Exxon posts record profits

Now, the news I heard this morning was about Earnings, not profits. Earnings, I reasoned, doesnt mean profits. Earnings is just what they took in, not how much they spent.

But seeing these new numbers on *profit* - I'm reminded how OFTEN we were told last year about how much crude oil was costing.

I don't know about you, but its starting to feel more and more like the oil dealers put us over the barrel last year. There's going to be major public outcry over this, I suspect...and I'm not sure what side I'll come down on yet.
 
Everything works on percentages. Price of crude went up. They still make 35-30-50 whatever percent on it, of course the profits are going to be higher.
 
Oh, sure, Ed, but while the price of crude went up, and the processing capacity went down, and we got hit by a major hurricane season, Exxon is posting profit increases of 42% over 2004.

There's turning a profit, and then there's profiteering and price gouging. What remains to be seen is, which was Exxon doing.

I tend to be typically pro-business, but even I feel... disturbed and even mildly outraged by this. This heading for very interesting political waters, I think.
 
How much did crude go up?
What did their profits go up?

I would guess them to be pretty close. I haven't researched the numbers, but that's my guess right now.

When tin prices jumped in my sector in 2004. I still made my same points. Why should I spend more money to make the same amount?

(Ah, I see what you are saying. Since they weren't producing as much, the profits shouldn't have jumped. But didn't the price of crude almost double?)

Just did a quick check. Price of crude went up 61% from Dec 2003 to Dec 2005. 32% from Dec 2004 to Dec 2005.
 
Last edited:
N2212R said:
Everything works on percentages. Price of crude went up. They still make 35-30-50 whatever percent on it, of course the profits are going to be higher.

Adjusted for inflation, the cost of a gallon of gasoline today, is almost the same as during the 80s gas crisis, yet the barrel of crude costs around 44% less in real terms.

1981 Crude Barrel (2005 dollars) : $89.48
2005 Crude Barrel (2005 dollars) : $50.52
1983 Gallon costs (2005 dollars) : $2.25 (peaked)
2005 Gallon costs (2005 dollars) : $2.20

But it's a supply and demand issue....right :D
 
Oh, I agree. It is not a supply and demand thing. It is a "how much can we push it without people bitching too much" thing.
 
Greebo said:
Now, the news I heard this morning was about Earnings, not profits. Earnings, I reasoned, doesnt mean profits. Earnings is just what they took in, not how much they spent.

Chuck. Earnings and profits are the same thing. You are thinking of Revenues. Earnings/Profits are what corporatons have left over after expenses. You'll see reports of Quarterly EPS or Earnings Per Share which is the bottom line investors want to see.

The fact tha oil companies are posting record earnings/profits concerns some as it looks lie gouging. I don't know enough about the energy industry to wade through all the noise and determine if this is true or not. I only know that for years energy companies were doing poorly at $10- $30/barrel oil and nobody complained then except the investors.
 
Ah, see I thought profits were different than earnings, obviously.

It just seems ... suspect... that they pushed prices up SO steeply in such as short period, and with the huge profits they're posting, any justification about rising costs just seems hard to swallow on face value.

Like you, I dont know enough about the industry to really judge - but I'm gonna start following the story if one evolves, thats for sure.
 
Greebo said:
It just seems ... suspect... that they pushed prices up SO steeply in such as short period, and with the huge profits they're posting, any justification about rising costs just seems hard to swallow on face value.

I would also like to see how much of the price increase was from the oil company and how much was from the station owner. I saw a lot of variation from station to station.
 
GaryO said:
I would also like to see how much of the price increase was from the oil company and how much was from the station owner. I saw a lot of variation from station to station.
Either way, my wife has taken her revenge. She traded her Toyota Land Cruiser for a Toyota Prius. Her gas bill has gone from just over $100 / week to around $20. I’m proud of her and she loves the car, even though it is horrifically ugly (IMHO).

So my Tahoe might be next on the auction block. Too bad it’s not worth anything in trade.
 
gibbons said:
Either way, my wife has taken her revenge. She traded her Toyota Land Cruiser for a Toyota Prius. Her gas bill has gone from just over $100 / week to around $20. I’m proud of her and she loves the car, even though it is horrifically ugly (IMHO).

So my Tahoe might be next on the auction block. Too bad it’s not worth anything in trade.

My wife just traded a 16mpg V-8 gas guzzler for a 28mpg turbo-diesel (both city figures). Fuel savings will run $80-100/month.

I'd trade my F-150 Supercrew, but the math just doesn't work out at the mileage I drive per year...it would take 15 years just to break even to trade on a Honda Accord type car.
 
Greebo said:
Ah, see I thought profits were different than earnings, obviously.

It just seems ... suspect... that they pushed prices up SO steeply in such as short period, and with the huge profits they're posting, any justification about rising costs just seems hard to swallow on face value.

Like you, I dont know enough about the industry to really judge - but I'm gonna start following the story if one evolves, thats for sure.

Like Anthony said, earnings=profits. Confusion can be expected because a lot of companies talk about different kinds of earnings (EBIT, EBITDA, etc), while profit usually means that aftertax profit to shareholders. Nonetheless, after-tax earnings and after-tax profits mean the same thing....
 
Coming back to the profits - thing is with such a rough year - skyrocketing gas prices, katrina, etc... I wonder if people will start clamoring that auto fuel needs to be regulated like a utility.

I mean - this is one of those rare cases where I feel that to some degree we've all been put over a barrel just to make rich people richer.

Given what the country was going through, would it have *killed* Exxon to adjust their markup downwards somewhat to pass on some savings to the consumers who are slaves to the gas pumps?

But then I think - well what? Regulation? Make it a "Utility" and put it under gov't control? I don't like where that leads any more than getting screwed by corporate dollar chasers.
 
Chuck,

I would be completely opposed to that sort of regulation (utility-like) for a number of reasons.

First, oil in general, and refined products specifically, are a limited resource. They should be subject to supply-demand. If you regulate pricing, you will end up in a situation where you also have to regulate consumption. Gas rationing. The free market is always a better regulator than government can ever be.

Second, if the price (and potential profit margins) become high enough, it will spur development of alternatives. We already see that with hybrid vehicles. People are willing to pay more for a hybrid (or for a low-consumption vehicle) than they would when fuel prices were lower. Reducing consumption will reduce price because the demand is lowered (see my first point).

Third, I don't think we need to politicize the this industry. Really.

And finally, if you study the history of economically regulated companies, you will find two things: one, they tend to be inefficiently operated because they usually have a regulated profit margin meaning that overhead cost is simply not as important (think "cost plus" contract in government speak), and second, eventually they get deregulated... and most companies that become deregulated that way end up in all kinds of financial trouble because they can't readily adapt to the free market (think: legacy airlines, telecomm/AT&T, some of the electric utilities, etc).
 
Short economics review. The big international oil companies own some production, in the US including Alaska, North Sea, offshore Brazil, Canada, and other places. They also "control" production under various royalty arrangements in many foreign countries. Finally, the buy the remainder of the oil they need to fulfill demand on the open market. The open market price of crude oil has increased due to various factors beyond the oil companies' control: hurricanes in the Gulf, Iraq, demand from India and China, terrorist threats in Saudi Arabia, threats to Iran's production. We live in turbulent times.

When the price of crude goes up, the oil companies have to pay the going rate for the crude they buy. For the crude they own, and depending on the contracts, on the crude they "control", the increase is pure gravy. Call it "windfall profits", just like farmers who have wheat profit when there's a drought somewhere.

Why, you ask, don't they just cut their margins a little? Well, think about it. The last barrel they need to meet demand they're buying on the open market. That's the barrel they'd be trimming the price on. Why buy something and sell at a loss?

Another reason for high US gasoline prices is the shortage of refining capacity. This is where the oil companies have taken some deserved criticism. They did not invest in capacity as demand slowly increased because for years refining was a money-losing or low-return part of the business. Making some bad decisions is not a crime, however.

Every time gas prices spike up, there are investigations at the Federal and state level. These inevitably fade away without a whimper. Wonder why. No conspiracy.

Yes, I once worked in the "oil bidness", nearly 30 years ago. I guess I get dismayed seeing the American public and their politicians behaving like spoiled children.

There . . . feel better now.
 
DoubleD said:
When the price of crude goes up, the oil companies have to pay the going rate for the crude they buy. For the crude they own, and depending on the contracts, on the crude they "control", the increase is pure gravy. Call it "windfall profits", just like farmers who have wheat profit when there's a drought somewhere.

Why, you ask, don't they just cut their margins a little? Well, think about it. The last barrel they need to meet demand they're buying on the open market. That's the barrel they'd be trimming the price on. Why buy something and sell at a loss?

Not only that, but if the price were artificially held low here, the producer seeking maximum profit will sell the oil elsewhere at the "market" price. Which will lead to even greater shortage here.
 
We tell them it is OK when we keep buying it.

When my electric Jeep is finished they can all bite me.
 
tom. said:
We tell them it is OK when we keep buying it.

When my electric Jeep is finished they can all bite me.
I think a BTU is still cheaper than a Kw and they pack a bigger wallop.
 
DoubleD said:
...snip...
When the price of crude goes up, the oil companies have to pay the going rate for the crude they buy. For the crude they own, and depending on the contracts, on the crude they "control", the increase is pure gravy. Call it "windfall profits", just like farmers who have wheat profit when there's a drought somewhere.
...snip...
Well said, David. I left the pertinent part.

From the front page of this morning's Dallas Morning News:
Total revenue was 371bn
Profit was 36.1bn

Gives a profit of 9.7%. not at all outrageous and well within historical norms. Also, when averaged over 5 years, it goes down to low 9%.

The revenue was WAAAY up due to the increased costs, but the profit level was up only slightly. Good evidence of gouging, right?
 
wsuffa said:
Not only that, but if the price were artificially held low here, the producer seeking maximum profit will sell the oil elsewhere at the "market" price. Which will lead to even greater shortage here.

AKA as Nixon's "Phase III", price controls which caused supply shortages, rationing, lines at gas stations, etc. If you scr*w with the market, you will get scr*wed.
 
One of the finance killers of the fuels industry is the cost of the supply chain - pump is paying back the cost of what just came off the boat. I'm not sure what the soil-to-sky time is for Exxon, but I'm going to bet it is substantial enough...

As someone who spent a little time in the deregulated energy industry, I agree with Bill Suffa 110%. Regulating certain industries just creates gross excesses and poor management. I was surprised that many were able to actually deliver on their energy contracts.

Cheers,

-Andrew
 
Greebo said:
Coming back to the profits - thing is with such a rough year - skyrocketing gas prices, katrina, etc... I wonder if people will start clamoring that auto fuel needs to be regulated like a utility.


That's my feeling - if it was SUCH a tough year, how come you made so much money ? With everything that happened, you either raised your prices to make extra profit to cover the difficulties, or those difficulties weren't nearly as bad as you made out. I'm not calling for regulation, but it's a hard pill to swallow when these same companies got a tax break to help with exploration !

Great for my mutual funds - but the gains will be wiped out by the extra money it is costing me this year to keep the mother-in-law in fuel...
 
Back
Top