# Exxon notches record 2008 profit of 45.22 billion dlrs



## tigerbob (Jan 30, 2009)

In the current economic climate, I suppose I should be pleased to see companies that are making healthy profits, but this one gives me some sense of irritation.  Can you imagine what the numbers would have been if gas had stayed at $4 a gallon?



> *WASHINGTON (AFP)*  US oil giant Exxon Mobil on Friday notched a record 45.22 billion dollar net profit in 2008 despite a 33 percent income decline in the fourth quarter amid plunging crude prices.
> 
> It was the biggest annual profit declared by any publicly listed company in the world, coming on the back of crude's triple-digit price for most of the year, rocketing to a record peak above 147 dollars a barrel in July.
> 
> ...


----------



## Toro (Jan 30, 2009)

Good for Exxon.

I can guarantee you it won't be anywhere near that level this quarter.


----------



## tigerbob (Jan 30, 2009)

Toro said:


> Good for Exxon.
> 
> I can guarantee you it won't be anywhere near that level this quarter.



How do you figure good for Exxon?

Essentially, what the story means is that while we were all paying a fortune for gas, they were making higher profits than ever.  I thought their profits were supposed to come from efficiency of operation, not via benefiting from gas at $140 a barrel.  Does this mean that as the price of gas increased, they were adding a small % for themselves (i.e. every time a barrel went up $1.00, they were passing that on to the consumer at an extra $1.01 or $1.02?

I know most of the rise was attributable to banks and other investors speculating on commodities futures, but something doesn't ring true here.

Or am I viewing it too simplistically?  I confess I know very little about oil.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 30, 2009)

Time for Obama to start spreading the wealth.


----------



## Meister (Jan 30, 2009)

I just don't understand it.  Exxon is a public company...right?  Exxon shares are in almost all, if not all 401K's...right?  Why do people act like all the profits are taken to the employee's exclusively?  Almost all of Americans that have 401K's benefit from the profits.  Also, alot of the profits go back to R/D, which literally is a hit and miss.  Exxon makes about a 10% profit off a gallon of gas.  That profit is on the low end of most major companies in America.  Just because they are in a sector of business that everyone needs, lets not punish them for it.  We all beneifit from it.  Exxon didn't drive up the price of oil when it was at 147.00 a barrel.  They were still making their 10% profit.  Every goverment investigation concluded that there was no  price gouging.  Every goverment investigation.
   Since when in America should a successful company get punished for making a fair profit?  This is what America is all about. I get tired of hearing and reading that a company with excellent profits, employs thousands of people get bashed at every turn.  Then the liberals what to punish them for success with a windfall tax.  Our Founding Fathers are turning in their graves...I just know they are.
Side note:  I don't work for, nor have I ever worked for a oil company.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jan 30, 2009)

this is such a nonissue.

why aren't you all complaining that basketball players get paid millions for wearing sneakers or that actors get paid millions for playing make believe or that Tiger Woods got paid 40 million in one year for playing fucking pasture pool.

oil companies provide you with a commodity that makes your life better and you begrudge them a profit.


----------



## Chris (Jan 30, 2009)

"Record profits for Exxon"

When Bush and Cheney read this, they thought, "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED."


----------



## Modbert (Jan 30, 2009)

Skull Pilot said:


> this is such a nonissue.
> 
> why aren't you all complaining that basketball players get paid millions for wearing sneakers or that actors get paid millions for playing make believe or that Tiger Woods got paid 40 million in one year for playing fucking pasture pool.
> 
> oil companies provide you with a commodity that makes your life better and you begrudge them a profit.



We're not forced to pay for basketball players and Tiger Woods salary.

Insert another quarter and try again though.


----------



## RodISHI (Jan 30, 2009)

Sure makes me feel like heading down and filling the gas tank, not.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jan 30, 2009)

Robert_Santurri said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > this is such a nonissue.
> ...



you could heat your home with wood, you could ride a motorcycle to work to save fuel. you could convert your car to electric, you could make your own biodiesel.

Ain't no one "forcing " you to buy gas from Exxon.

And if I follow your line of reasoning every time you buy a pair of Nikes you are being forced to pay for some rich basketball players endorsement. So where's your outrage there?


----------



## RodISHI (Jan 30, 2009)

What a load of BS some people spout.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jan 30, 2009)

RodISHI said:


> What a load of BS some people spout.



Yes that's right we're ALL victims of giant corporations that force us to spend more than we make that steal our wages and are responsible for everything evil in this world oh woe is me, woe is me

We are ALL so incapable of taking care of ourselves that we need the benevolent government to dictate what we can and can't earn, how much we can save oh dear how will we ever live without our loving protectors the Politicians.  I can't imagine where we would be without them


----------



## Modbert (Jan 30, 2009)

Skull Pilot said:


> you could heat your home with wood, you could ride a motorcycle to work to save fuel. you could convert your car to electric, you could make your own biodiesel.
> 
> Ain't no one "forcing " you to buy gas from Exxon.
> 
> And if I follow your line of reasoning every time you buy a pair of Nikes you are being forced to pay for some rich basketball players endorsement. So where's your outrage there?



When you're in the city, this is quite difficult; especially with the price of a cord of wood. I remember Care4All stating how it costed her a arm and a leg. I actually have rode a motorcycle a couple times. I wouldn't use a motorcycle daily to ride with the way people are on the road.

We'd have electric cars that get hundreds of miles to the gallon by now if not for those same companies you defend. Or do you forget the first electric car was made in 1911 if not technically before that? Or do you not forget the oil companies have bought out any product that would get you hundreds of miles to the gallon and destroyed it because it would destory their profits?

And for your Nike example, they obviously overcharge since they most likely make their shoes in sweatshops. That's called greed and sure I'm outraged by it.

However, you don't see Nike making record profits in a crisis like this do you?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 30, 2009)

Skull Pilot said:


> Robert_Santurri said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



That just reminded me of something I heard in Freedom to Fascism.  The government should only tax things that I can avoid.  I can choose to walk instead of pay the gas tax or I can choose to not buy a shirt and pay the sales tax.

But I can't just not work to avoid paying the income tax.


----------



## Modbert (Jan 30, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> But I can't just not work to avoid paying the income tax.



Great movie, but you miss the concept that's it nearly impossible for many people in the city to walk to work and back each day while getting home at a responsible hour.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 30, 2009)

Skull Pilot said:


> this is such a nonissue.
> 
> why aren't you all complaining that basketball players get paid millions for wearing sneakers or that actors get paid millions for playing make believe or that Tiger Woods got paid 40 million in one year for playing fucking pasture pool.
> 
> oil companies provide you with a commodity that makes your life better and you begrudge them a profit.



Remember back when you were defending and campaigning for the GOP?  Idiot!  Remember I told you this stuff was going on?  Why aren't you complaining about this still?  Still you haven't woken up?  Geez!!!  

Angry Obama: $18B Wall Street Bonuses 'Outrageous'
President Calls Financial District Big Shots "Shameful"; Says Americans Are Motivated And Fed Up With Greed

Angry President Obama Blasts $18 Billion Wall Street Bonuses - wcbstv.com

If you are one of them, please leave or at least let us know you are a multi millionaire.  

"At a time when most of these institutions were teetering on collapse and they are asking for taxpayers to help sustain them, and when taxpayers find themselves in the difficult position that, if they don't provide help, that the entire system could come down on top of our heads, that is the height of irresponsibility. It is shameful," Obama said.

It was a stern scolding from President Obama after he learned that in the midst of a recession, the ailing financial sector handed out more than $18 billion in bonuses in 2008.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jan 30, 2009)

Robert_Santurri said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > you could heat your home with wood, you could ride a motorcycle to work to save fuel. you could convert your car to electric, you could make your own biodiesel.
> ...



so nike is not as well run as exxon.  Hey here's an idea.  you want your share of Exxon's profit?

BUY STOCK IN EXXON and quit whining.

and you can buy kits to make electric cars or convert your own car you know.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/02/convert-your-car-to-elect_n_104758.html

or buy a diesel and run it on vegetable oil

http://www.greasecar.com/

where there's a will there's a way


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 30, 2009)

Robert_Santurri said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > But I can't just not work to avoid paying the income tax.
> ...



I drive an hour each way.  What is that, 30 miles?  I walk 5 miles an hour.  That's 6 hours each way.  If I work 8 hours, I can still get in 4 hours sleep.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 30, 2009)

Skull Pilot said:


> Robert_Santurri said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



The Associated Press reported on August 4, 2007, that the president of Nike, Mark Parker, raked in $3.6 million [in compensation] in 07. Thats $13,846 per weekday, $69,230 a week. And yet it would still keep him just below the top 70% tax rate if this were the pre-Reagan era. We had a social consensus that somebody earning around $3 million a year was fine, but above that was really more than anybody needs to live in America.


----------



## RodISHI (Jan 30, 2009)

Skull Pilot said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > What a load of BS some people spout.
> ...



Fact is many of us are victims of corporate gangsters asshole. 

Not everyone has a woodstove or the capability of getting firewood, growing a garden nor have they been taught to can their own food. The majority of people living in certain metro areas have no means to to heat their homes without some sort of fuel. 

Those in rural areas must buy fuel to get to work wether they farm or work for someone else. 

Sure let's give it all up to the big boys and say, "Wonderful I got screwed and you got rich."

There is no such thing as equal protection under the law provided by our government when it comes to some national corporation. They are allowed to do whatever in the name of what's best for them because they hold control via corporate sharing.

If you are in that top two percent great, if not remeber you're fair game for slaughter at their will.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jan 30, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > this is such a nonissue.
> ...



I have never campaigned for any politician or party


----------



## tigerbob (Jan 30, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Time for Obama to start spreading the wealth.



If you mean he should hit Exxon with a windfall tax I think that would be obscene, unless there is some evidence of wrongdoing by Exxon during the oil price crisis (which apparently there isn't) in which case it should be a fine not a tax.


----------



## tigerbob (Jan 30, 2009)

Meister said:


> I get tired of hearing and reading that a company with excellent profits, employs thousands of people get bashed at every turn.  Then the liberals what to punish them for success with a windfall tax.



Who's bashing them?


----------



## Modbert (Jan 30, 2009)

tigerbob said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Time for Obama to start spreading the wealth.
> ...



Obama should do what JFK did with U.S Steel.

JFK and Steel, Bush and Oil

That's what a REAL PRESIDENT DOES like what JFK did.


----------



## tigerbob (Jan 30, 2009)

Robert_Santurri said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



That's a long article.  Can you summarize?


----------



## Modbert (Jan 30, 2009)

tigerbob said:


> Robert_Santurri said:
> 
> 
> > tigerbob said:
> ...





> What exactly did this "attack" consist of, then? The actions taken in response to U.S. Steel's price increase, which had been followed within 48 hours by identical price increases by most of the other steel companies, boiled down to these:
> 
> 1. The Defense Dept. announced plans to review steel contracts and switch to lower-cost suppliers - significantly, not all steel producers had immediately joined the price increase. Within a couple of days, Secretary McNamara placed a steel order for 3 submarines with Lukens Steel, one of the holdouts; this contract would normally have been split among suppliers including U.S. Steel. [8]
> 
> ...



Big Steel caved to JFK and JFK said this after:

"This is a free economy. These matters [prices and wages] are reached by the process of competition and collective bargaining. *What we are attempting to do is to try to have them consider the public interest which, after all, is their interest, the problems involving price stability, national security, and all the rest. They are much interrelated."*


----------



## tigerbob (Jan 30, 2009)

Robert_Santurri said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> > Robert_Santurri said:
> ...



Interesting.  I didn't know that story.  But how does it relate to Exxon?

Do you have evidence of collusion among the oil companies?  If so, there are laws to deal with this sort of thing, are there not (laws which were not in place in the 1960s)?


----------



## Modbert (Jan 30, 2009)

tigerbob said:


> Interesting.  I didn't know that story.  But how does it relate to Exxon?
> 
> Do you have evidence of collusion among the oil companies?  If so, there are laws to deal with this sort of thing, are there not (laws which were not in place in the 1960s)?



It's one of the reasons why I consider JFK to be have been a great President.

And it relates to Exxon because Bush could of done the same with Exxon but he didn't. We have evidence that they are easily price gouging us but collusion I'm not sure.

I'd assume there are laws in places, but not sure they are still in place with deregulators like Bush in the White House.

Course, Oil companies and their lobbyists pay so much to politicians that it will be tough to see real action done.

Edit: Evidence of Collusion? Not sure but I'm sure it's out there.


----------



## tigerbob (Jan 30, 2009)

Robert_Santurri said:


> We have evidence that they are easily price gouging us but collusion I'm not sure.



An earlier poster would disagree.  I have no idea.



Meister said:


> Every goverment investigation concluded that there was no  price gouging.  Every goverment investigation.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 30, 2009)

tigerbob said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Time for Obama to start spreading the wealth.
> ...



I have posted plenty of proof there was wrongdoing.  

Just you saying that makes me not take you seriously.  

I'm done proving it to people like you.  You don't matter anymore anyways.  All the proof you need was on election day.  Everyone knows that the oil companies were gouging us.  

Any proof I give you, you will accuse of coming from "liberal" sources.  I have a 20/20 piece or 60 minute piece on this.  Are either of them acceptable to you?  

And that's been the problem the last 8 years.  Anytime the truth came out, you guys accused it of being liberally bias.  

So truth ='s liberal.


----------



## Modbert (Jan 30, 2009)

tigerbob said:


> Robert_Santurri said:
> 
> 
> > We have evidence that they are easily price gouging us but collusion I'm not sure.
> ...



The same government that is in the pocket of the oil companies.. Irony?


----------



## Toro (Jan 30, 2009)

tigerbob said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Good for Exxon.
> ...



Exxon is an extremely well run company.  But when your main product doubles in price from a year ago, you are going to make a boat-load of money.  

Exxon hedged a good portion of its production by selling at high prices into the futures market last year.  That's one reason why their profits are so high.  Because futures prices have fallen, they will be less able to sell forward and their profits will fall.


----------



## tigerbob (Jan 30, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Well, that's all quite revealing.

You've posted plenty of proof have you?  Well, forgive me for not reading every one of your posts, but I didn't actually read your "proof".



> Just you saying that makes me not take you seriously.



Er, duh.  I was referring to someone else's comment earlier in the thread (hence my use of the word "apparently").  I believe it was originally in post #5, and again referenced in post #29.  Not that I give a crap whether you take me seriously or not.



> I'm done proving it to people like you.  You don't matter anymore anyways.  All the proof you need was on election day.  Everyone knows that the oil companies were gouging us.



People like who?  If you mean Republicans, I'm not a Republican.  Is that inconvenient?



> Any proof I give you, you will accuse of coming from "liberal" sources.  I have a 20/20 piece or 60 minute piece on this.  Are either of them acceptable to you?



Yes, either of them are fine.  What are you getting so pissy about?



> And that's been the problem the last 8 years.  Anytime the truth came out, you guys accused it of being liberally bias.



Again, I guess you're talking about Republicans and assuming I am one.  I've already covered that.  You are doing your own arguments no good by jumping on people whose views you don't really know just because they don't immediately buy what you're selling, and therefore they must be Republicans.  It's just partisan bullshit.  Both sides do it, and it's a highly unappealing quality on both sides of the aisle.  It's all that is worst about this board.

Try dealing with individuals instead of thinking that everyone who disagrees with you must be a dyed-in-the-wool Republican.


----------



## xsited1 (Jan 30, 2009)

When are Pelosi, Obama, Reid and Clinton (PORC) going to nationalize the oil companies like their good buddy Hugo Chavez?


----------



## Meister (Jan 31, 2009)

I can't believe that not one of you communist bastards didn't try to refute my earlier post that had nothing but the facts.  Chris, get over the Bush years. I really get disgusted reading these anti capitalism replies.  If this nation is so bad go to Russia for God's sake.  There and other nations the government takes all the profits.  I'm sure you would be happy then...huh?  This is a nation where a company has the right to make an honest profit, and Exxon makes an HONEST PROFIT.  If they had been doing something less than HONEST, don't you think your Pelosi, and your Reid would be all over it?????  Now I know some of you people, and you know who you are, would like to have a nanny nation where your government is so big that they will even wipe your damn snibbling asses for you.  Chris are you taking notes????  But, at this point in our history, we don't have your nation yet.  Really, if you don't like profits, get out of your damn 401K's.  Don't just talk the talk, but walk the walk.  But, I know you won't you fucking hypocritical whining twits.  How about a reply to both of my replies to this thread...or will you do what Chris usually does and just gush his stupidity for all to read????


----------



## Meister (Jan 31, 2009)

That's what I thought....no game.


----------



## tigerbob (Jan 31, 2009)

Meister said:


> That's what I thought....no game.



Don't take it personally.


----------



## Meister (Jan 31, 2009)

I don't T.Bob...but thanks for the post


----------



## RodISHI (Feb 1, 2009)

I am still looking for which Hedge Funds these guys are talking about in the article.





> Excerpts from Truth Out Article, January 11, 2009
> 
> Did Speculation Fuel Oil Price Swings?
> 
> ...


----------



## editec (Feb 1, 2009)

Meister said:


> I just don't understand it. Exxon is a public company...right?


 
right.



> Exxon shares are in almost all, if not all 401K's...right?


source
*Share Statistics *Average Volume (3 month)[SIZE=-1]3[/SIZE]:46,920,900Average Volume (10 day)[SIZE=-1]3[/SIZE]:43,314,000Shares Outstanding[SIZE=-1]5[/SIZE]:5.09BFloat:5.06B% Held by Insiders[SIZE=-1]1[/SIZE]:0.07%% Held by Institutions[SIZE=-1]1[/SIZE]:50.50%Shares Short (as of 12-Jan-09)[SIZE=-1]3[/SIZE]:52.76MShort Ratio (as of 12-Jan-09)[SIZE=-1]3[/SIZE]:1.6Short % of Float (as of 12-Jan-09)[SIZE=-1]3[/SIZE]:1.00%Shares Short (prior month)[SIZE=-1]3[/SIZE]:49.78M

4,000,000 Americans hold about half the share of the stock via 401Ks.

Not surprisingly, the other 50% of the shares are owned by individuals, but the number of those "individual" is not clearly explained.

But essantially 4,000,000 small investors own 50% of Exxon, and the other 50% is owned by rather well heeled players.

Here are the officers of the corporation (aka insiders) who have recently bought or sold shares.

For some strange reason I cannot easily get the full list including what they bought or sold, but I gave you just the first insider trade to give you some sense of scale for the kind of money these masters move around.

I presume you can do the math without my help, right?

Note how many of these purchases are (NON OPEN MARKET) transactions?

The insiders list 


*INSIDER & FORM 144 HOLDERS**Individual/EntityMost Recent Trans.Shares *INSIDER & FORM 144 HOLDERS**Individual/EntityMost Recent Trans.Shares Owned as of Trans. DateALBERS MARK W
Officer Acquisition (Non Open Market)
28-Nov-07 200,475
2007 Nov 28

December 17, 2008 - 8,892 Shares - Buy
2007 Nov 28BOSKIN MICHAEL J
Director Acquisition (Non Open Market)
2-Jan-08 46,800
2008 Jan 02CEJKA A TIMOTHY
Officer Option Exercise
21-May-08 288,289
2008 May 21CRAMER HAROLD R
Officer Option Exercise
19-May-08 600,213
2008 May 19DOLAN MICHAEL JAMES
Officer Acquisition (Non Open Market)
18-Jun-08 245,124
2008 Jun 18DUFFIN NEIL W
Officer Disposition (Non Open Market)
26-Feb-08 157,280
2008 Feb 26FAULKNER LARRY R
Director Acquisition (Non Open Market)
30-Jan-08 8,000
2008 Jan 30FOSTER MORRIS E
Officer Disposition (Non Open Market)
16-Jan-08 393,449
2008 Jan 16GEORGE WILLIAM W
Director Acquisition (Non Open Market)
2-Jan-08 48,500
2008 Jan 02GLASS SHERMAN J JR
Officer Option Exercise
19-May-08 441,737
2008 May 19HOUGHTON JAMES R
Director Acquisition (Non Open Market)
2-Jan-08 50,400
2008 Jan 02HOWELL WILLIAM R
Director Acquisition (Non Open Market)
2-Jan-08 53,200
2008 Jan 02HUBBLE HENRY H
Officer Disposition (Non Open Market)
19-Dec-07 206,541
2007 Dec 19HUMPHREYS DONALD D
Officer Option Exercise
16-May-08 393,219
2008 May 16KELLY ALAN J
Officer Sale
19-May-08 99,533
2008 May 19KING REATHA C
Director Option Exercise
15-Jan-08 46,128
2008 Jan 15KOHLENBERGER GERALD L
Officer Disposition (Non Open Market)
27-Nov-07 206,364
2007 Nov 27KRUGER RICHARD MICHAEL
Officer Ownership Statement
1-Apr-08 157,791
2008 Apr 01LASALA STEPHEN R
Officer Option Exercise
19-May-08 180,351
2008 May 19LIPPINCOTT PHILIP
Director Acquisition (Non Open Market)
2-Jan-08 56,400
2008 Jan 02MATTHEWS CHARLES W
Officer Option Exercise
21-May-08 412,668
2008 May 21MCGILL STUART R
Officer Disposition (Non Open Market)
5-Jun-07 901,244
2007 Jun 05MCKINNELL HENRY A
Director Acquisition (Non Open Market)
3-Jan-07 36,400
2007 Jan 03MULVA PATRICK T
Officer Disposition (Non Open Market)
4-Jun-08 291,753
2008 Jun 04NELSON MARILYN C
Director Option Exercise
15-Jan-08 50,800
2008 Jan 15PALMISANO SAMUEL J
Director Option Exercise
15-Jan-08 14,500
2008 Jan 15PRYOR STEPHEN D
Officer Option Exercise
16-May-08 580,845
2008 May 16REINEMUND STEVEN
Director Acquisition (Non Open Market)
2-Jan-08 11,675
2008 Jan 02SHIPLEY WALTER V
Director Acquisition (Non Open Market)
2-Jan-08 47,040
2008 Jan 02SIMON J STEPHEN
Officer Option Exercise
6-May-08 818,592
2008 May 06SULLIVAN PAUL E
Officer Option Exercise
7-Mar-07 394,236
2007 Mar 07SWIGER ANDREW P
Officer Option Exercise
21-May-08 212,837
2008 May 21TILLERSON REX W
Officer Sale
7-Dec-07 916,294
2007 Dec 07WHITACRE EDWARD E JR
Director Acquisition (Non Open Market)
28-May-08 8,000
2008 May 28







> Why do people act like all the profits are taken to the employee's exclusively?


 
Nobody acts like that.




> Almost all of Americans that have 401K's benefit from the profits.


 
_Poppycock._  About 10% of the public has a 401k. 



> Thirty million Americans now invest in a 401(k)


 source




> Also, alot of the profits go back to R/D, which literally is a hit and miss. Exxon makes about a 10% profit off a gallon of gas. That profit is on the low end of most major companies in America. Just because they are in a sector of business that everyone needs, lets not punish them for it. We all beneifit from it. Exxon didn't drive up the price of oil when it was at 147.00 a barrel. They were still making their 10% profit. Every goverment investigation concluded that there was no price gouging. Every goverment investigation.


 
No problem with the above



> Since when in America should a successful company get punished for making a fair profit?


 
Never




> This is what America is all about. I get tired of hearing and reading that a company with excellent profits, employs thousands of people get bashed at every turn. Then the liberals what to punish them for success with a windfall tax.


 
I don't.  I'm a liberal.  Perhaps its the conservatives who want to do that?



> Our Founding Fathers are turning in their graves...I just know they are.


 
They dead.  




> Side note: I don't work for, nor have I ever worked for a oil company.


 
Me neither...no wait... I pumped gas for a gas station when I was  kid, so perhaps I was working for one for a while.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Feb 1, 2009)

don't just quote 401K stats. That's a little disingenuous.

what about people who own IRAs with mutual funds in them that own Exxon stock, what about SIMPLE, SEP and 403B plans, and other nonretirement accounts that own Exxon.

Take all those into account and you'll probably see that a lot more than 10% of the public has a stake in the profits of Exxon.


----------



## Gun Clingin' (Feb 1, 2009)

RodISHI said:


> Sure makes me feel like heading down and filling the gas tank, not.



Buy a bike then. I find it hard to believe gas companies could ever NOT make great profits. Everyone uses gasoline. We need it.


----------



## editec (Feb 1, 2009)

Skull Pilot said:


> don't just quote 401K stats. That's a little disingenuous.


 
Yeah I know how it is for some of us faith based thinkers...*the facts are biased.*



> what about people who own IRAs with mutual funds in them that own Exxon stock, what about SIMPLE, SEP and 403B plans, and other nonretirement accounts that own Exxon.


 
I don't know. I was responding to what was written. For example the myth that most people have 401ks, or that the majority of stock is owned by the little people. 

Far as I can tell that's probably a rather huge overstatement

Why don't you do some research and tell us about those people?




> Take all those into account and you'll probably see that a lot more than 10% of the public has a stake in the profits of Exxon.


 
We might.

Why don't you go find out and get back to us?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Feb 1, 2009)

editec said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > don't just quote 401K stats. That's a little disingenuous.
> ...



I'll put it on my list Ed.


----------



## garyd (Feb 28, 2009)

What a load of horse crap guess what geniuses Exxon which buys far more oil than it produces these days benefited hugely from the reduce price for crude and falling demand meant that they were able to meet their customers needs more efficiently from the same number of refineries. On top of which Exxons chief money maker isn't gasoline by a long shot. It's the ancillary stuff people buy just because they are in the stop and rob that exxon owns.


----------



## tigerbob (Mar 1, 2009)

garyd said:


> What a load of horse crap guess what geniuses



I love the way people say something like *"What a load of horse crap guess what geniuses"* and then go on to spout something that doesn't seem to stack up, like...



garyd said:


> Exxon...benefited hugely from the reduce price for crude and falling demand meant that they were able to meet their customers needs more efficiently from the same number of refineries.



Is that so?  If they *"benefited hugely from the reduce price for crude and falling demand"*, then how do you explain....



> US oil giant Exxon Mobil on Friday notched a record 45.22 billion dollar net profit in 2008 *despite a 33 percent income decline in the fourth quarter amid plunging crude prices*.



So, their profits went down 33% in Q4 2008 when prices were falling.  Can you explain your "benefiting hugely" comment because I'm obviously missing something.  Then again, I am known for my "horse crap".


----------



## Skull Pilot (Mar 1, 2009)

The federal government collected over 50 billion in gas taxes but you don't seem to hopped up about that.


----------



## tigerbob (Mar 1, 2009)

Skull Pilot said:


> The federal government collected over 50 billion in gas taxes but you don't seem to hopped up about that.



Just because I haven't mentioned it you mean?  

Well, that's probably because the OP was about Exxon profitability, not about taxation.  The reason I posted it was because of the article I had read.  If I'd read an article about taxation I might have posted about that.

Do you think I should be "hopped up" (I presume that means annoyed) about the government raking in $50bn in gas tax?  I might be, but I'm not familiar with that figure or what it is based on.  It this just sales at the pump?  Corporate taxation?  Import duties?  "Gas tax" is a fairly broad term.

You clearly know this issue better than I, and you appear to have a point you want to make, so feel free to state your case and I'll happily say whether or not I agree.


----------



## johnrocks (Mar 1, 2009)

Turning an unregulated profit is great, there will be a time, just like in the past where oil companies lost money.  My problem is too much government/corporate partnerships where the regulations,rules and policies have stifled the small operators and allowed the corporations to grow bigger and stronger.  Get government out of the energy,mortgage,housing and the rest of the various economic/business sectors and we would all be much better off.


----------



## Meister (Mar 1, 2009)

tigerbob said:


> garyd said:
> 
> 
> > What a load of horse crap guess what geniuses
> ...



Tiger, what do you feel is a fair profit for Exxon?  Because it does have just a 10% profit margin.  That's not really that high.  Should we punish them because they are in a business sector where people need oil & gas?  Another thing to remember is that they have no control over the price of oil, that's all done by OPEC.  One last thing about Exxon is that they are ranked something like 17th largest oil company in the world.


----------



## garyd (Mar 1, 2009)

what part of THEY BUY MORE CRUDE THAN THEY SELL  did you not get the first time around.  They didn't lose money because of crude prices they lost money because sales of everything declined because the economy was in the tank an people drawing unemployment don't buy as much gas, and spend as much money on drinks and other thinks at the convenience stores associated with the gas pumps now. If crude prices hadn't fallen they would have lost even more money.

YOU GET IT NOW GENIUS, or do I need to put the whole thing in all caps.


----------



## tigerbob (Mar 1, 2009)

Meister said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> > garyd said:
> ...



I have no idea what a fair profit is for Exxon.  So long as they are operating within the law then they are entitled to make what profits they can, irrespective of the business sector in which they operate.  I was (in the OP) merely observing that it seemed curious that while the prices they pay for crude were going up, so apparently was their profitability.  Yet when the prices tumbled there was a similar drop in their profits.  

My point was not a criticizm of them making big profits - I have no problem with that. It was expressing a degree of concern about the apparent link between increased crude prices they were (in theory) paying and increased profit they were demonstrably making.  The question succinctly would be "Why does an increase in cost for Exxon appear to lead also to an increase in profit for them".  As I indicated in the OP, this may be too simplistic a may of looking at it, and I was asking for anyone to clarify if it is not the case.

BTW, I'm not sure I would agree that OPEC controls the world price of oil.  In 2008, the price spike seems to have been driven by futures speculation, largely by non oil companies.  At least that's my inexpert view.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Mar 1, 2009)

tigerbob said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > The federal government collected over 50 billion in gas taxes but you don't seem to hopped up about that.
> ...



It seems many people here are all upset that Exxon made $45 billion on the backs of the people.

But consider this, then estimated gasoline consumption in the USA is 390 million gallons/day.  The federal gas tax is $0.184 per gallon. So that's $56,856,000 a day or $20,752,440,000

176,232,000 gallons of diesel used per day taxed at $0.275 per gallon brings in $48,463,800 per day or $17,689,287,000 per year

Now for brevity, I won't calculate all the tax revenue from jet fuel, aviation gas, home heating oil etc etc etc, but you can see the government made more than Exxon via taxes than Exxon made producing a product.

Surely if it is "wrong" for Exxon to profit such a large sum from providing a commodity that makes our lives better, isn't more "wrong" for the government to take an even larger sum from us in taxes?


----------



## manu1959 (Mar 1, 2009)

Robert_Santurri said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > this is such a nonissue.
> ...



you sure as hell are paying.......the revenue comes from advertising ......you think 100 dolla nikes cost a 100 dollars to make......look around at all the advertising.....they pay to have it there and pass that cost on to you.....


----------



## tigerbob (Mar 1, 2009)

Skull Pilot said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Maybe I haven't made my point clear.  I have *NO PROBLEM WITH EXXON MAKING BIG PROFITS*.  I _may_ have a problem with them making higher profits than usual under the circumstances I described in the OP, if such were the case.

The implication of much that I'm now reading in this thread is that if I should dare to question Exxon's profits in one particular area, then I must be daming the entire concept of profitability for oil companies, and therefore I must be a pinko commie liberal.

This isn't a response to anyone in particular, merely some venting because people either haven't read the full OP, or have jumped to a conclusion after only reading a part of it and dismissing the rest.  Or possibly it's my poor command of English.


----------



## tigerbob (Mar 1, 2009)

garyd said:


> what part of THEY BUY MORE CRUDE THAN THEY SELL  did you not get the first time around.  They didn't lose money because of crude prices they lost money because sales of everything declined because the economy was in the tank an people drawing unemployment don't buy as much gas, and spend as much money on drinks and other thinks at the convenience stores associated with the gas pumps now. If crude prices hadn't fallen they would have lost even more money.
> 
> YOU GET IT NOW GENIUS, or do I need to put the whole thing in all caps.



Hmmm, not sure.  Can you try it all in caps?


----------



## garyd (Mar 2, 2009)

Give me a reason to bother...

People act like the only thing Exxon sells is petroleum products. They are making about 8 cents a share. That's low average for most  US companies prior to the collapse. Hell most of the people the Dems want to give a tax credit for buying film to make more than 8 cents a share.


----------

