PetroChina Co. Ltd. (PTR)
Loading...
Symbols:
PTR Forum Topics
- All Comments on PTR
- General Discussion on PTR
- The Chinese Oil Problem [view article]
- Options Trader: Tuesday Outlook [view article]
- Largest Companies in the World [view article]
- Houston to Obama: Smell the Oil [view article]
- Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [view article]
- Jim Cramer's Mad Money Lightning Round: 1/30/08: FLEX Your Muscles [view article]
- PetroChina Gets Green Light To Trade Carbon Indicators [view article]
- Options Trader: Thursday Outlook [view article]
- Hedge Fund Tracking: Tremblant Capital [view article]
- Ten High Yielding China Stocks [view article]
- China ADRs: Mixed July [view article]
- Stagflation and Peak Oil: How Related Are They? (Part II) [view article]
loading ...Recent PTR Articles
- The Chinese Oil Problem
- Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News
- Largest Companies in the World
- Options Trader: Tuesday Outlook
- Petrochina To Buy 50% Stake in CNPC for $11.8B
- PetroChina Gets Green Light To Trade Carbon Indicators
- Options Trader: Thursday Outlook
- Hedge Fund Tracking: Tremblant Capital
- Ten High Yielding China Stocks
- Houston to Obama: Smell the Oil
- Full List of Articles »
Trading Center
Hedge Fund Jobs
Job Seekers: Search jobs by category, get job alerts by email or live feed, apply online See full list of jobs »
Employers: See all recruitment options, get applications online or by email Post a job »
2
Houston to Obama: Smell the Oil [view article]
Government keep your paws off the market, and our money. No tax / Free Market It works!!! Reply2
Houston to Obama: Smell the Oil [view article]
Windfall Profit Tax, what a joke. Osama, Nancy, and the rest of the Dem's must sit around smoken weed to come up with these bright ideas. I'll say it plain, and simple. Democrats=Communist. Anyone that votes for any of them deserve everything they will no doubt get. If you vote these pipe dreamers out of office, you might see a real CHANGE. A change for the better for this country, which means the stock market also. Do you want to be taxed 40% on what you might gain from your stock trades, when it is you that take all the risk, and they do nothing. Oh yeah, I forgot, they are only trying to protect us from taking a risk by making this tax higher. We are to stupid to decide if we are at risk by making trades in less than a year. I have a copy of Mao's little red book if anyone is interested. I think thats where Osama, and his gang get the base for their new Change they plan for us. ReplyTen High Yielding China Stocks [view article]
NTE (semi) has a yield of 8.2% ReplyHouston to Obama: Smell the Oil [view article]
forwoodenboats,Sorry for the delay...was a bit busy.
In your second to last comment you raise the issue that I used the term 'windfall profits tax' instead of 'excess profit tax'. In your last comment, you correctly mention that 'excess profit tax' is related to an occurrence such as war and all those that benefited (beyond the norm) from the occurrence.
Yes, this is what the article is about as well. Some Democrats are mixing the two terms together, while pitching to the public the term 'windfall profits tax'. My article allures to the correct usage and spells out clearly the yardstick used to determine if there are windfall profits or not.
What is interesting is that 'excess profits' is not measured by net margins, rather by total gross profit (the big number syndrome) in relation to the peacetime period directly preceding the war. Again, I hear Senator Obama constantly talking about 'windfall profits' and then giving an 'excess profits' explanation.
There are two different avenues that are taken in the process of passing either windfall or excess. Mixing the two together may be more popular with the public but is very misleading.
First, with windfall, you can not redistribute the tax to the general public. The tax is justified in the first place because of lack of efficiency and to create competition. I won't go as far as calling it a hoax, but if the next president were to tie the two together, meaning a windfall tax and a redistribution to tax payers, this could be grounds for impeachment and I'm not kidding. Obviously this couldn't happen as it would be stopped in Congress.
Second, the fact that there is a redistribution call connected to the 'tax' is proof on its own that the 'tax' is excess. That would be legal. The only fly in the ointment is how to legally impose an excess tax only on the companies that you want to 'hit' without 'hitting' everyone?
'Windfall' is company specific whereas 'excess' is event related.
As for the 'excess' logic in the first place, I'm not going to rehash here the old Dem-Republican arguments for and against. Be it suffice to say that we will always disagree on the principle, but only when a true scenario exists. Being that this is NOT the case today, de-facto we are in agreement.
As an aside, this whole episode could very well be a message to big oil not to back the Republican candidate too strongly using the 'windfall' 'company specific' message!
Oh politics...what an evil web we weave! Reply
ts
Houston to Obama: Smell the Oil [view article]
Thanks for the links, Saul.It appears there was, during times of war - 1st enacted in 1863 by the Confederate Army (Slave Owning Southern Democrats, what a surprise!) - and the government later experimented with taxing companies who were either profiteering off the war(s) or at other times when an entity was making in excess of a set standard, neither of which are relevant in this case.
The government has not set a standard for excess profits, so they have no standing to use that as a reason. Indeed, there are many companies and individuals which operate on a much higher margin - look at the gain in income percentage for the Obamas and Clintons lately - Both O and Ms O had their income increase over 100% in one year, Mr. C suddenly made 20 million for God knows what in Dubai, and where in the world did Ms C pop up with 5 million to lend her campaign on her salary?
In short, the Excess Profit Tax did not set a precedent for attacking one industry whilst leaving other, more profitable industries alone when it was in effect (AFAIK), and there is no EPT in this country at this time.
I look forward to the rest of your answers - especially if you care to address the obvious market manipulation factors.
Whether this market manipulation is strictly for political power plays, fame or for fortune could be considered irrelevant, as it is without a doubt intended to interfere with and harm the oil companies, and the American Citizens (and maybe even some Citizens of the World) who own them. Reply
Houston to Obama: Smell the Oil [view article]
forwoodenboats,Short reply re:source now, the rest later.
Source:
1) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
2) www.answers.com/topic/...
3) financial-dictionary.t...
4) www.britannica.com/EBc...
"a tax levied on profits in excess of a stipulated standard of “normal” income. There are two principles governing the determination of excess profits. One, known as the war-profits principle, is designed to recapture wartime increases in income over normal peacetime profits of the taxpayer. The other, identified as the high-profits principle, is based on income in excess of some statutory rate of return on invested capital." Reply
ts
Houston to Obama: Smell the Oil [view article]
Saul, while I appreciate you taking the time to explain yourself, I am still completely at odds with your position on "windfall taxes", or whatever you want to call them.The context the term is being used in by Hillary, Obama, and the vast majority of the Democrat party is one of confiscation of capital and of nationalization of refineries.
This is exactly what Communist leaders like Hugo Chavez and totalitarian dictators such as Saddam Hussein have done. I don't know if Castro had an oil well or refinery, but he "freed" his people of their possesions as soon as he had the political power to do so.
If you want to take the time to give a dissertation on the semantics of the name these politicians have affixed to confiscating personal property, have at it.
You say "Windfall profit tax" is an incorrect term, yet it is the one you used, and in the same context as the one the D candidates and both D sides of their respective houses of congress are using to demonize American companies, affix the blame for the current crisis on these companies when it is and was clearly the fault of the democrat leadership that caused this shortage, then add insult to injury by trying to raise political capital from this heinous deceit by confiscating American Investor held funds, and redistribute them as political gifts to potential voters in the heat of a presidential election.
Can you not see where arbitrarily suggesting that one oil industry company might be ripe for a windfall profit tax in the heated environment caused by these 2 pandering candidates and thier majority collegues might result in a clubbing?
BTW, please quote your source for "excess profit tax being reserved for wartime, etc." Reply
Houston to Obama: Smell the Oil [view article]
As allured to in this article, by defining incorrectly (or leaving it in vague terms), the term "windfall profit taxes" are being misused by politicians in order to create their own war chest or perhaps worse.See: online.wsj.com/article...
The American public needs to be educated about this and understand the difference between 'excise tax', 'excess profit tax', ('windfall tax' - non U.S. term - which is the Government giving back!) and 'windfall profit tax'. The term 'windfall profit tax' has been misused many times.
The Carter (1980) "windfall profit tax" as it was called was NOT a windfall profit tax at all! It was an excise tax. Today people are confusing this with 'excess profit tax'. In other words, Senator Obama is using the term incorrectly when talking about a 'windfall profits tax' when he really means to say an 'excess profits tax'. The latter is reserved for wartime etc. Reply
Houston to Obama: Smell the Oil [view article]
forwoodenboats,Thank you for clarifying your first comment with the last. There seems to be a disconnect between the meaning of capitalism and state run communism.
Monopolies are the mantra of communism. Free competition is the norm for capitalism. A windfall profits tax is not a dirty word in capitalism IF and WHEN used correctly and for the purpose that capitalism intended it for.
Whenever competition is stifled, this occurring for any number of reasons, inevitably the first symptom is obscene profit margins. Not all abnormal net margins dictate an underlying monopolistic structure, as most are not. However, it needs to be scrutinized.
There are several ways to 'break up' a monopoly so that we DON'T become a communist style economy. One of them is applying a windfall profits tax to the monopoly and assisting the future competition either directly with the proceeds or through indirect methods.
Throughout the entire article, including the quote in your second comment, the analysis is linked to COMPETITION, as in - no monopoly.
You would be correct had you said that this is NOT what you have been hearing from Senator Obama. My opening paragraph spells this out. The fact that I am being polite and not calling Senator Obama all sorts of names does not detract from the essence of the article where I clearly explain what a 'kosher' application of the windfall tax would be TO PROTECT CAPITALISM.
Also, note that I have intentionally not gone into the argument whether or not windfall tax methods actually work as compared to a break-up when necessary.
The bottom line is that just like XOM, CVX and COP are not even close to being monopolies, RIG when looked at on a global basis is far from one as well. There is no reason to intervene regardless of method as they do NOT pose a threat to CAPITALISM.
As an aside, there is no concept of 'windfall taxes' in a communist or totalitarian regime. The monopoly is owned by the state or party. Think about it.
Saul Reply
China ADRs: Mixed July [view article]
I should have mentioned JASO which also reports this week. It was recently given a new buy recommendation. Also SOL has steadily moved up from a 2 star CAPS rating to a 5 star CAPS rating. It should do well. ReplyChina ADRs: Mixed July [view article]
Both LDK and CSIQ report earnings this week (8/11/08-8/15/08). Other solar stocks report the next week such as SOL, STP, and TSL (perhaps others also). After the big down movement recently, I think we can expect an up movement over the next couple of weeks from these stocks. Virtually all should report great earnings. Hopefully LDK will report some positive guidance about their polysilicone plant also. The ones will great multiples seem likely to move up substanitally. This would include LDK, SOL, CSIQ, and TSL. LDK's movement will likely be dependent on its margins and its guidance about the two polysilicone plants it is building. The others should all move up on great results. The highest rated ones should move up more easily. The average analyst ratings for the latter three stocks are: SOL (1.8), CSIQ (2.0), and TSL (2.3). The FPE's are: SOL (6.88), CSIQ (7.40), and TSL (6.23). It looks like there is likely some room for these stocks to move up. They all have low PEG ratios, especially when compared to FSLR (which has moved down after its great earnings). FSLR's PEG ratio is currently 1.29. FSLR's FPE is 37.54 (even after the great earnings). The PEG ratios of the others are: LDK (.34), SOL (.26), CSIQ (.39), and TSL(.28). I think you can see where these other solar stocks may behave differently than FSLR at this point in time. Of course, there is still the possible headwind of oil prices continuing to go down. Replyts
Houston to Obama: Smell the Oil [view article]
Saul, you wrote what you wanted to say, which was"Pundits are likely to conclude that there is room here for a windfall tax and I would be inclined to agree. Obviously, there is not enough competition in the rig business."
By your OWN words, you clearly buy the "windfall profits tax" scam, AND state a sample of the criteria by which this confiscation would be found agreeable.
There's nothing opaque with your writing, you're just in the wrong country is all. You should be writing for Pravda, or some other government nationalized rag. Reply
Houston to Obama: Smell the Oil [view article]
forwodenboats,Can someone please take the time and explain to forwodenboats my article. Apparently my writing skills are inadequate.
1) No one is picking 'a company'. The Dem/Republican argument was stated fair and balanced, Dem's being: monopoly intervention etc.
2) High net margins are a symptom calling for further diagnosis.
3) Article concludes that though it may smell like a monopoly, RIG is not a true monopoly, more in line with the drug industry...new technology etc.
4) RIG needs to establish itself before we "wake up to a new crude reality" as in 'supply side' state owned competitors that will change RIG's landscape (or is that oceanscape!).
Perhaps if someone could summarize the article in a few sentences using your own words, perhaps forwoodenboats and others will understand why I say we need to keep a watchful eye on RIG, but by no means kill it!
It appears to me that some readers are accustomed to reading articles that present a single side of an argument and are lost when both sides are presented in an abbreviated fashion. To complicate matters, I tend not to delve into secondary outcomes and stick to the primary basis of the logic on each side. Not to say that I can't do it, but who wants to read a ten page article? I don't!
Thanks,
Saul Reply
Houston to Obama: Smell the Oil [view article]
paulk8756,Thank you. Reply
ts
Houston to Obama: Smell the Oil [view article]
Saul, you start off with some good points, but then you pick a company that you do think would be eligible for "windfall taxes", i.e., confiscation of personal property without just compensation.WTH gives you the right to judge who's property gets confiscated, the right to arbitrarily concoct a formula based on your personal whim, and the authority to discern it's relative morality?
We know why the odd couple of Hillary & Obama (for clarity purposes, we'll just refer to them as "HO") want to confiscate money from the shareholders of energy companies and gift it to people who didn't earn it --> HO wants to buy voters with other people's money.
This isn't anything new, and if HO can get away with it now, HO's tentacles will pillage any company, anytime, for no other reason than the company these shareholders invested their hard earned after tax dollars survived the competition, the military attacks on equipement and personel such as those ongoing in Nigeria & the ME, and the childish whims and pandering of Democrat Socialists in Congress.
Were you to be put in charge of deciding which shareholders to attack, who would be the next 1,000 or so companies would you deem meets your criteria to pillage after RIM?
If HO is going to send a gift wrapped $1,000 to every middle class & below resident paid for by a shareholder, you're going to have to extend this out WAY past the oil industry.
For instance, Chevron (CVX), of which both my son and I are investors in, only has 215,000 shareholders. They had a relatively good 2nd quarter, even if they are down 15% since the talk of confiscating - or in the words of Maxine Waters - "Socialising, Nationalizing" gained steam. If you confiscate 1 HO present from each shareholder, that's going to be a drop in the bucket!<p>
Why, for HO to be successful, you'd need 1,000 compaines the size of Chevron, and there's only 3 in the US that are larger - what are you going to do? What ARE you going to do?
Just do me a favor, Saul. When you and HO decide how many vote buying HO gifts my son and I are going to have to pay for, can you at least send me a little picture of where my HO gifts went, what country they're from, and which HO member campaigns they donated my HO gift to? Reply