Exxon notches record 2008 profit of 45.22 billion dlrs

[Skull Pilot]

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.

I have never campaigned for any politician or party

 

[tigerbob]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

That's a long article. Can you summarize?

 

[Modbert]

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.

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.

That's a long article. Can you summarize?

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]

2. The Justice Dept. initiated an investigation as to whether the near-simultaneous price increases were the result of monopoly and thus subject to anti-trust laws. Given the almost lockstep manner in which steel companies adjusted prices in 1962 and earlier, a naive observer could be forgiven for assuming that there was at least de facto price-fixing. Attorney General Robert Kennedy in a statement explicitly included the question of whether U.S. Steel "so dominates the industry that it controls prices and should be broken up." [9]

3. The President went on the air to tell the press and the public why he thought the steel companies' actions were not in the public interest.

Additionally, Kennedy administration officials went on a phone-calling spree, in particularly contacting board members of those steel companies who had not yet raised prices. While they didn't specifically demand or ask for any pricing policies, they made the administration's preferences quite clear

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]

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.

That's a long article. Can you summarize?

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]

2. The Justice Dept. initiated an investigation as to whether the near-simultaneous price increases were the result of monopoly and thus subject to anti-trust laws. Given the almost lockstep manner in which steel companies adjusted prices in 1962 and earlier, a naive observer could be forgiven for assuming that there was at least de facto price-fixing. Attorney General Robert Kennedy in a statement explicitly included the question of whether U.S. Steel "so dominates the industry that it controls prices and should be broken up." [9]

3. The President went on the air to tell the press and the public why he thought the steel companies' actions were not in the public interest.

Additionally, Kennedy administration officials went on a phone-calling spree, in particularly contacting board members of those steel companies who had not yet raised prices. While they didn't specifically demand or ask for any pricing policies, they made the administration's preferences quite clear

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."

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[sealybobo]

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.

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]

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.

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

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

 

[Toro]

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.

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]

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.

I have posted plenty of proof there was wrongdoing.

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]

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

 

[Meister]

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]

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

 

[tigerbob]

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

Don't take it personally.

 

[Meister]

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

 

[RodISHI]

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?

"Approximately 60 to 70 percent of the oil contracts in the futures markets are now held by speculative entities. Not by companies that need oil, not by the airlines, not by the oil companies. But by investors that are looking to make money from their speculative positions," Gilligan explained.

Gilligan said these investors don't actually take delivery of the oil. "All they do is buy the paper, and hope that they can sell it for more than they paid for it. Before they have to take delivery."

"They're trying to make money on the market for oil?" Kroft asked.

"Absolutely," Gilligan replied. "On the volatility that exists in the market. They make it going up and down."

About the same time, hedge fund manager Michael Masters reached the same conclusion. Masters' expertise is in tracking the flow of investments into and out of financial markets and he noticed huge amounts of money leaving stocks for commodities and oil futures, most of it going into index funds, betting the price of oil was going to go up.
Asked who was buying this "paper oil," Masters told Kroft, "The California pension fund. Harvard Endowment. Lots of large institutional investors. And, by the way, other investors, hedge funds, Wall Street trading desks were following right behind them, putting money - sovereign wealth funds were putting money in the futures markets as well. So you had all these investors putting money in the futures markets. And that was driving the price up."

In a five year period, Masters said the amount of money institutional investors, hedge funds, and the big Wall Street banks had placed in the commodities markets went from $13 billion to $300 billion. Last year, 27 barrels of crude were being traded every day on the New York Mercantile Exchange for every one barrel of oil that was actually being consumed in the United States.

"We talked to the largest physical trader of crude oil. And they told us that compared to the size of the investment inflows - and remember, this is the largest physical crude oil trader in the United States - they said that we are basically a flea on an elephant, that that's how big these flows were," Masters remembered.

Yet when Congress began holding hearings last summer and asked Wall Street banker Lawrence Eagles of J.P. Morgan what role excessive speculation played in rising oil prices, the answer was little to none. "We believe that high energy prices are fundamentally a result of supply and demand," he said in his testimony.

 

[editec]

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.