Exxon notches record 2008 profit of 45.22 billion dlrs

[Skull Pilot]

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']

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]

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]

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?

I'll put it on my list Ed.

 

[garyd]

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]

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...

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]

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

 

[tigerbob]

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]

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]

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...

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".

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]

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]

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...



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".

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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?

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]

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]

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.