The two biggest reasons fuel cost us so much

[john3976]

(Exxon also said it returned $7 billion to shareholders through dividends of $2 billion and buying back $5 billion worth of shares. )



Just think if Exxon had not bought back 5 Billion dollars worth of its own stock in the first quarter, instead of 8. 4 Billion in profit they would have had to have shown 13. 4 Billion dollars in profit and would have completely shattered their 10 Billion dollar profit record set in the forth quarter of 2005.



I think you will see Exxon buying back Billions of dollars worth of their own shares to keep from breaking their profit records each quarter, it will be interesting to see if Exxon will beat the 13. 4 Billion in the second quarter when stock buy backs are added to their reported profits.



Exxon is in full defence mode and will do anything they can to mask their true profits from the public. Take away all the little tricks and games Exxon is playing to hide their true profit for each quarter and I bet they are up in the 15 to 17% area for profits.

 

[nps]

(Exxon also said it returned $7 billion to shareholders through dividends of $2 billion and buying back $5 billion worth of shares. )



Just think if Exxon had not bought back 5 Billion dollars worth of its own stock in the first quarter, instead of 8. 4 Billion in profit they would have had to have shown 13. 4 Billion dollars in profit and would have completely shattered their 10 Billion dollar profit record set in the forth quarter of 2005.



I think you will see Exxon buying back Billions of dollars worth of their own shares to keep from breaking their profit records each quarter, it will be interesting to see if Exxon will beat the 13. 4 Billion in the second quarter when stock buy backs are added to their reported profits.



Exxon is in full defence mode and will do anything they can to mask their true profits from the public. Take away all the little tricks and games Exxon is playing to hide their true profit for each quarter and I bet they are up in the 15 to 17% area for profits.

Ha Ha Ha Ha... . More ignorance here too!!! John - you should stay on the Political threads - fewer people over there to see your complete and total lack of understanding for corporate financial reporting. :-laf :-laf



If you actually understood something about what you were posting you might be dangerous.

 

[john3976]

Ha Ha Ha Ha... . More ignorance here too!!! John - you should stay on the Political threads - fewer people over there to see your complete and total lack of understanding for corporate financial reporting. :-laf :-laf



If you actually understood something about what you were posting you might be dangerous.

So what you are saying is the 5 Billion dollars that Exxon spent that quarter comes from the tooth fairy?



It comes from the income made by Exxon that quarter, when they spend it to buy back stock it becomes an expense, so to make this easy for your third grade mind, Exxon made 8. 4 Billion in profit the first quarter after all expenses were paid, if Exxon did not spend the 5 Billion they did on Stock Buy Backs they would have had another 5 Billion dollars to account for in cash, that becomes 8. 4 Billion + 5 Billion = 13. 4 Billion in profit, if Exxon had not waisted the money on stock buy backs to hide their profit which in turn only aids Exxon in the long run as they now own more of their own stock.



It is no wonder so many companies are in trouble today, the accounting games that people like you play to hide money from the profit side.



You can cook the books all you want, but that does not change simple adding and subtracting.

 

[nps]

So what you are saying is the 5 Billion dollars that Exxon spent that quarter comes from the tooth fairy?



It comes from the income made by Exxon that quarter, when they spend it to buy back stock it becomes an expense, so to make this easy for your third grade mind, Exxon made 8. 4 Billion in profit the first quarter after all expenses were paid, if Exxon did not spend the 5 Billion they did on Stock Buy Backs they would have had another 5 Billion dollars to account for in cash, that becomes 8. 4 Billion + 5 Billion = 13. 4 Billion in profit, if Exxon had not waisted the money on stock buy backs to hide their profit which in turn only aids Exxon in the long run as they now own more of their own stock.



It is no wonder so many companies are in trouble today, the accounting games that people like you play to hide money from the profit side.



You can cook the books all you want, but that does not change simple adding and subtracting.

Guess what genius - the money used to buy stock IS NOT an expense. It is cash that comes from the Treasurey but never shows up on an income statement (you know - the one that computes profits). You know nothing about corporate financial reporting. Go back to 3rd grade accounting. Do they actually let middle school droputs become cops?



Your ignorance abounds. :-laf :-laf :-laf

 

[Rman]

So what you are saying is the 5 Billion dollars that Exxon spent that quarter comes from the tooth fairy?



It comes from the income made by Exxon that quarter, when they spend it to buy back stock it becomes an expense, so to make this easy for your third grade mind, Exxon made 8. 4 Billion in profit the first quarter after all expenses were paid, if Exxon did not spend the 5 Billion they did on Stock Buy Backs they would have had another 5 Billion dollars to account for in cash, that becomes 8. 4 Billion + 5 Billion = 13. 4 Billion in profit, if Exxon had not waisted the money on stock buy backs to hide their profit which in turn only aids Exxon in the long run as they now own more of their own stock.



It is no wonder so many companies are in trouble today, the accounting games that people like you play to hide money from the profit side.



You can cook the books all you want, but that does not change simple adding and subtracting.

wow, you need to go be accountant, you're miserable at it. The Exxon folks would adore you (until the Fed busted them). You really don't have a clue about accounting, how about we just put it in the bag and forget about it? Or maybe we ALL could point out how WRONG you really are? (I think everyone can clearly see that now)

 

[MCummings]

Did john work at Enron before going to florida?



Merrick

 

[john3976]

Did john work at Enron before going to florida?



Merrick

I would think you clowns would be the ones who worked at Enron, so what you are telling me is Exxon just goes to the "Treasury" and says hey we need 5 Billion dollars this quarter to buy back our own stock, and the "Treasury" just hands them 5 Billion dollars completely unaccounted for in any way on any company books?



LOL, yeah right, 5 Billion that just pops out of the "Treasury's Arse" LOL.



Sorry but that is nothing more then cooking the books and that is what got Enron into trouble if in fact Exxon has found a way to hide 5 Billion dollars this quarter that does not have to be counted for anything, and Exxon has already made the statement to the press they will be spending another 6 Billion this quarter on stock buy backs, and you want to tell me that 11 Billion dollars just pops out of thin air not accounted for an any way?



Money goes out, that is called an EXPENSE, Money coming in is called INCOME.



If they spent the money they had better be able to account for it, and when it is in the Billions you can bet your arse that Exxon is accounting for every last penny.



Once again you idiots that created these sneaky ways to cook the books is what is putting companies out of business, so if in fact Exxon is pulling the BS accounting tricks you are implying, then they as well could join Enron over night and disappear.

 

[RGardner]

John you are thinking of a statement of cash flows not an income statement. Money used to buy back stock is a use of cash but not an expense on an profit and loss statement.

 

[starkmr]

An expense would be a cost of doing business. This could be construed as an investment.



John,



Have you ever heard of a negative income? Simply put it in the income column as a negative.



You can do the same with an expense.



This is why you must have a degree to be a CPA.



Having worked around the oil companies for many years, I can attest to the fact that they are only going to show you figures in their best interest. It's their game and they will report profit as they see fit.

 

[Rman]

Wow John is truly lost. You must have failed any financial class you ever took, can you even balance a check book? How does money, which is relocated within company, get treated as an expense. This is an inredible discovery! You really should start applying, Enron, Adelphia, Worldcom they beckon you!!!! wait they're all defunct... well someone will step up to the mike, you've got this "books" thing down!

 

[EMD-Run8]

Well anyway... ... . yes, it is a very big and complicated issue. Both Venezuela and Russia (I think) are both producing less than they were several years back. Iran is also producing less (purposely I think). Demand in Asia and other emerging areas (they say Kurdish Northern Iraq is really booming) has risen sharply in recent years. No new refineries or tankers, hurricanes, tree huggers..... blah, blah the list goes on. Obviously the worldwide price of oil is high but I do not think that US oil companies are jacking us for a $1. 00 or $1. 50 a gallon. I think it's closer to 30 cents or so (do the math on, say 10 billion gallons a day!) I also think the Prez has been far less vocal about all of it than he needs to be. On balance, he DOES and has had practically since the beginning---a pretty full plate! Also, he has advocated/implemented the push to alternative fuel/energy more than any other president I can remember so maybe we'll see something happen.