The Rude Awakening
Wall Street, New York
Tuesday, November 8, 2005
------------------------- - Windfall Hilary eyes up a slice of the oil sector's
pie,
- Why not tax this other profit behemoth and,
- Where you can find all the news you won't see in the
mainstream press…online now
------------------------- Eric Fry, reporting one equestrian stable and two country
clubs' away from Chappaqua, NY… Out here in the real world, we refer to the fruits of our
labor as "earnings." But up on Capitol Hill, politicians
recognize these same fruits as "taxable gains." We believe
we deserve our earnings, by virtue of the fact that we
worked hard to produce them. But the politicians believe
that they deserve our earnings, by virtue of the fact that
they have already spent them. So whenever somebody earns a whole bunch of money, all at
once, politicians like Hillary Clinton, the Senator from
New York and part-time Chappaqua resident, begin to imagine
that they deserve an even larger share of our earnings than
usual. Senator Clinton thinks it would be a nifty idea to levy a
"windfall profits" tax on the so-called "unanticipated
profits" of the large oil companies. Mary Fallin, the
Lieutenant Governor of Oklahoma, disagrees. Ms. Fallin
scorns Senator Clinton's proposal as "the worst single idea
floated in Washington this year." We would agree, although we are mindful that eight weeks
remain between now and New Year's Eve. "Senator Clinton seems to think the best way to make
America energy-independent is to punish energy producers
and prevent them from finding new sources of supply,"
Fallin scoffs. "Believe it or not, she wants to go back to
the failed energy policies of the Carter administration." Fallin points out that Carter's windfall tax, established
in 1980 and repealed seven years later, "reduced domestic
oil production between 3 and 6 percent and increased oil
imports between 8 and 16 percent. This made the U. S. more
dependent upon imported oil. "The timing for such a proposal couldn't be worse," Fallin
gripes. "First, we desperately need to encourage new
exploration for oil and gas reserves to reduce America 's
over dependence on foreign supplies. Seizing the proceeds
from today's production also seizes the capital necessary
to find tomorrow's. This tax would hamstring oil companies
at the worst possible time, when they need to be investing
in drilling rigs and new production technologies. Second,
the Clinton energy tax would siphon money from the
devastated Gulf Coast region, where so much energy
production was curtailed by Hurricane Katrina. I don't
think they can stand an assault by Hurricane Hillary."
"Washington does not drill for oil and natural gas," Fallin
concludes. "Places like Oklahoma and Texas and Louisiana
do. Every dollar drained away from that effort by the
Hillary Tax is more than just a dollar lost. It would also
represent a squandered opportunity to rebuild our national
energy infrastructure. Worst of all, it would once again
increase our dependence on the Middle East oil spigot at a
time when unrest in that part of the world makes future
supplies very risky indeed." Fallin's logic would seem to be unassailable, but
unassailable logic need not stand in the way of new tax
legislation… --- Advertisement --- Drastically Increase Your Net Worth… Making money hand-over-fist is easy with the right
knowledge. And for 15 years, there's been only one trusted
and respected source for hot and extremely profitable
picks. Discover the service that has given its small group of
subscribers a chance to rake in an abundance of wealth --
and learn to harness one of the most reliable money makers
on EARTH. http://www.agora-inc.com/reports/OHL/EOHLFB58 ------------------------- WHAT'S YOURS IS MINE
By Eric J. Fry ExxonMobil earns billions of dollars. The U.S. Congress
spends billions of dollars. These two simple truths seem to
be inspiring Senator Clinton's attempt to divert a few
billion dollars from where they are earned to where they
are (already) spent. We have no idea whether Clinton's effort to levy a windfall
profits tax will succeed, but we are intrigued by the fact
that oil-company cash is in the crosshairs of the Senator's
tax-happy sights. Now that politicians like Ms. Clinton
have signaled their intention to appropriate the "excess"
profits of oil companies, we would expect the oil companies
to begin devising ways to produce smaller, or non-existent,
"excess" profits. In other words, we would expect the oil
companies to quickly adopt a use-it-or-lose-it attitude.
Making profits disappear is much easier than making them
appear in the first place. And one good way to accomplish
this objective is to re-invest it, especially in smaller
oil companies with attractive exploration properties, but
modest-to-no earnings. Therefore, to the extent that
Exxon's cash becomes a target of Congressional revenue-
hunters, mid-tier oil companies might become acquisition
targets of companies like Exxon. A stock-for-stock transaction, for example, would serve
very nicely to dilute Exxon's earnings, especially if Exxon
used its lowly valued stock to acquire the richly valued
stock of another oil company. (A couple of potential acquisition targets come immediately
to mind, but we have decided not to divulge them
immediately. Instead, we'd like to have some fun with you,
our Rude Awakening readers, by asking you to identify mid-
sized oil companies that YOU believe would be attractive
acquisition targets for a larger oil company. Please email
your suggested stock ideas to Joel
[ aussiejoel@the-rude-awakening.com]. The suggested stock must have a market capitalization
greater than $500 million. No small caps, please. And
obviously, no inside information, please. We will examine
the submissions that we receive over the next 24 hours and
will provide a sampling of the best ideas in the Friday
issue of the Rude Awakening.) Beating up on an oil company is one of the oldest, and
least creative, of all political games. That's because no
one ever feels sorry for an oil company. In fact, most
folks hold oil companies in such low esteem that a member
of Congress seems respectable by comparison. According to the popular folklore, oil companies earn
billions of dollars for making lots of great, big messes.
And like most folklore, this particular one contains a few
grains of truth. But it's also true that oil companies
provide an essential product, without which life would be
much less pleasant. Even so, many oil-company foes, like Senator Clinton, chose
to ignore or minimize such inconvenient facts. The folks
who revile the oil companies, and encourage the rest of us
to do likewise, prefer to ignore the irony that the very
same companies they revile are the ones that warm their
houses, power their cars and illuminate their ivory towers.
We don't feel sorry for the oil companies. But neither do
we believe that governments should retroactively punish
capitalist enterprises for succeeding too well.
Furthermore, it might surprise Senator Clinton - as well as
many Rude Awakening readers - to discover that oil company
profits are much less "obscene" than those of the nation's
largest finance companies. 
As the chart above illustrates, the combined cumulative
earnings of Citigroup and Bank of America from 1995 through
the third quarter of this year totaled an astounding $223
billion, a sum which happens to be $14 billion HIGHER than
the combined cumulative earnings of ExxonMobil and Chevron
over the same timeframe. In each and every one of those ten
years, the two big finance companies earned more money than
the two big oil companies. Never once did Exxon and Chevron
manage to produce an "obscene" profit that exceeded that of
Citibank and Bank of America…NEVER ONCE. Is the comparison fair? You bet. The combined enterprise
value of the two oil companies is nearly identical to the
combined enterprise value of the two banking behemoths. So
why tax the oil companies' "windfall" profits and not those
of the finance companies? Only Senator Clinton knows for sure. If Ms. Clinton had
truly wished to recoup "windfall" profits, she could have
started the process with Citigroup, which just happens to
enjoy a large, comfy presence in her home state of New
York. One could argue that Citigroup has enjoyed a decade-
long windfall, thanks to the very low interest rates - and
steep yield curve - provided by Alan Greenspan's Federal
Reserve. To be clear, we don't think either sector produces obscene
profits worthy of supplemental taxation. But if forced to
choose between the two, finance-company profits seem much
more obscene than those of the oil companies. Sure, the oil companies make an occasional mess of things
while trying to provide an essential product. But
extracting a dollar of "windfall" profits from oil
exploration seems much more commendable than extracting
profits from yield-curve exploitation. To produce a barrel of fossil fuel, the oil-extracting
capitalist requires: Several billion years geological prep-
work. Assuming this essential work has occurred, the
hopeful oil-extracting capitalists, as a group, must spend
billions of dollars to find oil reserves, then spend a few
more billions to pull the stuff out of the ground, then
spend billions to build pipelines to transport it to
refineries, then billions more to convert the crude into
refined products and transport these products to the end
user. All of these activities take place within an environment of
extreme price volatility. In other words, the companies
that conduct these massive efforts can never really be sure
what prices they will receive for the products they
produce. By contrast, to create financial profits, the hopeful
financial services capitalist requires little more than an
accommodating Federal Reserve Chairman. Assuming such a
chairman presides over the Fed, the financial services
capitalist need spend only a few billion dollars to create
an infrastructure that can borrow lots of money at
subsidized short-term rates and lend it out at higher
rates, often much higher rates. Then, to increase profits
to truly obscene proportions, the finance companies must
borrow even more money at subsidized short-term rates and
provide mortgages and credit cards to folks who cannot
really afford them. And the best part is; the least capable
borrowers provide the biggest profits. While awaiting the inevitable cycle of defaults on these
"sub-prime" loans, the finance companies like Citibank and
B of A charge as much as 25% interest on credit card
balances. Therefore, as corporate activities go, providing
a vital energy source to the nation's economy seems much
less "obscene" than extending usurious credit lines to
people who cannot afford them. But we are not in the business of evaluating corporate
morality, only corporate opportunity. And now that oil-
company profits are coming under attack, investment
opportunities may be emerging among mid-tier oil companies.
If the major oil companies must chose between investing
their cash or losing it to taxation, we should expect
merger and acquisition activity within the energy sector to
ramp up quickly. Be sure to check in Friday for some specific ideas! [Joel's Note: It's difficult to know what to make of
Hilary's "windfall" tax and the potential ramifications it
would have on our energy sector. What is not difficult to
understand is 16 from 16, then 29 from 35. That's the track
record of resource trading guru, Kevin Kerr. Tax laws come
and go and prices rise and fall all over the energy sector
every day. Learn how to profit from the moves, in either
direction, with Kevin's rock solid winners. Click here for
more: http://www.agora-inc.com/reports/RTA/WRTAFB08 --- Advertisement --- Banned From the Public Since February 1946 The U.S. government banned most of you from investing in
the hottest and most ridiculously profitable moneymaking
deals in the world. But we've discovered a LEGAL way for
you to get around this absurd law and have the chance to
make 10 times your money in the process. It involves buying
stock in two companies. One is a $3 stock with a potential
cure for the deadly SARS virus. And the other has three
businesses - each of which could be worth billions in the
coming years. Find out how to sidestep this 60-year-old law and make 10
times your money. http://www.agora-inc.com/reports/VPI/WVPIF915 ------------------------- [Joel's Note: The Rude Awakening has found a home. That's
right. A cyber address has been assigned the duty of
housing all the information you need to keep up to date
with what is REALLY going on with Wall Street. Make sure to
check out the new website, complete with Rude Awakening
archives, special reports, discussion board and
marketplace. The address is: www.the-rude-awakening.com And don't forget to email your oil stock ideas (remember -
no small caps or insider information please) to your
nomadic managing editor at: aussiejoel@the-rude-awakening.com Cheers, jOEL And the Markets… | Monday | Friday | This week | Year-to-Date | DOW | 10,586 | 10,531 | 55 | -1.8% | S&P | 1,223 | 1,220 | 3 | 0.9% | NASDAQ | 2,178 | 2,169 | 9 | 0.1% | 10-year Treasury | 4.64 | 4.67 | -3.00 | 4.56 | 30-year Treasury | 4.83 | 4.86 | -3.00 | 4.78 | Russell 2000 | 661 | 658 | 3 | 1.5% | Gold | $459.55 | $457.00 | $2.55 | 5.0% | Silver | $7.59 | $7.55 | $0.04 | 11.4% | CRB | 317.45 | 318.77 | -1.32 | 11.8% | WTI NYMEX CRUDE | $59.40 | $60.58 | -$1.18 | 36.7% | Yen (YEN/USD) | JPY 117.65 | JPY 118.29 | 0.64 | -14.7% | Dollar (USD/EUR) | $1.1807 | $1.1824 | 16 | 12.9% | Dollar (USD/GBP) | $1.7449 | $1.7517 | 68 | 9.0% |
| 
