End of an Era?

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

The parent site Had this to say about Exxon getting kicked out of the DJIA

Other sites like World Oil had longer more sanguine articles but other than environmentalist glee, what are the ramifications of a super major getting bounced from the Dow average where it has been for almost a century? 

One immediate effect will be the further erosion of its valuation, the vaunted dividend might well be history and future investments in peril. The conceit of the greens is that all of this "stuff" will magically disappear, replaced by pixie dust and fairy farts powering our society. By certain means, including but not limited to activists forcing investment funds (in which they were microscopic participants) to divest from fossil fuel, the ability of retail investors to pick up that slack is impossible. So you have trillion dollar funds trying to dump shares all at the same time, with no counter party able and willing to purchase those shares. A guaranteed recipe for devaluation, as we've observed.

Given that these greenies are all related, and working in concert to achieve their ends one would think we have an open and shut case of stock market manipulation, in plain sight. But the ability of the SEC to see the noses on their faces is already suspect, and this would require both intellect and imagination, two things sorely lacking there. After all, people pointed out to them that Bernie Madoff was running a ponzi scheme for decades and they were still, "shocked, shocked, that gambling was going on here". 

Going forward, even the "robot" funds that only invest in indexes will avoid Exxon now, since they no longer meet the criterion.  I'm curious if Exxon's management can dig their way out of this mess. Chevron has done an excellent job of genuflecting to the greens, kissing their respective posteriors and I'm guessing they've even paid tribute to BLM (not Bureau of Land Management). Because this is the new normal. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

Bawahahah! Yes it is the end of an era, as I have been telling you all, oil is over! You lose because you have inferior economics.

Edited August 25, 2020 by Jay McKinsey

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

3 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

Given that these greenies are all related, and working in concert to achieve their ends one would think we have an open and shut case of stock market manipulation, in plain sight.

Only a nut job would think that you have a case against the figment of your imagination.

 

The conspiracy theories around here are nuts.... Clearly the Dems, greenies, CCP, BLM, are the same people.  Their highly sophisticated operation has now destabilized wall street!.

Good grief.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

The story is that computers are bigger than oil.

No green movements or BLM tribute, that is all made up in Ward fractured mind. 

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

"The value of a thing is what that thing will bring".

If you believe in free-market economics, and you believe the stock market is a free market, then the price of the stock reflects what the buyers think the value is. This factors in all of the factors that all of the buyers consider. For things like hard goods, this can include advertizing, perceived quality, and perceived stability of the manufacturer. If a stock is "undervalued" by some buyer's evaluation, that buyer will buy. How is this different for Exxon than it is for any other company?

If you think it's undervalued, then buy. If you have deep pockets and you think the uninformed herd is stupid, you can make a killing, right? Buyers like the Koch brothers or the Saudi sovereign wealth fund are unlikely to be swayed by silly greenie arguments.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

3 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Bawahahah! Yes it is the end of an era, as I have been telling you all, oil is over! You lose because you have inferior economics.

The consumers lose because of Green economics. Fossil fuels are going to dominate the world's energy supply for decades. 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

45 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

"The value of a thing is what that thing will bring".

If you believe in free-market economics, and you believe the stock market is a free market, then the price of the stock reflects what the buyers think the value is. This factors in all of the factors that all of the buyers consider. For things like hard goods, this can include advertizing, perceived quality, and perceived stability of the manufacturer. If a stock is "undervalued" by some buyer's evaluation, that buyer will buy. How is this different for Exxon than it is for any other company?

If you think it's undervalued, then buy. If you have deep pockets and you think the uninformed herd is stupid, you can make a killing, right? Buyers like the Koch brothers or the Saudi sovereign wealth fund are unlikely to be swayed by silly greenie arguments.

What makes you think this is a free market? The stock market used to be a free market But activists learned how to game the system. Something similar happened in Japan decades ago, but then it was only a shakedown of the major companies who paid off the activists so they wouldn't disrupt annual shareholder meetings. They'd literally buy a single share so they could legally attend, just to disrupt the proceedings. The other thing activists have been doing is attacking the investment firms themselves, even when they can't come close to affording to be involved. Those investment firm employees don't like activists spitting on them any more than anyone else does. Easier to just give in. 

Now, could I bet against this? Sure, but I know better than to play a rigged game where true market forces don't apply. As it is, I got out of the market almost completely back in January, pretty much at the top. I'm not doing a thing until after the election at least. 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

The so called economists here don't understand why having a $47 Trillion thumb on the scales Destroys any illusion of a free market.

I'm reminded of avid sports fans who have such ideological blinders on they don't even comprehend when the refs are totally cheating on behalf of their team. This also plays in the political party realm where leftists can't even comprehend that the MSM is totally biased in their favor. It's gotten to the point that if someone screws up in the MSM and accidentally tells the truth, the leftists scream bloody murder. 

[Rob Kramer + 696]

1 hour ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

"The value of a thing is what that thing will bring".

If you believe in free-market economics, and you believe the stock market is a free market, then the price of the stock reflects what the buyers think the value is. This factors in all of the factors that all of the buyers consider. For things like hard goods, this can include advertizing, perceived quality, and perceived stability of the manufacturer. If a stock is "undervalued" by some buyer's evaluation, that buyer will buy. How is this different for Exxon than it is for any other company?

If you think it's undervalued, then buy. If you have deep pockets and you think the uninformed herd is stupid, you can make a killing, right? Buyers like the Koch brothers or the Saudi sovereign wealth fund are unlikely to be swayed by silly greenie arguments.

I used to believe in free markets but now I see everything is manipulated.  That being said the manipulation is won by the greatest $$$ behind it. So majority of stock buyers will not fight the manipulation and by going with it have added to its strength. After the worst oil crash in history it's somewhat logical to think oil stocks could be down. Keep in mind I've traded only oil and nat gas for last 2 years. It's also logical the average investor doesn't do much due diligence.  Especially when it's on the government benefits dime. In Canada naked short positions are real and multiple firms and banks can gang up on stocks . Its dog eat dog not Patriots investing locally. Long story short watch your back . Buy stocks that can NCIB (buy back) their stock from cash positions to protect investors. You mentioned the saudi fund or koch's... they can use their funds to short companies make a killing on the way down weaken opponents and then invest and ride the wave back up. So just because there are big funds out there and deals on the market doesnt mean it equals a buy. If that was the case price to earnings would never dip below 'x' say 10x . But in 2019 my PXT was 3B$ debt free earned 300M$ USD/year and 300M in usd cash 11 years reserves.  KL gold was 12B$ debt free earned 300M$ USD/year 500million$ cash and 5.5 years reserves of gold. So 2 almost identical mining companies one oil one gold x4 spread in value. I held the position of reason that PXT double and KL half and they meet in the middle .... let's just say PXT has dropped considerably (almost recovered) and KL has rocketed ... to be fair earnings for 2020 will be equal or higher for gold and lower for oil so theres still logic . So after all that said I think like investors have rushed into already pricey gold companies the effect will be great when beaten down oil stocks get rushed into when oil rises..... unless 2021 kicks 2019's trend of total energy use being 80% fossil fuels .... but with daily power burn at 45BCF/D of nat gas and 99% of transportation oil based in 2020... it seems 100% on trend with 2019. 

Edited August 25, 2020 by Rob Kramer

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

47 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

What makes you think this is a free market? The stock market used to be a free market But activists learned how to game the system. Something similar happened in Japan decades ago, but then it was only a shakedown of the major companies who paid off the activists so they wouldn't disrupt annual shareholder meetings. They'd literally buy a single share so they could legally attend, just to disrupt the proceedings. The other thing activists have been doing is attacking the investment firms themselves, even when they can't come close to affording to be involved. Those investment firm employees don't like activists spitting on them any more than anyone else does. Easier to just give in. 

Now, could I bet against this? Sure, but I know better than to play a rigged game where true market forces don't apply. As it is, I got out of the market almost completely back in January, pretty much at the top. I'm not doing a thing until after the election at least. 

I did not say that I think the market is free. When an extrinsic event (COVID-19) crashed the world's Gross "Domestic" Product by 50% and it is not reflected in the market, It becomes clear that the market is completely decoupled from any sort of underlying value. But if this is true, the price of Exxon stock is not a meaningful number, either.

[SUZNV + 1,197]

7 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

The parent site Had this to say about Exxon getting kicked out of the DJIA

Other sites like World Oil had longer more sanguine articles but other than environmentalist glee, what are the ramifications of a super major getting bounced from the Dow average where it has been for almost a century? 

One immediate effect will be the further erosion of its valuation, the vaunted dividend might well be history and future investments in peril. The conceit of the greens is that all of this "stuff" will magically disappear, replaced by pixie dust and fairy farts powering our society. By certain means, including but not limited to activists forcing investment funds (in which they were microscopic participants) to divest from fossil fuel, the ability of retail investors to pick up that slack is impossible. So you have trillion dollar funds trying to dump shares all at the same time, with no counter party able and willing to purchase those shares. A guaranteed recipe for devaluation, as we've observed.

Given that these greenies are all related, and working in concert to achieve their ends one would think we have an open and shut case of stock market manipulation, in plain sight. But the ability of the SEC to see the noses on their faces is already suspect, and this would require both intellect and imagination, two things sorely lacking there. After all, people pointed out to them that Bernie Madoff was running a ponzi scheme for decades and they were still, "shocked, shocked, that gambling was going on here". 

Going forward, even the "robot" funds that only invest in indexes will avoid Exxon now, since they no longer meet the criterion.  I'm curious if Exxon's management can dig their way out of this mess. Chevron has done an excellent job of genuflecting to the greens, kissing their respective posteriors and I'm guessing they've even paid tribute to BLM (not Bureau of Land Management). Because this is the new normal. 

All greenies are created equal but some greenies are more equal than others. I offered the some greenies' solution in a renewable threat that try to convert waste lands to trees & plants instead of investing on the solar as the solution. Can absorbs more CO2, potentially cooled down the world temperature, EU has been using biomass and count 0 for the CO2 (because the trees absorb lots of CO2 in its life), self maintain for generations for 1 small first investment, aka respiratory system of the world, and renewable and can remove the CO2 waste from burning fossils fuel  and doesn't create new potential problems with solid and liquid toxic wastes (mostly from mining and disposable for the batteries and other renewable wastes).

The problem is that it doesn't need innovation R&D technologies,eco friendly , low barrier to entry (everyone can do it), no user fees or  no regulation, no stock and no lobby, no geopolitical politics and there  for no profits. Unlike other greenies whose stocks & investment return depends on subsidies and regulations lobbying and even geopolitical politics while they are marketing as they are progressive and advocating for high tech to "save the world" movements and regulations to boost their stocks. This is where far left socialism and far right capitalism meet to screw the middle individualism future money, freedom, and the future sustainable world or environment. We all may have die by that time anyway but good luck for our next generations.

Edited August 26, 2020 by SUZNV

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

2 hours ago, ronwagn said:

The consumers lose because of Green economics. Fossil fuels are going to dominate the world's energy supply for decades. 

There is absolutely nothing in that article about green economics or the end of fossil fuels. 

All of that noise is purely from Wards imagination.

Edited August 26, 2020 by Enthalpic

[Rob Kramer + 696]

1 hour ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

I did not say that I think the market is free. When an extrinsic event (COVID-19) crashed the world's Gross "Domestic" Product by 50% and it is not reflected in the market, It becomes clear that the market is completely decoupled from any sort of underlying value. But if this is true, the price of Exxon stock is not a meaningful number, either.

I'm struggling to find what you mean by meaningful. I'm sure the invested dollar ammount is meaningful to the investor. Or trends rise or fall in price meaningful to the trading computer. Or trend to the trend follower. If you mean it's all fake money and therefor "not meaningful" I'd agree But this is our current state. House prices , dollars in the stock market, unemployment and deferred payments are all at record highs. But this inflation is the new normal. It's in all areas hence why I say everything is manipulated.  Oil and gas will be manipulated up when prices rise. My opinion.  I cant see stocks at 20-60x earnings constantly going up and stocks that are as low as 3x earnings staying low. Again if oil hits mid 50s year end possibly and  higher in 2021 there will be a sell off of one zone into another. Or the buy backs and dividends will be so massive the companies will bid themself up. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

4 hours ago, ronwagn said:

The consumers lose because of Green economics. Fossil fuels are going to dominate the world's energy supply for decades. 

Bwahahaha, Ron you sound like a little girl who just dropped her barbie in the mud.

[Wombat + 1,028]

13 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

The parent site Had this to say about Exxon getting kicked out of the DJIA

Other sites like World Oil had longer more sanguine articles but other than environmentalist glee, what are the ramifications of a super major getting bounced from the Dow average where it has been for almost a century? 

One immediate effect will be the further erosion of its valuation, the vaunted dividend might well be history and future investments in peril. The conceit of the greens is that all of this "stuff" will magically disappear, replaced by pixie dust and fairy farts powering our society. By certain means, including but not limited to activists forcing investment funds (in which they were microscopic participants) to divest from fossil fuel, the ability of retail investors to pick up that slack is impossible. So you have trillion dollar funds trying to dump shares all at the same time, with no counter party able and willing to purchase those shares. A guaranteed recipe for devaluation, as we've observed.

Given that these greenies are all related, and working in concert to achieve their ends one would think we have an open and shut case of stock market manipulation, in plain sight. But the ability of the SEC to see the noses on their faces is already suspect, and this would require both intellect and imagination, two things sorely lacking there. After all, people pointed out to them that Bernie Madoff was running a ponzi scheme for decades and they were still, "shocked, shocked, that gambling was going on here". 

Going forward, even the "robot" funds that only invest in indexes will avoid Exxon now, since they no longer meet the criterion.  I'm curious if Exxon's management can dig their way out of this mess. Chevron has done an excellent job of genuflecting to the greens, kissing their respective posteriors and I'm guessing they've even paid tribute to BLM (not Bureau of Land Management). Because this is the new normal. 

Exxon will be just fine for a while Ward. Unlike Chevron, Exxon has remained focused on liquids as opposed to LNG. Whether this strategy makes sense over the medium to long term really depends on how quickly Chevron and the other IOC's exit liquids. As you know, the DOW only has 30 components, and oil had become seriously over-represented, mainly due to the rise of the tech companies. I expect the Exxon share price to double once oil price recovers to $65, most likely within 12 months as effect of Covid dies off.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/exxon-getting-booted-from-the-dow-jones-industrial-average-may-be-a-blessing-in-disguise-for-its-investors-2020-08-25?mod=home-page

[Wombat + 1,028]

9 hours ago, ronwagn said:

The consumers lose because of Green economics. Fossil fuels are going to dominate the world's energy supply for decades. 

I disagree. I think coal will be the first to go, then oil, then natural gas.

[Rob Kramer + 696]

6 hours ago, Wombat said:

I disagree. I think coal will be the first to go, then oil, then natural gas.

That's true but how slow or fast do you think the process is most info has oil use at current levels into 2030-2040. So that's like 1900-2030 peak (if youd like the earlier #) .... so to wind down another 50 years? 2080? Most shale and conventional will be used up by then anyways and at that point yes renewables will have come a long way and might actually be cost comparable more so with the cost of finding more oil getting pushed up. I see fossil fuels at least at 50% of total energy till 2050. 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

1 hour ago, Rob Kramer said:

That's true but how slow or fast do you think the process is most info has oil use at current levels into 2030-2040. So that's like 1900-2030 peak (if youd like the earlier #) .... so to wind down another 50 years? 2080? Most shale and conventional will be used up by then anyways and at that point yes renewables will have come a long way and might actually be cost comparable more so with the cost of finding more oil getting pushed up. I see fossil fuels at least at 50% of total energy till 2050. 

I definitely feel burning fossil fuels will be phased out over time, but science has learned so much organic chemistry over the past 100 years that we'd be fools to ignore all those benefits. Unfortunately greenies are lazy thinkers as I've pointed out before, so they see the US "consuming" 20 million bbls per day and assume it's all been burned. It clearly hasn't but that doesn't stop them from boiling the numbers into stats like how much CO2 is getting put into the atmosphere. They pretty much assume all 100 million bbls per day gets burned, in the face of all evidence to the contrary because when you lie, lie big. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

11 hours ago, Wombat said:

I disagree. I think coal will be the first to go, then oil, then natural gas.

Coal, then natural gas and oil will remain forever. The oil may be made from coal or natural gas though. If too expensive ethanol may also compete with gasoline or synthetic gasoline, methanol, etc. Synthetic diesel also if cleaner. It will take a long time to get the China and India etc. off of coal and it will continue to be used as feedstock and natural gas locked in the mines will be tapped. Then there are methane hydrates which are greater than all the land based natural gas. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

15 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Bwahahaha, Ron you sound like a little girl who just dropped her barbie in the mud.

You sound like a communist useful idiot. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

5 hours ago, Rob Kramer said:

That's true but how slow or fast do you think the process is most info has oil use at current levels into 2030-2040. So that's like 1900-2030 peak (if youd like the earlier #) .... so to wind down another 50 years? 2080? Most shale and conventional will be used up by then anyways and at that point yes renewables will have come a long way and might actually be cost comparable more so with the cost of finding more oil getting pushed up. I see fossil fuels at least at 50% of total energy till 2050. 

I think that is a good guess for the advanced countries but not most of the world. What happens after 2050 depends on technology and politics. Guessing beyond that is a fools errand. 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

4 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

I definitely feel burning fossil fuels will be phased out over time, but science has learned so much organic chemistry over the past 100 years that we'd be fools to ignore all those benefits. Unfortunately greenies are lazy thinkers as I've pointed out before, so they see the US "consuming" 20 million bbls per day and assume it's all been burned. It clearly hasn't but that doesn't stop them from boiling the numbers into stats like how much CO2 is getting put into the atmosphere. They pretty much assume all 100 million bbls per day gets burned, in the face of all evidence to the contrary because when you lie, lie big. 

Look it up, the vast majority is burned (hence why it is often referred to as energy not chemical feed stock).

Almost all organic chemistry is done without fossil fuels (*hint* it occurs inside organisms not factories).

Edited August 26, 2020 by Enthalpic

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

1 hour ago, ronwagn said:

Coal, then natural gas and oil will remain forever.

Sure, but we will burn much, much less.

 

Why is anyone discussing "greenies" or end of fossil fuels in this thread?  Am I the only one who read the linked article? It said nothing of the sort.

 

 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

19 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

Sure, but we will burn much, much less.

 

Why is anyone discussing "greenies" or end of fossil fuels in this thread?  Am I the only one who read the linked article? It said nothing of the sort.

 

 

Enthalpic, we are continually combining topics in our arguments when it makes sense, and sometimes when it is unrelated. There is a connection here. Exxon would not be delisted if COVID 19 had not suddenly lowered prices and outlook. It would not be delisted if there were not powerful groups pushing for wind turbines, solar farms, and minimizing the role of natural gas. You well know that I am an advocate for natural gas and that IT is what has mainly replaced coal use in America thus making us the leader in clean air among large nations around the world. Any analysis of energy issues needs to look at the big picture. At all the issues involved in finding the best solutions to an issue. 

https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/energy-and-environment/energy-resources/natural-gas

Actual Sources of Energy Used in the United States

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Coal/Natural-Gas-Has-Replaced-Over-100-US-Coal-Plants-In-The-Last-Decade.html

Edited August 27, 2020 by ronwagn
added reference

[ronwagn + 6,290]

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/US-Natural-Gas-Power-Generation-Hits-Record.html

Record Natural Gas Use.