Seeking Alpha

charliezap

charliezap
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View charliezap's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Why This Oil Giant Is Tried And True [View article]
    So what do I think about Valuentum's analysis? Since XOM is probably in the top ten regarding number of shareholders among all companies, I think the article was just a puff piece to draw attention to the Valuentum website.
    Jul 3 12:54 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why This Oil Giant Is Tried And True [View article]
    @ mjb0909 (has yet to provide a bio).

    Boy! Something sure got you stirred up! Not sure exactly what, as there is not a single mention of OBAMA in my post above. My comment was about economists and some people who pretend to be economists. You might want to go back and re-read it.

    By the way, I did make a comment on what you call "Valuontum's [sic] fine analysis". I said in effect (see above) that on the basis of P/E, forward P/E, yield, PEG ratio, and EV/EBITDA, that XOM was a poor choice versus its peers -- BP, COP, CVX and RDS. I also said that the mean consensus target price of 18 analysts who do this stuff for a living was $100 per share. Valuentum's $90 value is derived from sensitive assumptions about growth rate, discount rate, cost of capital, terminal value, etc, and is the mid-point of a $72-$108 range. XOM closed today at $101.57. What is it in Valuentum's analysis that prompts you to say that "XOM [is] perhaps on their way to record shareholder values"? What if it goes to $72.

    Plus, sticking to the stock market, did you know this?

    When GW Bush was inaugurated in 2001, the Dow was at 10587.60.

    When Barack Obama was was inaugurated in 2009, the Dow was at 7949.10, a 24.9% decline from inauguration day 2001.

    Now the Dow is at 16976, a 113.5% increase from inauguration day 2009.

    I've heard also that there was a rip-roaring bull market during the (Bill) Clinton years. I'm not a big Hilary fan, but maybe she can continue the tradition!

    http://tinyurl.com/3se...
    Jul 3 12:29 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Are Exxon Mobil's Dividends Sustainable? [View article]
    Silly question!
    Jul 2 10:41 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Why This Oil Giant Is Tried And True [View article]
    Agreed!
    Jul 2 10:26 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why This Oil Giant Is Tried And True [View article]
    veritas, re economists, they may not always be precisely right in their forecasts, but, in my observation, they make better forecasts than say, medical doctors, lawyers, politicians, and most of the denizens of this website.

    Of course, there are economists, and there are charlatans who call themselves economists. It is the charlatans who give economists a bad name.

    Example: the so-called supply-siders, led by Arthur Laffer, who advised Reagan on the tax cuts that were implemented in the 1980's. They told Reagan that the tax cuts would produce additional revenue through economic growth. Unfortunately, that did not happen. The Reagan tax cuts produced massive deficits that were not eliminated until the later years of the Clinton administration.

    Example: the GW Bush advisers, Glenn Hubbard and Larry Lindsey, proposed tax cuts that were supposed to promote growth and raise tax revenues. Growth came in the form of the housing bubble, which was unsustainable. After housing collapsed, we had the Great Recession. The national debt doubled during GW Bush's stint in office. (But Dick Cheney famously said: "Deficits don't matter." And Larry Lindsey was kicked out when he suggested that the Iraq war might cost more than the $100 billion projected by the Bush administration. A recent Reuters article puts the cost of the Iraq war at over $2 trillion!)

    For more on charlatans, see a recent column by Paul Krugman:

    http://nyti.ms/1iWISHU
    Jul 2 12:32 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Why This Oil Giant Is Tried And True [View article]
    Ratios of rumors to actual acquisitions is about 1000 to 1.
    Jun 30 08:26 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Why This Oil Giant Is Tried And True [View article]
    Not sure how the headline relates to the article. FWIW, the consensus mean target price of 18 analysts (Yahoo) is 100, still below the current price.

    In your table of valuation metrics, XOM is at a premium to its peers on virtually every indicator -- P/E, forward P/E, yield, PEG ratio, EV/EBITDA, etc. Also, estimated 5-year growth rates are higher for the other companies (Thomson/Reuters has 8.3% gowth rate for BP, not negative as in this table).

    XOM has been ultra conservative in its investment spending over the past 15 years, and has probably spent more buying back stock than on new exploration and production ventures. Will this conservatism lead to a downward re-rating of XOM relative to peers in coming years?
    Jun 30 09:14 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why Bank Of America's Fair Value Is $19 [View article]
    @diction, yeah, let's get back to sub-prime mortgages for all, to liar loans, failed mortgage companies, and Wall Street cowboys. Just like the GW Bush years!
    Jun 29 08:16 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Report: Oil going through distillation tower not impacted by crude export ban [View news story]
    """Why do we need oil anyway?"""

    Your comment is not worthy of comment.
    Jun 29 08:10 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Report: Oil going through distillation tower not impacted by crude export ban [View news story]
    See my comment above. XL and Bakken will create jobs. Have you looked at job growth in North Dakota, and the low unemployment rate there?
    Jun 29 08:08 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Report: Oil going through distillation tower not impacted by crude export ban [View news story]
    gespect, from your comments, you seem pretty uninformed.

    1. The reason for higher gasoline prices in Europe has nothing to do with monopolies. The same major companies operate there as in the USA -- Shell, Exxon, Chevron, BP. The reason for higher gasoline prices in Europe is that excise taxes at the pump are much higher. Without the taxes, gas prices are about the same.
    http://1.usa.gov/1lp9lsk
    http://1.usa.gov/1lp9iNg

    2. The Keystone XL pipeline will bring another source of supply to the Gulf Coast refineries. This Canadian oil will compete with imported heavy oil from Venezuela, with declining production from Mexico, and with Saudi heavy oil, and with Nigerian oil, all of which are currently used as feedstock for these complex refineries. In Econ 101, I learned that supply competition lowers prices. As a resident of the Northeast US, I expect lower prices, if and when XL is built, as Gulf refineries ship their products to the New York area via the Colonial Pipeline.

    Opposition to the XL pipeline is economically irrational and is driven by environmentalists who simply oppose any new fossil fuel project, even though it is totally unrealistic to expect so-called "renewable" fuels to replace fossil fuels as time soon. There are already over 2,000 pipelines that criss-cross the USA. Normally, federal approval is not required for these pipelines, but XL does, since it crosses an international border. This has, unfortunately, brought the issue into the political arena. The State Department has already declared that the XL pipeline will have minimal envionmental impact. The Obama administration should approve it ASAP!

    PS: Pipelines are an infinitely safer form of oil transportation than trains. If the pipeline is not built, we will just see more and more trainloads, which do not require federal approval.
    Jun 29 08:01 AM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Report: Oil going through distillation tower not impacted by crude export ban [View news story]
    Retired, yours is one of the very few knowledgeable comments on this article. Virtually all of the others, including the Charlie Munger link, are either emotional, ignorant, politically partisan, or shoot first and think later.
    Jun 27 10:09 PM | 6 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why Bank Of America's Fair Value Is $19 [View article]
    """Do you remember who created low yield environment which twisted lending business?"""

    Yes, the Federal Reserve, a so-called independent government agency, created the low yield environment, first, from 2002 to 2004, when Alan Greenspan, appointed by Reagan, held rates below inflation to boost GW Bush's chances of re-election. The free money from the Greenspan effort essentially provided the fuel that fired the housing bubble.

    Then Bernanke, originally appointed by GW Bush, held rates low following the 2008-2009 financial crisis. Where exactly does Obama get into the act?

    """I do not blame Obama for everything, however I have never seen him objecting to this wrong doing."""

    You probably havn't been paying attention. However, whenever Obama criticizes bankers, Republicans attack him for being "anti-business".

    As for Fannie and Freddie, not only were they late to the sub-prime party, but they were were taken over by the Federal government in September 2008, while GW Bush was still in office. (BTW: Credit Suisse developed the first CDO back in 2000.)
    Jun 27 07:12 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why Bank Of America's Fair Value Is $19 [View article]
    """They abused the system because of Obama."""

    Puhl . . eeze! Lets stick to the facts and cut the propaganda. Obama did not invent sub-prime mortgage lending -- it was Wall Street. The mortgage brokers (New Century Financial, WaMu, Countrywide) originated the loans and Wall Street (Goldman Sachs, Bear Stearns, Lehman, Merrill, etc) bought them and passed the defective goods on to investors around the globe -- S&P's insane AAA ratings helped, of course. The Federal Reserve had the power to regulate mortgages, but chose to stand aside, with Alan Greenspan later saying that he believed the free market would correct any excesses. He later admitted that he was wrong.

    All of this took place in the years leading up to the financial collapse in 2008 -- the GW Bush years, remember? -- Obama was only inaugurated in 2009, and his administration had to come in and sort out the mess.
    Jun 27 02:05 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • BP: A Possible Tax Inversion Takeover Target [View article]
    Won't happen. You'll see.
    Jun 24 12:10 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
1,175 Comments
1,651 Likes