[Rhodes22-list] Political- media bias in reporting exposed... a failure to think things thru

Thu Jun 26 14:41:41 EDT 2008

Mike,

If you're smart enough to have bought XOM and hold it long term (wish I had
been so smart but some of my mutual funds do hold XOM) then you're smart
enough to know that they are expected to pay dividends through 'thick and
thin'.  I'd be glad to go through their accounting statements and point out
where your expected dividends are but (1) I hate accounting because I have a
degree in accounting, and (2) I'm lazy.

Exxon/Mobile is enjoying record profits and ballyhoo! for them profiting off
their investments they made when oil was at $11 per barrel.  As the 14th
largest producer of oil in the world and holding only 3% or the reserves,
they don't exactly control the market.  You better hope they hoard some cash
and invest some cash into new reserves so you can collect a dividend check
five years from now.  Of course, you could always vote with your feet and
buy something else.

Brad

On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 12:01 PM, Michael D. Weisner <mweisner at ebsmed.com>
wrote:

> Ed,
>
> Without commenting directly on the politics of your post, I wish to set the
> record straight as far as the dividend situation with Exxon Mobil
> Corporation.  As an XOM stockholder I find the following to be wholly
> untrue:
>
>    > Now understand what those obscene profits are used for.  Yes, they pay
> the
>    > head fellow an obscene salary.  But then they pay all employees wages.
> And
>    > they pay something called dividends.  What are those dividends?  They
> are
>    > payments to the shareholders of Exxon Mobile.
>
> I bought XOM shares in October 2005 for $55/shr with a quarterly dividend
> of
> $0.29.  The price of gas was about $2.50/gal
> (http://www.longislandgasprices.com/retail_price_chart.aspx) here on LI.
> Today, XOM trades for $87/shr (158% of '05) and pays a dividend of $0.40
> (138% of '05)  (it was $0.32 until '07 when it rose to $0.35 and only last
> month did it reach $0.40) while the price of gas is $4.399 (176% of '05)!
> The 1Q08 profits were up 17% over '07, $10.9B
> (http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_9121523).  While the stock price
> has
> done well, the huge profits have NOT been distributed to the shareholders.
> Where's my cut?
>
> Mike
> s/v Shanghai'd Summer ('81)
> Nissequogue River, NY
>
> From: "Tootle" <ekroposki at charter.net>Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 7:53 AM
> >
> > The author of Brad's Power Line Blog said, "I think it's fair to say that
> > the
> > mainstream media's interest in Iraq has always been driven largely by the
> > opportunity to spin events there in a way that advances a political
> > agenda.
> >
> > It is important to understand what that unstated political agenda is.  In
> > my
> > own words I summarize it as the destruction of America.  And those on
> > still
> > on this forum say I am overstating or exaggerating the truth.
> >
> > Let us understand what Obama has said about oil companies.  He has said
> > several times that an obscene or windfall profits tax is in order.  So
> > what
> > is the result of such a tax?
> >
> > Before you begin to assert that there are a real obscene profits made by
> > oil
> > companies, that is for example Exxon Mobile, compare their profits with
> > other businesses.  Let us compare their profits with say, Microsoft.  As
> I
> > read the numbers, Exxon Mobil is about one third ( 1/3rd ) as much.
> >
> > Now understand what those obscene profits are used for.  Yes, they pay
> the
> > head fellow an obscene salary.  But then they pay all employees wages.
> > And
> > they pay something called dividends.  What are those dividends?  They are
> > payments to the shareholders of Exxon Mobile.
> >
> > What are shareholders?  Those are holders of pieces of paper who say that
> > they are owners, stakeholders in that obscene company.  And who are those
> > noxious owners of shares of Exxon Mobile?
> > Well, some are people, individuals, and members of this forum.  Others
> are
> > mutual funds, retirement funds and other companies.
> >
> > And who are these salubrious mutual funds and retirement funds?  Well
> both
> > are groups of individuals, people like on this forum who have gotten
> > together and put their earnings from working into a collective fund that
> > purchases equities (aka stocks) for building a supply of money that can
> be
> > used later to pay for retirement.
> >
> > Simply put the obscene earnings that Obama wants nationalized are savings
> > by
> > working people like most on this list.
> >
> > And what will be the result of such action by Obama and his cohorts?  It
> > will be the weakening of companies so penalized.  It could even destroy
> > those companies.  What would destruction of those companies mean?
> >
> > It would wipe out parts of mutual funds and retirement accounts.  All
> that
> > those people (you people) have worked for and saved for wiped out!
> >
> > And are there others who own stock in these companies?  Yes, foreign
> > investors own stock in American companies.  And they do so because those
> > companies have been shown to be stable and secure investments of capital.
> >
> > If you harm American companies or as Maxine Waters wants to do,
> > nationalize
> > them, what effect will that have on foreign investments?  The value of
> > "ALL"
> > American companies will become suspect and foreign investors will go
> > elsewhere.  This would result in the value destruction of "ALL" mutual
> > funds
> > and failure of retirement accounts to pay retirees.
> >
> > And why do socialist want to do this?  The failure of the American
> > economic
> > system would make you all  wards of the state.  This result would give
> the
> > state power over all.  This religion would make them Gods on earth.
> >
> > My analylsis shows that Obama and his socialist friends and fellow
> > travelers
> > are despots, false gods or simply agents of Satan trying to enslave you
> > all.
> >
> > Ed K
> > Greenville, SC, USA
> >
> >
> >
> > Brad Haslett-2 wrote:
> >>
> >> Say it ain't so!  Brad
> >>
> >> ---------------
> >>
> >> (from PowerLine)
> >>
> >>
> >> War Coverage Fades Away
> >>
> >> The New York
> >> Times<
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/business/media/23logan.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
> >confirms
> >> what we've all observed: as violence in Iraq recedes, our news
> >> outlets take less interest in events there:
> >>
> >> According to data compiled by Andrew Tyndall, a television consultant
> who
> >> monitors the three network evening newscasts, coverage of Iraq has been
> >> "massively scaled back this year." Almost halfway into 2008, the three
> >> newscasts have shown 181 weekday minutes of Iraq coverage, compared with
> >> 1,157 minutes for all of 2007. The "CBS Evening News" has devoted the
> >> fewest
> >> minutes to Iraq, 51, versus 55 minutes on ABC's "World News" and 74
> >> minutes
> >> on "NBC Nightly News." (The average evening newscast is 22 minutes
> long.)
> >>
> >> CBS News no longer stations a single full-time correspondent in Iraq,
> >> where
> >> some 150,000 United States troops are deployed.
> >>
> >> I suppose it's understandable, in a way, that coverage would be
> >> "massively
> >> scaled back" when there is less violence to report on. One wonders,
> >> though,
> >> whether the change may be due in part to the fact that network
> executives
> >> are more excited about publicizing apparent failure in Iraq than success
> >> there.
> >>
> >> The journalists who complained to the Times about their employers' lack
> >> of
> >> interest in Iraq and Afghanistan also noted that interest has flagged
> >> among
> >> the American public:
> >>
> >> On "The Daily Show," Ms. Logan echoed the comments of other journalists
> >> when
> >> she said that many Americans seem uninterested in the wars now. Mr.
> >> McCarthy
> >> said that when he is in the United States, bringing up Baghdad at a
> >> dinner
> >> party "is like a conversation killer."
> >>
> >> I'm afraid that's also true. The conclusion of the Times piece is
> >> revealing,
> >> too:
> >>
> >> Journalists at all three American television networks with evening
> >> newscasts
> >> expressed worries that their news organizations would withdraw from the
> >> Iraqi capital after the November presidential election. They spoke only
> >> on
> >> the condition of anonymity in order to avoid offending their employers.
> >>
> >> It's interesting that the journalists themselves link their employers'
> >> interest in Iraq to the election. I think it's fair to say that the
> >> mainstream media's interest in Iraq has always been driven largely by
> the
> >> opportunity to spin events there in a way that advances a political
> >> agenda.
> >> Remember al Qaqaa
> >> <http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2004/10/008280.php>?
> >> That story dominated the news for a week before the 2004 Presidential
> >> election. It was a story of great importance, however, only as long as
> it
> >> could be used to help John Kerry's Presidential campaign. Once the
> >> election
> >> was over, al Qaqaa was never heard of again. With hindsight, that
> episode
> >> might be taken as a paradigm of far too much of the mainstream media's
> >> coverage of the war.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 11:06 AM, Herb Parsons <hparsons at parsonsys.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Wasn't there talk on here along the lines of most of the troops are
> >>> supporting Obama? I know, I know, check the archives. I would, but it's
> >>> just not important to me...
> >>>
> >>> Tootle wrote:
> >>> > Recently I received an email about media bias.  I tried to check it
> >>> > out
> >>> with
> >>> > snopes.  They have finally replied:
> >>> >
> >>> > http://www.snopes.com:80/politics/war/raddatz.asp
> >>> >
> >>> > And when these things are done without any way to check things out,
> >>> well
> >>> > that is usually the way it is done by the Liberal Northeast Media
> >>> types...
> >>> >
> >>> > Ed K
> >>> > Greenville, SC, USA
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>> __________________________________________________
> >>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
> >>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> >>> __________________________________________________
> >>>
> >> __________________________________________________
> >> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
> >> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> >> __________________________________________________
> >>
> >>
> >
> > --
> > View this message in context:
> >
> http://www.nabble.com/Political---media-bias-in-reporting-exposed...-tp18071979p18089396.html
> > Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
> > http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> > __________________________________________________
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> __________________________________________________
>