Originally posted by: alexruiz
- I asked to compare the data right before the invasion. According to the chart you provided by Mar 2003 the Exxon stock was close to $35. By Jan 05 is is almost $55. Calculate the return in 22 months. Why do you insist in going longer? Chevron (with closer ties to the goverment) was ~$34 by Mar 03, now at $57. Any decent broker buys and sells on opportunity For the average folk, you start investing at the catalyst point, and that was the start of the invasion. Stocks have always been for fast growth (~45% is 22 months is not slow) If you want security get precious metals, certificates or some other form or bonds.
You asked for the data from before the planning of the invasion, that goes back 10 years (or easily measurable according to conjur to Sept 12, 2001). You were vague. If you want to work from March 2003 to Jan 2005, that means you want to discount the spiraling stock values from 2001 to 2003. Why don't you give me a timeline of our activity in Iraq and show me how it correlates to making stockholders rich?
If you insist on looking at the polcing period in Iraq where we are training native security forces and trying to facilitate elections while suppressing insurgent attacks from 03/03 to 01/05, then I ask that you compare OIL/ENERGY stock performance to that of Down Jones Industrial, Standard and Poors, and Nasdaq to show me their trend is significantly different than every OTHER sector. Obviously improving stability and the chance of a future for democracy in the middle east (a significant source of energy resources) will have an effect on oil/energy stocks. Is the effect significant enough to say it is the whole reason we went to war? That's a pretty bold claim. Back it up with numbers.
- Now, the average investor, the one who banks on opportunity wasn't the target of the gains. You still didn't show the most basic measure of corporate sucess. Profits versus revenue You, the "fanatic with brains" forgot to get this very basic fact from the fortune or forbes website. You claim you know how to read the information, but you still ignore the fact that stock price is speculation by a bunch of "experts" who try to give a value based on "analysis" (which is mainly opinion, as you can witness by AMD's stock price....) Profits are still what make or break a company. Write a few "capital expenses" and huge profits turn into very little stock price gain. You claim you know the rules of the game, but got narrow vision of "stock rules". Despite that, The most profitable companies in the world lately have been...... Yes, the oil companies. that can be very easily confirmed just by looking at the global 500 from fortune.
When I looked that the SEC Filings summaries (balance sheets) over the last few years for XOM and CVX, I didn't see any unusual trends. I saw steady growth in short term liabilities, long term liabilities, revenue, retained earnings, and cash assets. I didn't see anything that marked <10% growth (which I would expect if a war were to cause a boom in a single industry). If anything, all I saw was typical recovery from a slow US economy that gave many sectors profitable growth in 2003-2004 (look at technology for a comparison that will make you think we went to war so technology companies could get rich between Mar 2003 and Jan 2005, their numbers are even larger as far as I can tell).
- You insist in getting with the OPEC countries and even self- praise yourself "we neocons know how to use the brains".
Why should I mess with the Saudi information that you claim you know because you did your homework when that is NOT what I wanted? I asked for the differential in raw material price versus the price of the final refined product Whatever the saudis do whith the money they get for what they sold is their business. Why didn't you get this information?
There is another piece of information needed to answer this question as you have rephrased it. Cost of raw materials against selling price of refined materials does not show profit. It shows both the costs of refining+profit. What I saw in the SEC Filings indicates an 8-10% profit margin during the growth years. That is good business, but not what I'd call a boom or a cashcow. I didn't bother with the information because you're question was about wether oil refining american corporations make more profit from oil than do Oil Czars. Oil Czars don't release their information, while US corporations answer to the SEC and their sharedholders. The comparison cannot be made. What I do see is that US Corporations pay a pretty decent wage to their people, while most Oil Czars oppress their countries and maintain a status quo far below the poverty line. I bet a large percentage of Iraqi's would gladly renounce citizenship under Hussein to move to any industrialized country to work for an Oil Refining Corporation. That indicates to me that the dictators are taking a larger percentage of the profits than the oil refining corporations. Is there a better way to judge without the numbers available? (yes, I now Saudi is marginally better than most with their reverse tax, but they are a minority).
- You still haven't replied why "freedom forces" put in place Pinochet, Batista or Somoza to name a few. Neither you replied to why Franco was ally of the "freedom forces". "Moral people do what is right" Still waiting (not to mention the teaser I threw of how the moral people in the "land of freedom" allowed slavery for over 90 years, segregation for over 190 and virtual extermination of their land ancesters...) How is that moral?
I did not claim every US action has been properly morally guided. The United States as you know us, as a world power seekingi to prop up democracy and humanitarianism across the globe did not exist until basically 1900. We laid the groundwork for being a benevolent world power. Name one world power that predates the US that was more benevolent and did more for the good of oppressed peoples? Are we perfect? No, but I think we're a far sight better than most countries out there in this respect. Have we made some mistakes, yes. Do our past mistakes automatically make efforts in Iraq a mistake? There is no logic to that. I can understand why you may fear this is a mistake, but let time judge that effort.
I won't pretend to be up to speed on the other dictators you mention. Just like the US, I have limited time and resources, so I can only focus on the issue most at hand at the moment, which I think is the decision to invade Iraq and was the outcome worth the effort. Was it the correct course of action? It's not a logical argument to say that "three previous failed attemps automatically make this a failed attempt".
- One more teaser. Did you ever had a chance to see the budget of the USA? Did you notice the percentage that the weapons expenses account?
Show me the numbers. Don't just tease without backup.
- Another teaser. Wanna talk about Halliburton financials? I agree, gas prices are high, but thwey were never intended to be lower.
Show me the numbers. Show me definitively how their profits from rebuilding war ravaged areas offers any financial (or otherwise) benefit to Bush, Cheney, or his cabinet. By comparison, would you be happier if we did NOT rebuild after necessary damage was done in a warzone to effect change?
If you are going to reply again, get back with concise answers, not vague cr@p. Holding stock for 5 years as small invester? Only a retarded does it. "A company is not making that great money because the stock price jump is not that spectacular" The true owners are laughing their @$$ out of this one.
This is the pot calling the kettle black. I've provided you links to the information you requested. You do the same. Show me where oil/energy is outperforming every other sector for growth in profits (or stock prices) against a timeline of the war. You made this argument, not me. I'm just asking you to back it up, and I'm even letting you set your own frame of reference. Show me one owner that made money by selling his stock (insider trade information is listed with the SEC). Show me one person who made considerable profit taking advantage of these "opportunities" as you call them.
In contradiction to your claims that "only a retarded does hold stock for 5 years [or longer]":
http://stocks.about.com/od/investingstrategies/a/Longterminvest.htm
Quote: Like the fabled tortoise that beat the hare in the race, the investor who stays in for the long term is more likely to achieve his or her goals than the investor who chases ?hot tips? for quick profits in the stock market.
http://www.kiplinger.com/columns/ask/archive/2005/q0127.htm
Quote: Over the long run, stocks have done much better than any other type of investment -- with large-company stocks averaging 10.4% per year since 1926 and small-company stocks averaging 12.7% per year, according to Ibbotson.
http://www.sherlockinvesting.com/
Quote: This is not the case. When you read about Warren Buffett you learn that he has been averaging around 30% in the stock market not for 10 years, or 20 years, but for 47 years! Not only that, he has been doing it with conservative, long-term investing.
http://ostg.pricegrabber.com/search_fullinfobk.php/isbn=007058043X/
Quote: "A simply great book."--Forbes [review of a book entitled:
Stocks for the Long Run
The Definitive Guide to Financial Market Returns and Long-Term Investment Strategies
On a side note, I must acknowledge that you are trying to get the information that defend your view. That is commendable. But that is only part of the solution. Get the complete information, get the complete picture and link the elements. You focused too much in micro-stuff while ignoring the macro stuff. Good try anyways! Not your average neocon.
So far, I'm the only one actually providing information. You're just making false claims. You say Forbes says short term opportunistic investing is the correct way. I show you were he applauds a book stating the diametrically opposed theory. You say their gains are large. I say they're not out of reference with any other sector. Show me. I'm tired of doing research for you while you change arguments between responses. You defend your argument. Show me that oil companies or their primary shareholders made significantly more money than other companies during the same period. Show me they benefit on the short term from the war and the hiked gas prices. The information is out there, go get it. While you're at it, since you seem to be a fan of the Fortune website (and are thus a subscriber), please post for me the top100 performers from each year dating back to 09/11/01 for reference (it's not worth $9.95 for me to see their compilations, maybe it is to you since you mention it as your (or anyone's) source.
Alex
PS. finace my what? Oh, I get it. I forgot the way of life up north is debt. My house is truly mine, it has been that way since I got it. I don't borrow my house from the bank and claim it is mine.....
I'm not up North. I'm in North Carolina, and that's about as Southern Conservative as it gets. However, financing property is definitely not a bad manuever in the past 3 years. In fact, if I had clear title to any property in the last 4 years I would have locked in a low mortgage rate and put the money into places where it could far outpace the 5% rates mortgages are being made. In fact, I'm rushing to tie up a mortgage at the moment because interest rates are turning around pretty fast right now. Combine the tax breaks of mortgage with the opportunities for mid-term investing that are coming up and you can see why it would be a good time to move money around right now.
Although, I, like you, am averse to debt, however one of the basics of capitalism is to finance assets to create capital that can gain at a rate faster than inflation+finance rate. The property value is going to do it's thing wether the property is paid in full or financed, in other words you are going to develop equity from ownership of real estate in a way that is unrelated to how you have it financed (or not). So, in effect, if you have property worth $100k, and you let the money value of the property sit in the clear deed, you will only gain the increase in property value - inflation. However, if you put that $100k to work earning a return more than the finance rate (say, you borrow at 5% and put it to work earning a 12% return), you'll effectively gain the increase in property value as equity on the loan AND ~7% return on the $100k financed. That's just good business. But like most business, it carries with it a certain risk so you may be too risk averse to do this. That's a personal decision.