorns
4/4/2006, 02:36 PM
my problem are the rules they have about pricing, if i understand correctly, they can raise the price at will, but they can't lower them to have price wars.
No it's not correct. What big oil can't do is agree to lower prices or raise prices collusively because of anti-trust laws. That is a GOOD thing.
The comment before about gas stations buying at spot is dead on. The price at the pump reflects higher prices on the spot market due to shortages caused by the Saudi's and OPEC keeping their hand on the supply of crude oil feedstocks and the MTBE litigation (forcing refineries and the like to retrofit to using ethanol in lieu of MTBE as an additive). The Saudi's claim they are running low on reserves so they keep the price of crude oil high. As big as Exxon is, they are nothing in comparison to the Saudi's in terms of production of crude oil. So while the refineries are running at similar margins, the upstream operations of Exxon/Chevron/Shell/ConocoPhillips are doing EXTREMELY well. But are just still behind what the Saudi's are pulling down. Would you guys rather this money simply go to the Saudi's while big American oil companies get nailed with restrictions that disincent our companies from seeking out new, more expensive sources of supply? I don't. I think we'll put it to more productive use than sponsoring of terrorism and the like.
What I like about rising prices is that it forces Americans to rethink our energy strategy. We use up the most oil and petroleum products in the world BY FAR. Clearly we need to move to alternative energy sources and take conservation seriously. But the only way to increase our use of alternative energy is to have $$$ available to pump into new technologies (such as the extraction of crude from Canadian sands). The good news is that Big Oil both pays big US taxes and is investing BIG in future capacity and in things that may help decrease our consumption (conservation campaigns and the like) and reduce reliance on foreign-sourced energy.
So people should study up such an issue before drawing a conclusion. Frankly, has Wal-Mart contributed more to the american society by running off mom-and-pop stores and replacing consumer goods with crap made in foreign countries using child labor? I'll stick with the oil companies :texan:
Stoop Dawg
4/4/2006, 02:40 PM
Maybe Exxon can build an indoor ski slope in south Texas?
mdklatt
4/4/2006, 02:58 PM
Errr, why couldn't you lower your price by half a cent? Or a tenth of a cent?
That was just an example to point out that there's a fine line between no profits and record profits, and it's all the fault of aritmetic, not price gouging.
But why should oil companies have to reduce their profit margins at all? We keep sucking down oil faster than they can pump it out of the ground--whose fault is that?
1stTimeCaller
4/4/2006, 03:02 PM
We keep sucking down oil faster than they can pump it out of the ground...
I knew a girl like that back in college. Boy howdy, do I miss her.
Stoop Dawg
4/4/2006, 06:03 PM
That was just an example to point out that there's a fine line between no profits and record profits, and it's all the fault of aritmetic, not price gouging.
I gotcha. I just wanted to point out that 1 cent can be a huge number depending on what you're selling. Most of what we bill goes out to 6 decimals (not oil related).
But why should oil companies have to reduce their profit margins at all? We keep sucking down oil faster than they can pump it out of the ground--whose fault is that?
I don't have any idea how commodities work. I will say that the barriers to entry into the refining business appear to be very high, so I'm not sure that a pure "free market" mentality is appropriate. But I'll not venture an opinion since I haven't a clue how the whole thing works. (I know, there's a first time for everything)
Exxon - $10.36 billion last quarter
Shell - $6 billion
Wishing evil thoughts on them...
TheHumanAlphabet
7/27/2006, 11:41 AM
Wishing evil thoughts on them...
Why?
The employees are working hard to make a buck, the company is working hard for shareholder value, replacement of reserves, reinvestment of new project and more difficult and high risk projects to replace what has been used and to supply the commodity market with a product.
WIthout XOM, Shell, Chevron and the others, we would be using horses until something else would be developed or discovered, then you would bitch about the horse trader and then the new purveyor of the new technology...
;)
EDIT:
Point being a commodity should never be so ubiquitous that there is no alternative or it lulls people into a false sense of security. That has happened with gasoline. There is currently little or no alternative, the distribution system is designed for a liquid hydrocarbon. So anything that could replace it has to be a liquid and has to use the same distribution scheme. That places limits immediately on free thinking and new types of fuel. It is best to have multiple sources so each alternative keeps competitive pressures on the other or it is relegated to the side.
I know, Doc is such an ***!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.1 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.