Therion: It's okay, they'll get significant tax breaks to make up the difference.

This.

...What I've never quite understood is how companies can announce quarterly incomes that rival or exceed that of quite a few nations, and then be told what screwups they are, how the company is in mortal peril, and how the CEO is gonna have to take a hike (after getting an appreciable fraction of that money that wasn't enough in the first place, of course).

From the FINE earnings statement:
Income tax: $4.6B (8.3%)
Revenues: $55.7 B

The execs must be laughing at Mitt Romney's 14% tax rate.

Omnivorous: From the FINE earnings statement:
Income tax: $4.6B (8.3%)
Revenues: $55.7 B

The execs must be laughing at Mitt Romney's 14% tax rate.

You think corporate income taxes should be based on revenue?

AtlanticCoast63: ...What I've never quite understood is how companies can announce quarterly incomes that rival or exceed that of quite a few nations, and then be told what screwups they are, how the company is in mortal peril, and how the CEO is gonna have to take a hike (after getting an appreciable fraction of that money that wasn't enough in the first place, of course).

Because the company is judged on how they performed against expectations and not just how large they are. A huge company (like Chevron) will have many investors who are choosing to put their money in it versus other potential institutions. The fact that they return a large dollar amount means nothing to those individual investors who are really more concerned with their marginal return.

By your logic, virtually all large companies will always perform well regardless of the amount of investment required.

"I will require oil companies to take a reasonable share of their record-breaking windfall profits and use it to provide direct relief worth $500 for an individual and $1,000 for a married couple. The relief would be delivered as quickly as possible to help families cope with the rising price of gasoline, food and other necessities. The rebates would be fully paid for with five years of a windfall profits tax on record oil company profits." - Barack Obama 2008

Promise - broken

p.s. - Three budget plans, no proposals for windfall profits tax, promise broken Updated: Wednesday, March 16th, 2011

AtlanticCoast63: ...What I've never quite understood is how companies can announce quarterly incomes that rival or exceed that of quite a few nations, and then be told what screwups they are, how the company is in mortal peril, and how the CEO is gonna have to take a hike (after getting an appreciable fraction of that money that wasn't enough in the first place, of course).

Because their costs are about $225 billion a year. It's entirely plausible that they could make more money scuttling the company and investing somewhere else. Remember, it's the rate, not the amount.

This is nothing at all to do with world supply and demand leading to high oil prices.

It's all down to Obama and subsidies.

Got it.

"Sorry to hear that, buddy."

As a Chevron shareholder I am not amused by this. You know having lost a ton of paper money in the value of the stock that is.

Why aren't left-tards outraged about Apple's or Cocal-Cola's profits?

manfriend: Why aren't left-tards outraged about Apple's or Cocal-Cola's profits?

Let me know when the entire world economy depends on coke and apple

Munchausen's Proxy: $5 billion on $56 billion in revenue? 9% margins are pretty tight, regardless of the volume

This!

/Though it won't matter.

//Why aren't the libs complaining about Apple, with much higher margins on way larger sales volume? On products mostly outsourced to China, no less? Boggles the imagination.

rosemary's baby daddy: As a Chevron shareholder I am not amused by this. You know having lost a ton of paper money in the value of the stock that is.

And this is even before the loss from the recent Richmond fire are added in. Chevron's going to take a bath on that one; the citizens and workers are tired of the refinery blowing up once a decade or so.

MurphyMurphy: Anyone mention they could probably use a bit more subsidies yet?

Protip to morons like you who know nothing about business:

If subsidies go away, profit margin stays the same and gas prices go up. Do you want to pay more or less for gas?

On top of that, you probably don't actually pay taxes, which means rich people are being taxed to lower prices on YOUR gas.

Why do you hate rich people saving you money?

AtlanticCoast63: ...What I've never quite understood is how companies can announce quarterly incomes that rival or exceed that of quite a few nations, and then be told what screwups they are, how the company is in mortal peril, and how the CEO is gonna have to take a hike (after getting an appreciable fraction of that money that wasn't enough in the first place, of course).

Because profit margins are so low in oil/gas that you could make more money doing other things with it. Like selling iPhones.

karl2025: AtlanticCoast63: ...What I've never quite understood is how companies can announce quarterly incomes that rival or exceed that of quite a few nations, and then be told what screwups they are, how the company is in mortal peril, and how the CEO is gonna have to take a hike (after getting an appreciable fraction of that money that wasn't enough in the first place, of course).

Because their costs are about $225 billion a year. It's entirely plausible that they could make more money scuttling the company and investing somewhere else. Remember, it's the rate, not the amount.

But some retarded liberal told me RECORD BREAKING PROFITS.

What's that? Inflation means profits are always record breaking if the company doesn't screw up?

Oh.

Munchausen's Proxy: $5 billion on $56 billion in revenue? 9% margins are pretty tight, regardless of the volume

Oil is usually between 8% and 9%.

HP was considering closing down their PC division because it couldn't break 10%.

Apple makes north of 30%.

Stopped by for the 'b.. but margins!' white knighting, leaving satisfied.

AtlanticCoast63: ...What I've never quite understood is how companies can announce quarterly incomes that rival or exceed that of quite a few nations, and then be told what screwups they are, how the company is in mortal peril, and how the CEO is gonna have to take a hike (after getting an appreciable fraction of that money that wasn't enough in the first place, of course).

I was going to go with snark, but I'll take you at your word that you're generally confused. To over simplify things:

Chevron has about 2 billion outstanding shares, worth a total of around $213 billion. The vast majority of the company (about 2/3) is owned by mutual funds and pensions (so, basically, retirement funds). No individual owns more than 76,794 shares of the stock (a little shy of $8 million, or well, less than 0.004% of the company).

The company has $224 billion a year in revenue with a net of $24 billion for the year as total profit, or just over 10%.

By comparison, Apple (APPL) has $550 billion in outstanding stock, sold $154 billion in revenue with about $42 billion in total profit, or about a 27% profit margin.

Now, the people who are complaining don't own $224 billion worth of Chevron stock. They own a tiny percentage of it, probably a typical investor may own a few hundred to a few thousand dollars of Chevron stock. They may be happy with the 10% profit margin because they see it as a more stable industry than, say, the high tech sectors (where Apple's profit margin isn't out of wack) but if that dips down to, say, 8% then they're not making money.

People tend to look at the big number and say, "Chevron made $5 billion dollars, that's too much money" as though Chevron is a person or something. It's odd to have to say this but companies aren't people. They are, however, made up of tens of thousands of people, each of whom has a tiny share of the whole, which is why looking it in terms of a percentage and not a raw number is the only way to make sense of the thing.

As the CEO of chevron, I'm really getting a kick out of these posts.