Big, bad, blood-sucking oil companies?

More like middle America. Here's a study by Robert J. Shapiro on ownership of oil stock.

http://www.energytomorrow.org/media_center/Shapiro_Pham_Study.pdf

Here's the highlight, from Page 2:

"Across the oil and natural gas industry, 1.5 percent of the total outstanding shares of its public companies are owned by the officers and board members of those companies (“insiders”), compared to 29 percent owned by individual investors who manage their own holdings and who are not insiders, 42.7 percent owned or held by mutual funds and
other asset management companies that have mutual funds, 18.1 percent owned or held by asset management companies that do not have mutual funds, and the remaining 8.7 percent owned or held and directly managed by pension funds, insurance companies, endowments and foundations, banks and other financial institutions."

Allow me to repeat: 1.5 of the shares of oil and natural gas stocks are owned by officers and board members of those companies. Seems to me that the rest are owned by you and me and anyone else with a 401K, a pension or mutual funds.

By the way, Robert J. Shapiro was an under-secretary of commerce under Pres. Bill Clinton.

 

Wrong. Oil companies spent $60 billion in 2006 on share buybacks. In other words, they spent as much on share buyback as they did on developing existing oil fields and finding new fields, combined.

 

How does that make Shapiro's study wrong?

 

Owning oil stocks isn't the problem. It's the speculators at NYMEX pumping up the bubble to impossible heights.

What a glorious day it'll be when that fucker bursts.

 

Because his figures probably are no longer accurate.

 

Thanks Hondo. Somebody had to defend Exxon-Mobil. Just because you profit from pain and suffering doesn't necessarily mean you caused the pain and suffering.

 

I blame everyone except me.

 

I always knew middle America was to blame. That's probably why God punished them with floods.

 

Well, the study had a 2007 date on it. Not exactly ancient history. I was merely pointing out that the huge profits being raked in by the oil companies might be trickling down to the mutual funds and 401Ks of Joe Blows like me. To paraphrase a great writer, I'm not liberal, so I have a poor grasp about things I don't know anything about. I don't pretend to be an expert on everything. That's why I read and then on occasion post things so spark debate here, so I can learn more.

However, some people just want to scream "WRONG!" and stifle the debate.

 

There's no doubt that those profits trickle down (to use the GOP's pet phrase). But what good are those profits, when they are offset by increased prices in myriad other facets of life? And those profits mean little to those who aren't investing in oil companies.

And this isn't the first thread you've started as a defense of oil company profits. You're not looking to spark debate (as you claim on just about every thread you start), you're looking to espouse your own views.

 

hondo,

As a right proper conservative, there are about a million threads you could start.

Did it occur to you this might not be the best time for this one?

Something about a hostile audience...

 

Well, you'd be wrong about that. I am trying to stir a debate by asking questions. You're the one rejecting anything that doesn't conform to your robber-baron view of big business. I didn't say I agreed with the study. I merely pointed out that it appears the financial experts managing my 401K are investing in petroleum stocks (I called and asked. They more or less said, "You bet your ass.")

You definition of debate is for everyone to agree with you. Forgive me if I'm not that easily intimidated.