Exxon makes record profit

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: winnar111
When have healthcare costs ever gone down in any developing country?

You know, lefties always talk about tax rates in the 90s and how great it was....they never talk about 90s health care spending and health care policy.

Economies of scale.

What about it?

Did you even listen to the debates? Obama clearly said that, with a huge base, the government can ask for lower prices. Ironically, your hero George Bush put it into law that Medicare and the Department of Veterans Affairs were not allowed to ask for lower prices. I can see that fucking law being taken down.

Medicare has gone from $220 billion of expenses in 2000 to $420 billion of expenses in the last 8 years, and its projected to be about $460 billion next year.

Where's the evidence that whatever he plans to do will take that number back to $220 billion?

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: winnar111
When have healthcare costs ever gone down in any developing country?

You know, lefties always talk about tax rates in the 90s and how great it was....they never talk about 90s health care spending and health care policy.

Economies of scale.

What about it?

Did you even listen to the debates? Obama clearly said that, with a huge base, the government can ask for lower prices. Ironically, your hero George Bush put it into law that Medicare and the Department of Veterans Affairs were not allowed to ask for lower prices. I can see that fucking law being taken down.

Medicare has gone from $220 billion of expenses in 2000 to $420 billion of expenses in the last 8 years, and its projected to be about $460 billion next year.

Where's the evidence that whatever he plans to do will take that number back to $220 billion?

I'm starting to think you're dense. Re-read what we just discussed, you'll get the answer there.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Profit margin... :roll:

I'll simplify this so anyone can understand it. Put yourself in the roll of a paperboy. The newspaper costs $1, and you make 10% profit on it for delivering it.

Over the course of a couple months, the news company doubles the cost of the newspaper to $2. You sell just as many papers, you make zero extra investment, you have zero extra expenses other than the price of your materials doubling. But you get away with doubling your profit per paper, because someone will apologize for you saying "look at their profit margins."

If you have a point can you please make it?

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: winnar111
When have healthcare costs ever gone down in any developing country?

You know, lefties always talk about tax rates in the 90s and how great it was....they never talk about 90s health care spending and health care policy.

Economies of scale.

What about it?

Did you even listen to the debates? Obama clearly said that, with a huge base, the government can ask for lower prices. Ironically, your hero George Bush put it into law that Medicare and the Department of Veterans Affairs were not allowed to ask for lower prices. I can see that fucking law being taken down.

Medicare has gone from $220 billion of expenses in 2000 to $420 billion of expenses in the last 8 years, and its projected to be about $460 billion next year.

Where's the evidence that whatever he plans to do will take that number back to $220 billion?

I'm starting to think you're dense. Re-read what we just discussed, you'll get the answer there.

What answer? Handwaving and speculation?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11...ug.html?pagewanted=all

"Democrats claim the government could save as much as $190 billion over the next 10 years if it negotiated directly. "

Hint: Even Nancy Pelosi projects an at best savings of $19 billion a year! You're still about $240b over to get back to Clinton years. :roll:

2nd Hint: Most medicare expenses are in Part A and B. Bush didn't touch that.

 

[daishi5]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Profit margin... :roll:

I'll simplify this so anyone can understand it. Put yourself in the roll of a paperboy. The newspaper costs $1, and you make 10% profit on it for delivering it.

Over the course of a couple months, the news company doubles the cost of the newspaper to $2. You sell just as many papers, you make zero extra investment, you have zero extra expenses other than the price of your materials doubling. But you get away with doubling your profit per paper, because someone will apologize for you saying "look at their profit margins."

Wow, this is fun, lets try another example. Mcdonalds makes hamburgers for $1, and sells them for $1.10. Suddenly everyone wants to hamburgers, and Mcdonalds sells twice as many this year as they did last year, setting record profits. Those evil corporate bastards, they let us buy enough hamburgers at the going price to make them twice as much money. They should have sold them at $1.05 and taken just as much money as last year while providing us with twice as much product.

 

[Jiggz]

Originally posted by: Dari
Incredible that McCain has no problem cutting the taxes of these guys when they're raking in all this cash.

link

Exxon Mobil: Biggest profit in U.S. history

Largest U.S. oil company surges past analyst estimates to post net income of $14.83 billion

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Exxon Mobil Corp. set a quarterly profit record for a U.S. company Thursday, surging past analyst estimates.

Exxon Mobil (XOM, Fortune 500), the leading U.S. oil company, said its third-quarter net profit was $14.83 billion, or $2.86 per share, up from $9.41 billion, or $1.70, a year earlier. That profit included $1.45 billion in special items.

The company's prior record was $11.68 billion in the second quarter of 2008.

The latest quarter's net income equaled $1,865.69 per second, nearly $400 a second more than the prior mark.

The company said its revenue totaled $137.7 billion in the third quarter.

Analysts had expected Exxon to report a 40% jump in earnings to $2.38 per share, or net income of $12.2 billion, and a 28% surge in revenue to $131.13 billion, according to a consensus of estimates compiled by Thomson Reuters.

The company's earnings were buoyed by oil prices, which reached record highs in the quarter before declining. Oil prices were trading at $140.97 a barrel at the beginning of the third quarter, and had fallen to $100.64 at the end.

Compare that to 2007, when prices traded at $71.09 a barrel at the beginning of the third quarter, and rose to $81.66 by the end.

Last of the big quarters
Exxon's special charges include the gain of $1.62 billion from the sale of a German natural gas company. It also includes the $170 million charge in interest related to punitive damages from the Valdez oil spill off the Alaskan coast in 1989.

The Irving, Texas-based company said it lost $50 million, before taxes, in oil revenue because of Hurricanes Gustav and Ike. The company expects damages related to these hurricanes to reduce fourth-quarter earnings by $500 million.

Exxon's stock price slipped by about 2% in afternoon trading. Bernie McGinn, Chief Executive of McGinn Investment Management and owner of 30,000 Exxon shares, said he wasn't surprised, given the recent downturn in oil prices.

"That's probably the last of the big profit quarters, at least for now," said McGinn. "You can't make the case that it's going to continue."

Despite the surge in profit, Exxon said oil production was down 8% in the third quarter, compared to the same period last year.

The company also said it is spending more money to locate new sources of oil. Exxon said it spent $6.9 billion on oil exploration in the third quarter, a jump of 26% from the same period last year. The company said it began a new program to tap natural gas offshore from Nigeria.

More investments
Exxon also has an aggressive program for buying back stock, with 109 million of its shares repurchased during the third quarter, at a cost of $8.7 billion.

In a conference call with analysts, David Rosenthal, vice president of investor relations for Exxon, said the company's "first priority" is using profits to continue investing in exploration programs for oil and other resources.

Rosenthal said the company would also consider using new-found funds to bolster its dividend, buy back more shares and to purchase other companies, but he declined to offer specific details.

Phil Weiss, analyst for Argus Research, said he doesn't expect Exxon to break any more profit records in future quarters.

"I don't expect the fourth quarter to be nearly as good as the third because of lower oil prices," said Weiss.

Analysts also said that demand for gasoline is falling, which could impact Exxon and other oil companies.

"While oil companies benefit from high oil prices in the short run, they might lose in the long run," Anas Alhajji, chief economist for NGP Energy Capital Management, wrote in an email to CNNMoney.com. "Higher oil prices lead to lower demand, as we have seen in recent months."

Earlier Thursday, Europe's leading oil company, Royal Dutch Shell PLC (RDSA), reported a 22% gain in net profit for the third quarter, to $8.45 billion. The company said sales rose 45% to $132 billion.

Exxon is the second-largest company in the Fortune 500 in terms of annual sales, behind Wal-Mart Stores (WMT, Fortune 500).

Exxon's stock price has fallen about 20% so far this year, compared to the S&P 500, which has fallen about 36%.

So you would rather tax their earnings so they can pass it to the consumers? And the money earned from this tax ends in pork barrels which more than half ends in politicians' pockets! That kind of logic only exists in a Socialist or Marxist state!

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: cubby1223
The difference is, okay raise their taxes - then they just raise the price per gallon of gasoline. The oil companies don't cover the taxes - WE THE CONSUMERS COVER THEIR TAXES. The taxes do not get paid by the executives, they are paid out of the $$ we spend on the products.

I love this argument, that somehow producers of good X can charge whatever they want and demand will be the same.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

If they increase prices, demand will decrease. This is exactly what we've seen for the last 2 years as prices have steadily risen; demand has fallen accordingly, and people started changing their behavior. If things had kept going like that, we'd see a lot fewer SUV drivers on the road in a year or two. Heck, even by the end of the price spike used car dealers were refusing to purchase SUVs; they just couldn't sell gas guzzlers anymore.

Increasing price will decrease their profit margins over time. A small tax increase will bite into Exxon's bottom line, but increasing prices is not an effective way of combating that.

Yes, gasoline is a unique commodity, but it doesn't change the fact that increasing the price will decrease demand. As an extreme example, let's say it costs $5000/gallon. At that price, people will find a way to do without it and not an ounce will be sold. Similarly, charging much more, say $10/gallon, will drastically reduce profits despite the higher price.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: Jiggz

So you would rather tax their earnings so they can pass it to the consumers? And the money earned from this tax ends in pork barrels which more than half ends in politicians' pockets! That kind of logic only exists in a Socialist or Marxist state!

When did the focus of this thread shift to Alaska? :laugh:

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Their 4th quarter profits should be down, since they've manipulated the prices back to $2/gallon right on time for the election.

Make no mistake, they are doing everything in their power to get McCain in the White House so they can fatten their bottom line even more.

But gas prices should be back up in the 1st quarter of 2009, right after they sucker us into driving more and buying SUVs again.

high gas prices help republicans.

 

[daishi5]

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: cubby1223
The difference is, okay raise their taxes - then they just raise the price per gallon of gasoline. The oil companies don't cover the taxes - WE THE CONSUMERS COVER THEIR TAXES. The taxes do not get paid by the executives, they are paid out of the $$ we spend on the products.

I love this argument, that somehow producers of good X can charge whatever they want and demand will be the same.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

If they increase prices, demand will decrease. This is exactly what we've seen for the last 2 years as prices have steadily risen; demand has fallen accordingly, and people started changing their behavior. If things had kept going like that, we'd see a lot fewer SUV drivers on the road in a year or two. Heck, even by the end of the price spike used car dealers were refusing to purchase SUVs; they just couldn't sell gas guzzlers anymore.

Increasing price will decrease their profit margins over time. A small tax increase will bite into Exxon's bottom line, but increasing prices is not an effective way of combating that.

Yes, gasoline is a unique commodity, but it doesn't change the fact that increasing the price will decrease demand. As an extreme example, let's say it costs $5000/gallon. At that price, people will find a way to do without it and not an ounce will be sold. Similarly, charging much more, say $10/gallon, will drastically reduce profits despite the higher price.

Eh, it depends. If you tax Exxon directly, they cannot pass on the tax because other sources of oil are not being taxed, however if all oil producers are taxed equally they do get to pass on most of the tax. Remember oil demand is very inelastic, a large increase in the price creates a very small drop in the demand. Just because oil prices spiked to insane rates, global demand did not drop by a huge amount. The ability of a producer to pass on a cost depends on if other producers are dealing with the same cost and the elasticity of demand. I have this nagging feeling I am forgetting a factor, but I think the point still stands.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Their 4th quarter profits should be down, since they've manipulated the prices back to $2/gallon right on time for the election.

Make no mistake, they are doing everything in their power to get McCain in the White House so they can fatten their bottom line even more.

But gas prices should be back up in the 1st quarter of 2009, right after they sucker us into driving more and buying SUVs again.

high gas prices help republicans.

Allegedly so do low prices, and every price in between.

It's amazing how much help republicans get.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Dari

What will they do? Pass it on to the consumer like they've always done.

actually the lion's share gets borne by employees, not consumers. why? because it's easier to get out of employees. they're not going to drive to the next station. they'll either be fired, have fewer hired, not get as big a bonus, etc.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Dari

What will they do? Pass it on to the consumer like they've always done.

actually the lion's share gets borne by employees, not consumers. why? because it's easier to get out of employees. they're not going to drive to the next station. they'll either be fired, have fewer hired, not get as big a bonus, etc.

Not true. A company will fire employees if the business landscape is cloudy, not because of a 3% hike in tax. The tax affects all businesses so no one is immune. Hence, they just pass it on. Consumers will consume this tax no matter where they go so it doesn't change their shopping habit by much. Sometimes the business will even pass the some of the tax increase down the food chain onto their contractors. At the end of the day, there may not be a price increase at all because so many parties have absorbed parts of it.