Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: American Spirit who wrote (256269)	10/18/2005 9:24:32 PM
From: Taro	Respond to of 1572629

Exxon declared exactly as much as they believed would be "reasonable" given their size, general public, political situation and - last but not least - the expectations of their shareholders and Wall Street. Don't be naive here, I am not. With the difference that I am no socialist. Taro

To: American Spirit who wrote (256269)	10/19/2005 6:00:31 AM
From: Elroy	Respond to of 1572629

You don't even know the XXOM numbers, do you, other than $40 billion "last year" Looking on a StockVal system, here's XXOM's net income for the past few years. 2004 = $25.3B 2003 = $21.5B 2002 = $11.5B (I think Bush was in power this year) 2001 = $15.2B 2000 = $17.7B (I think Clinton was the man this year) StockVal also indicates operating margins approximately as follows: 2004 = 15% 2002 = 10% 2001 = 14% 1999 = 7% in 2003 ann 2000 it was moving from one level to the other (ie, in 2003 moving from ~10% to ~15%. Now given that MSFT, CSCO, INTC, QCOM, LLTC, ADI and a host of other tech companies all have operating margins which are consistently above 20%, how can XXOM be gouging consumers when it is less profitable per dollar sold than those other companies? If you have another hyperactive anti-big-oil, anti-Bush rant please direct it at Ted for his reading pleasure. If you got any better explanation of how you reached your views, go ahead.