ExxonMobil posts record 1Q earnings

[Midway ®]

ExxonMobil Corp. posted a $10.9 billion first-quarter profit Thursday, up 17 percent from the same quarter a year ago.

The Dallas-based oil giant had first-quarter revenue of $116.8 billion, compared with $87.2 billion a year earlier.

Still, the record profits and earnings per share ($2.03 for the first quarter vs. $1.62 for first-quarter 2007) were lower than Wall Street expected. ExxonMobil (NYSE: XOM) saw its stock drop Thursday in response to missing analysts' estimates.

They missed their earnings estimates because the price of gasoline only went to $3.85/gallon. Oh well, there's always next quarter.

I, for one would be happy to pay $4.50, even $5.00 a gallon for gas so that they can meet analysts estimates in next Q.

[Driven1]

stupid, evil capitalists.  how dare they provide an extremely essential service and make money from it.

[RiversideGator]

stupid, evil capitalists.  how dare they provide an extremely essential service and make money from it.

They should be all sent to midway's reeducation camps, the swine.

[RiversideGator]

BTW, ExxonMobil also made the highest quarterly corporate tax payment in history for 1Q 2008:  $9.32 billion.

Exxon's income taxes of $9.32 billion ($9,320,000,000) in the first quarter 2008 sets a new all-time record for the highest amount of income taxes ever paid by a U.S. corporation in a single quarter, and tops the previous record amounts of income taxes paid by Exxon last year (see chart above).

Amount of taxes Exxon paid in the first quarter 2008:

Daily: $103,500,000

Hourly: $4,300,000

Every minute: $72,000

Every second: $1,200

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/

[RiversideGator]

Furthermore, far more was paid in different taxes than ExxonMobil realized in profits:

Actually, income taxes of $9.3B are only about 1/3 of Exxon's total tax liability of $29.3B for the first quarter of 2008, according to this press release (see top chart above). Further, Exxon paid close to $3 in taxes ($2.69) for each $1 it earned in profits.

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/

[Driven1]

that is CRAZY!  $30 billion in taxes...that should provide welfare checks for around 3.05 million people (with an assumption of $9,600/year/person)

[Driven1]

Midway, Me and Lee Harvey have been enjoying the last couple of days by standing around at Gas Pumps waiting for SUVs to pull up with the moronic "W" stickers on the back of their windshields.

I call you out on this.  You have been HERE, posting the entire last couple of days.  How could you also have been out at the gas pumps with Lee Harvey?

PS - W is the greatest president ever.

[Driven1]

and this from our Super Hero...

Obama May Levy $15 Billion Tax on Oil Company Profit

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aP_1wrIyt1Nc

[Midway ®]

Exxon Mobil's results on Monday, of course, caused jaws to drop; by some measures, the company became richer than some of the world's most pivotal oil-producing nations. Exxon Mobil reported a 27 percent surge in profit for the fourth quarter as elevated fuel prices gave rise to a full-year profit in 2005 of $36.13 billion on revenue of $371 billion. Exxon Mobil said its overall profit climbed more than 40 percent last year, while its tax bill rose only 14 percent.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/31/business/31exxon.html

I knew that there was a golden lining in there somewhere.

Who said that I was against them making money. I was just upset that they did not match Wall street's expectations. I think that they should raise the price of their product to maximize shareholder value, which they are legally obligated to do.

If Exxon/Mobil raised the price of gasoline to $5.50-$6.00 per gallon, that would provide an acceptable ROI, and also help to reduce the national debt by comfortably increasing tax payments to the Government, which would then raise the value of the dollar, thus lowering oil prices.

[RiversideGator]

and this from our Super Hero...

Obama May Levy $15 Billion Tax on Oil Company Profit

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aP_1wrIyt1Nc

That'll lower gas prices.   

[RiversideGator]

Midway,

Lee Harvey and I  have been enjoying the last couple of days by standing around at Gas Pumps waiting for SUVs to pull up with the moronic "W" stickers on the back of their windshields.

When they get out and start pumping both of us start pointing and laughing at them in the most demeaning way possible.

HA HA!  How do you like your precious "W" Now?! we ask.  Then one or the other of us will start spitefully laughing at their gas bills like hyenas.

Great Fun.

But boy do people get really mad.

Gosh.  I wish I had so much free time.   

[RiversideGator]

Exxon Mobil's results on Monday, of course, caused jaws to drop; by some measures, the company became richer than some of the world's most pivotal oil-producing nations. Exxon Mobil reported a 27 percent surge in profit for the fourth quarter as elevated fuel prices gave rise to a full-year profit in 2005 of $36.13 billion on revenue of $371 billion. Exxon Mobil said its overall profit climbed more than 40 percent last year, while its tax bill rose only 14 percent.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/31/business/31exxon.html

I knew that there was a golden lining in there somewhere.

Who said that I was against them making money. I was just upset that they did not match Wall street's expectations. I think that they should raise the price of their product to maximize shareholder value, which they are legally obligated to do.

If Exxon/Mobil raised the price of gasoline to $5.50-$6.00 per gallon, that would provide an acceptable ROI, and also help to reduce the national debt by comfortably increasing tax payments to the Government, which would then raise the value of the dollar, thus lowering oil prices.

Interesting idea, except that ExxonMobil does not have a monopoly on supplying gasoline to US consumers.  Raising prices arbitrarily in such a fashion would result in a catastrophic loss of business.

[Driven1]

Front page of WSJ today is about how the "record" profits at Exxon mask massive problems in front of them now.

[RiversideGator]

I was already reading one WSJ article on them in the OpEd section.  Here it is:

Exxon Agonistes
May 2, 2008

Department of Irony: On Tuesday, members of the Rockefeller family won media huzzahs for airing their grievances against Exxon Mobil, the oil and gas giant in which they are the oldest continuous shareholders but which they say isn't doing enough to prepare for a greener world. Then yesterday, Exxon reported a 17% rise in first-quarter profit, to $10.9 billion. It was merely the second-largest quarterly profit in U.S. corporate history, though Exxon still holds the quarterly and annual records.

Could it be that the heirs of John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil empire (founded 1870) are angry that Exxon's management made them too much money? Probably not. Instead, the family warns that the company will lose out to competitors in the future if it doesn't shift its climate-change policies and invest more in alternative energy. Along with institutional investors like Connecticut's state pension fund, the Rockefellers are pushing corporate governance reforms that they say will give the Exxon board a more "independent" tilt.

Despite â€" or perhaps because of â€" their handsome returns, a large part of this exercise seems to be political. The well-to-do Rockefellers have embraced the eco-enthusiasms of the day, and perhaps for some of them this is one way of assuaging any guilt over a multibillion-dollar fortune built on carbon. One of their clan, Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, blazed this trail in 2006 with a letter demanding that Exxon management cut off funding for global warming skeptics â€" or else.

But even if they're not dressing up their political goals as concern about Exxon's long-term viability, it's useful to ask whether their agenda serves the interests of all shareholders, which is maximizing returns on investment. Certainly Exxon's earnings are high in absolute terms, given surging crude oil prices, but they have to be compared to the huge capital requirements for exploration and development. In 2007, the company spent nearly $21 billion on exploration and capital spending, and that will increase by at least 20% over the next five years or so.

Such long-range strategy to span both up and down cycles is essential because profits fall when commodity prices dip. That happened in the 1990s, with oil crashing below $20 a barrel after the altitudes of the 1970s. The oil majors and their shareholders swallowed these declines, as they should have.

Against such market fluctuations and supply shocks, what's distinguished Exxon is its discipline. The company is known for its careful budgeting and for avoiding speculative risks. More than others, Exxon seems to be guided by the fact that the current historic rise in oil and gas prices won't last forever, and that its spending decisions need to make sense in a world of $60 or even $30 per barrel oil. Such business prudence has paid off. Exxon's earnings per dollar of sales stood at 10% for 2007, compared to 8.3% for the larger oil and gas industry and 7.8% for the Dow Jones Industrial Average for major industries.

It's the prerogative of shareholders like the Rockefellers, even those without a major equity stake, to second-guess Exxon's results. Still, they've also got plenty of other investment opportunities, and they're welcome to try out Vinod Khosla and the other venture capitalists pursuing "clean tech." But these energy sources still can't compete economically with oil despite government handouts and other regulatory props, and the Chapter 11 courts are littered with companies that made such energy bets.

Anyway, a company that specializes in oil and gas isn't necessarily the best situated to operate, say, wind turbines. It may lack the expertise, or the fads might divert management focus from the main business. But even if Exxon chose to diversify more into alternatives, it would still be far more profitable to continue providing a product that the world can't do without. The notion that the carbon era is coming to an end is for the foreseeable future little more than a fantasy. Everyone â€" from the U.S. Energy Information Agency to the U.N. â€" agrees that fossil fuels will still account for as much as 80% of the world's energy needs though 2030, even with efficiency gains and major growth in alternatives.

The chief specific Rockefeller goal seems to be to sever the roles of CEO and chairman of the Exxon corporate board, both currently filled by Rex Tillerson. There are plenty of cases where that division of labor works and makes good business sense. But it is not a self-evidently superior arrangement. While it's never a good idea for a CEO to "own" his board, the last thing a business needs is a board operating at cross-purposes with management â€" in this case, presumably, with management wanting to continue with its record-breaking model, and a board beholden to every environmental interest group that happens to pass by.

One luxury of being a Rockefeller is that you are wealthy enough to live in style even if Exxon's performance starts to slide. The same can't be said of millions of pensioners and small investors for whom Exxon's profits may be the main source of a secure retirement. If John D.'s heirs aren't satisfied with Exxon, they're welcome to invest elsewhere. Our guess is that few will, given how much money they've made over the decades on fossil fuels.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120968777049161329.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks

[RiversideGator]

Gee, and we just spent 3 trillion dollars of taxpayer money to guarantee their industry.

So, just ExxonMobil would benefit from reduced terrorism and a stable supply of oil?