April 18, 2024

Chevron Doubled Its Profit in the 3rd Quarter

The company’s profit rose to $7.8 billion, or $3.92 a share, from $3.8 billion, or $1.87 a share, a year earlier.

The average analyst estimate was $3.48 a share, according to Thomson Reuters, though the company had said this month that it would report a profit similar to the $7.7 billion it earned in the second quarter.

Shares of Chevron closed 0.6 percent higher at $109.64 on Friday, within sight of their record high of $110, hit on Thursday. Third-quarter sales rose 26 percent to $61.26 billion, while its oil and gas output fell to 2.6 million barrels of oil equivalent per day from 2.74 million a year ago.

Getting production to grow remains a nagging problem for all the big oil companies. Chevron expects an increase of 100,000 to 150,000 barrels per day in the fourth quarter, driven by production in Thailand and the Gulf of Mexico from projects that are either new, upgraded or repaired.

The profit growth was driven by oil prices. Benchmark Brent crude averaged $112 per barrel in the quarter, up from $77 last year.

Chevron also recorded a gain of about $500 million from the sale of its British refinery to Valero Energy.

This week, the company increased its dividend for the second time this year, by 3.8 percent. Pat Yarrington, the company’s chief financial officer, said this reflected confidence in its net cash position of $10.6 billion, though she acknowledged some investors would prefer more share buybacks and said the board would always consider that.

Chevron bought back $1.25 billion worth of its own stock in the third quarter, and it expected to buy back about the same amount in the fourth quarter, she said.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=8753c3728ab2f674fa17b9f03b78b8d7

You’re the Boss Blog: Choosing Between Profits and Growth at TerraCycle

TerraCycle's office in Brazil.Courtesy of TerraCycleTerraCycle’s office in Brazil: A middle path?

Sustainable Profits

The challenges of a waste-recycling business.

In a venture-backed company like TerraCycle, there is an explicit expectation of aggressive revenue growth. So far, we have succeeded on that front, growing to more than $16 million in projected annual revenue this year — with a 103-percent yearly compounded growth rate since our inception. While this has put us on the Inc. 500 list, it hasn’t always synched with that other very important line on our profit-and-loss statement: the profit.

Until 2008 the more we grew the more money we lost. In fact, 2010 was the first year we produced a profit, a modest one at that. The question we have long faced is, should we invest as much as possible in revenue growth and merely demonstrate profitability? Or should we slow down and de-emphasize revenue growth in favor of profit growth? This question is top of mind because there has been consistent debate among our investors, those that favor a  short-term earlier exit versus those that are going for the big, long-term payoff. Me? I’m here for the long term.

When a business is large, mature and public, an emphasis on short-term profits may make sense and may be demanded by the public markets. That said, there is merit to the criticism that public companies are so focused on the next quarterly report that they often feel pressured not to make the strategic investments that would lead to longer term growth because they can’t afford to disappoint large blocks of impatient investors.

In the case of a small, private business  — particularly one, like TerraCycle, that has significant growth potential and limited competition — the emphasis on short-term profits seems counter-productive. In these circumstances, I believe the priority should be running a tight ship and investing every spare dollar above some minimum threshold of profit into growth. I understand the need to ensure that the business model is viable and sustainable, but beyond that, I think growth should be the priority.

Which brings up a larger question. One of the great things about public markets is that they allow investors to come and go freely, depending on their objectives and their belief in a company’s trajectory. For investors in a private company, an initial public offering can offer liquidity and an exit with a nice upside. It can also provide the company with access to capital markets. But we all know there are downsides to going public. If you don’t need capital to build your business or if you can find other ways (besides debt) to get that capital, and if you could otherwise provide an acceptable exit for investors who are ready to move on, wouldn’t staying private be the preferred option?

I’ve been giving this matter a lot of thought. Many companies I have admired — Stonyfield, Ben Jerry’s, Tom’s of Maine and Honest Tea, have sold to multinationals (all of which happen to be clients of TerraCycle). Investment banks call us regularly, suggesting it’s only a matter of time before we sell, too. The alternative might be an I.P.O., and the banks all suggest they have teams to assist us with that eventuality. Of course, if TerraCycle generates large enough profits, it could offer to redeem shares of investors who want to exit, but that would run against our strategy of prioritizing our resources for growth. And if the profits are that strong, wouldn’t the amount demanded by investors  also grow -– making buying them out with profits more difficult?

While this debate has gone on for years, we have seen the possibility of a middle path open up. Recently, a Brazilian investment group bought a minority interest in our Brazilian subsidiary. The group not only brought capital, but through their resources has been able to fuel our Brazilian operation with faster growth. Better yet, we can use the proceeds of this sale to bring liquidity to our investors in the parent company. This approach, should we choose to roll it out more broadly, might be a way for a relatively small company to develop strong local partnerships to turbo charge activities in foreign operations, while also creating cash to let earlier investors in the parent company exit. That would allow the company to remain private, independent and focused on growth.

So far, it seems like both our short-term and long-term investors like this approach.

Tom Szaky is the chief executive of TerraCycle, which is based in Trenton.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=08c5f4ddfb17132a55d70186c6eee901

Fundamentally: This Time, Corporate Profits May Not Save the Day

But after the Dow Jones industrial average plummeted nearly 700 points last week — pushing stocks down 11 percent from their late April peak — Wall Street investors are finally waking up to what Main Street households have known all along: The already bad economy is getting worse. And the laundry list of problems that could tip the economy into another severe downturn, if not a recession, is growing only longer.

First, there’s the debt-ceiling debate in Washington, which isn’t over yet as a special Congressional panel will try to find $1.5 trillion in additional savings by November. On top of that, there are the still-growing debt problems in Europe.

“There’s a growing sense the Continent is in denial and investors will continue to stress those markets until something gives,” said Jack A. Ablin, executive vice president and chief investment officer at Harris Private Bank. “Bailouts don’t appear to be cutting it.”

And, on another front, it remains to be seen whether the Federal Reserve will step up again to try to stimulate the economy, as it did last November when it started to buy Treasury securities in hopes of keeping interest rates low. 

Just about the only bright note has been corporate earnings. Profit among companies in the Standard Poor’s 500-stock index are thought to have grown 18 percent, on average, in the second quarter versus the year-ago period, according to figures tracked by Capital IQ. That’s an increase from July expectations for profit growth of around 12 percent. The new figure stands in stark contrast to government reports showing that economic growth slowed drastically in the first half of the year.

 “But earnings and earnings revisions are a lagging indicator,” said Sam Stovall, chief investment strategist at S. P. Equity Research. Historically, he noted, corporate profits don’t reach a trough until around nine months after a bear market ends. And they typically don’t peak until after a bull market runs its course.

Does that mean that this bull run, which began in March 2009, may be over?

It’s hard to say. To enter another bear market, the Dow would have to tumble a further 1,200 points or so. Then again, after days like last Thursday, when the Dow fell by more than 512 points, that might not be so far off.

ALL that is certain is that Wall Street’s take on profits seems to have done a 180-degree turn. Where once investors were looking at earnings as a way to gauge the health of the underlying economy, they’re now using the bad economic news to gauge when profits will drop, said Ben Inker, head of asset allocation at GMO, the asset management firm.

It seems as if “the weight of ugly economic data is causing people to worry about the sustainability of the growth we’ve had so far,” Mr. Inker said.

So far, there have been only slight revisions to third-quarter profit growth, said John Butters, senior earnings analyst at FactSet.

As of Friday, the consensus forecast was that the S. P. 500’s earnings would grow 15.8 percent in the third quarter. That’s off slightly from predictions of 16.7 percent third-quarter growth at the end of June, Mr. Butters said.

Jeffrey N. Kleintop, chief market strategist at LPL Financial, says he thinks that “the estimates are still too high.” While profits might still grow by double digits, he said, they won’t be the 16 or 17 percent gains built into many analysts’ estimates.

In the best-case situation, he said, one reason for slowing profit growth will be that margins may decline as some companies ramp up hiring.

The worst-case event, of course, is that the economy will worsen significantly, cutting into both sales and profits.

Michael Thompson, managing director for S. P. Valuation and Risk Strategies, which oversees Capital IQ, says there is no evidence yet that this worst-case scenario is working its way into the estimates.

But market strategists say it may take some time for bad domestic economic news to work its way into profit figures, simply because of the nature of the S. P. 500. For one thing, the index tracks large, globally oriented companies that generate nearly half of their sales and profits abroad.

And Mr. Thompson added that historically, “analysts have never been good at identifying the inflection points in the economy”— for instance, when recessions turn into expansions and vice versa.

So if the economy is indeed headed south, all bets are off when it comes to profits.

Paul J. Lim is a senior editor at Money magazine. E-mail: fund@nytimes.com.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=17d676d84320783a76da93358acc5449

BP Profit Falls Despite Higher Oil Prices

But there are signs that the high prices have started to hurt demand in the United States and other developed countries, which could start pushing prices down again. Lower prices could make the rest of 2011 more difficult for BP and other big oil companies.

BP’s rivals, including Royal Dutch Shell and Exxon Mobil, are still expected to report strong results when they release their first-quarter performances on Thursday.

But some analysts said oil prices could drop about $20 a barrel in the near term, raising questions about whether such companies could keep up the stellar profit growth of last year.

“Concern about supply might fade, and there is a possibility that the world economy will slow,” putting pressure on the price of oil, said Julian Jessop, chief international economist at Capital Economics in London.

But “the future is still bright for oil companies,” he added. “Oil prices will fall back but remain historically high.”

An improving world economy returned oil prices to higher levels in 2010 after a sharp drop in 2009. Exxon Mobil, the largest American oil company, reported a 53 percent increase in profit for the fourth quarter of last year. Chevron earnings in that period rose 72 percent, and ConocoPhillips reported a 46 percent rise.

On Wednesday, BP was the first of the largest publicly traded oil companies to report first-quarter earnings.

For BP, a higher oil price was offset by asset sales to pay for the repercussions from the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Earnings were $5.48 billion in the first three months of this year, down from $5.6 billion in the period a year earlier.

The company has sold more than $24 billion of assets to raise money to cover the oil spill costs, and production fell as a result. Including lost production from the Gulf accident, production fell 11 percent in the first quarter from a year earlier.

BP set aside an additional $384 million for the oil spill in the first quarter, bringing the total to $41 billion.

BP’s shares have fallen 23 percent over the last 12 months, while those of its largest competitors have risen at least 18 percent.

To win back investors, the company focused on exploration and signed cooperation agreements in India and Russia. But its Russian deal with the government-owned Rosneft had to be held up this year because of a legal challenge from its Russian shareholders, a group of billionaires.

Other oil companies, including Shell, considered cooperation agreements with national oil companies as one of the few options for obtaining access to unexplored areas like the Russian Arctic. Russia has surpassed Saudi Arabia as the biggest oil producer in the world. New oil from the region could play an important part in ensuring sufficient supplies and the future level of oil prices.

Those analysts who predict a decline in the price of oil said concerns about political tensions in North Africa and the Middle East had increased oil prices but were likely to fade. At the same time, there are signs that high oil prices discourage consumers from filling their tanks just as the summer vacation season starts in the northern hemisphere.

“The oil price is, to an extent, too high at the moment,” said Christopher Wheaton, a director at the asset management firm RCM in London. “We are at the point at which we get demand destruction.”

Still, oil prices are expected to remain high enough for companies to increase investments in new drilling projects aimed at increasing production in the longer term. Exxon Mobil said last month that it planned to spend about $100 million a day for the next six years on new oil and gas projects.

The drilling for reserves in more remote and harder-to-reach areas has increased costs for oil companies as they compete for talent and technology. The Gulf of Mexico oil spill also led regulators to tighten safety rules and delay decisions on exploration permits, often further increasing costs for oil companies.

One year after the rig explosion that led to the spill in the Gulf of Mexico, BP is still seeking to resume drilling in the region’s waters, and investors continue to wait for BP to give a total figure for the costs of the spill.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=f485bfb51b24d420c4353342ae63a3d9