Lyin' Biden claims oil and gas companies are gouging consumers

[TomS]

...and said that there is "mounting evidence" of this, but does not present the evidence. What IS the evidence of price gouging?

[Alan]

On 2022-04-30 2:00 p.m., TomS wrote:
> ...and said that there is "mounting evidence" of this, but does not present the evidence.

So... ...exactly like you!

> What IS the evidence of price gouging?

Where is your evidence that Biden is in any way responsible?

[Bigbird]

TomS wrote:

> ...and said that there is "mounting evidence" of this, but does not
> present the evidence. What IS the evidence of price gouging?

"oil companies’ profits soared to $174bn this year as US gas prices
rose"

Something that escaped the notice of the master investor...

You truly are a demented old fool, Betty Boo Hoo.

--
Bozo bin
Amos P (transgender nymshifter)
Jerry C. (same attention seeking nymshifter)
Michael P. (transgender nymshifter)
Felicity (transgender nymshifter)
George R (transgender nymshifter)
Irving S (transgender nymshifter)
Enjoy!

[TomS]

I didn't think you could come up with anything.

[TomS]

Of course profits are up - are you aware of how they tanked following a world-wide shutdown? Probably not...

[Alan]

I don't have to.

YOU are the one who has claimed that Biden is somehow responsible...

...but you do not present the evidence.

[Alan]

Oh, Sunshine... ...will you NEVER learn?

'Exxon Mobil Corp (XOM.N) on Tuesday reported a fourth-quarter profit of
$8.87 billion, its largest in seven years, as the top U.S. oil producer
benefited from strong energy prices.'

<https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/exxon-post-best-results-seven-years-oil-prices-2022-02-01/>

You get that "seven years" includes years before COVID-19, don't you?

[TomS]

No, I didn't claim that at all, dude.

[TomS]

And what were their profits in 2020?

[Bigbird]

TomS wrote:

> On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 3:50:15 PM UTC-7, Bigbird wrote:
> > TomS wrote:
> >
> > > ...and said that there is "mounting evidence" of this, but does
> > > not present the evidence. What IS the evidence of price gouging?
> > "oil companies’ profits soared to $174bn this year as US gas prices
> > rose"
> >
> > Something that escaped the notice of the master investor...
> >
> > You truly are a demented old fool, Betty Boo Hoo.
> >
>

> Of course profits are up - are you aware of how they tanked following
> a world-wide shutdown? Probably not...

Are you aware of how inane that claim is.

They are not just up on recent years. You are being raped and loving it.

Like a retard you complain about gas price hikes yet defend the massive
profits those hikes produce.

Your dementia continues to own you, you demented old fool, Betty Boo

[TomS]

And what, exactly, is a reasonable profit?

[Alan]

You are claiming (now) that you haven't claimed Biden is to blame for
rising gas prices, Sunshine?

Would you like a moment to reconsider your position...

...or shall we just move to quoting your earlier posts?

:-)

[Bigbird]

"Best results for SEVEN years"

You may be demented but you can do a five word sentence if you put your
mind to it.

[Alan]

I don't know.

But it doesn't matter.

You were claim that their profits only look good because of "how they
tanked following a world-wide shutdown".

That article proves that's not the case.

[Bigbird]

TomS wrote:

> On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 4:59:38 PM UTC-7, Bigbird wrote:
> > TomS wrote:
> >
> > > On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 3:50:15 PM UTC-7, Bigbird wrote:
> > > > TomS wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > ...and said that there is "mounting evidence" of this, but
> > > > > does not present the evidence. What IS the evidence of price
> > > > > gouging?
> > > > "oil companies’ profits soared to $174bn this year as US gas
> > > > prices rose"
> > > >
> > > > Something that escaped the notice of the master investor...
> > > >
> > > > You truly are a demented old fool, Betty Boo Hoo.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Of course profits are up - are you aware of how they tanked
> > > following a world-wide shutdown? Probably not...
> > Are you aware of how inane that claim is.
> >
> > They are not just up on recent years. You are being raped and
> > loving it.
> >
> > Like a retard you complain about gas price hikes yet defend the
> > massive profits those hikes produce.
> >
> > Your dementia continues to own you, you demented old fool, Betty Boo
> > Hoo.
> >
>

> And what, exactly, is a reasonable profit?

4 minutes. Wow!

It's like you have no life at all.

[TomS]

4 HOURS. WOW!

What IS a reasonable profit?

[TomS]

BTW, you fuckers responded to ME in ONE and TWO minutes.

[Alan]

Yeah, but you're the one who started making a big deal about it.

[TomS]

No, BirdBrain did, fool.

[TomS]

On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 10:01:52 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

...and you, who have an answer for EVERYTHING, can't tell me what a reasonable profit margin for the oil companies is!

[Alan]

Nope.

You were doing it long before he ever did.

[Alan]

I don't know.

What I do is that they're currently making a crap-ton more profit than
they were immediately before the pandemic.

[Bigbird]

That is a lie

> > Yeah, but you're the one who started making a big deal about it.
>
> No, BirdBrain did, fool.

...and that is another lie.

You keep bleating on about response times to Baker and I am just taking
the piss out of how stupidly hypocritical you are... and not needing to
lie in the process.

[Bigbird]

> 4 HOURS. WOW!
>
> What IS a reasonable profit?

It's cute that you think that is the question to ask.

Do you even know what price gouging is? If you are relying on a
definition that uses the term "reasonable profit", you don't.

So what meds are you on for your dementia and do you regularly forget
to take them?

[TomS]

Hey Idiot, if you claim that oil companies are earning EXCESS profits you SHOULD be able to define what a REASONABLE profit is.

[-hh]

> Hey Idiot, if you claim that oil companies are earning EXCESS profits you
> SHOULD be able to define what a REASONABLE profit is.

Well, one way to look at things is to see how the Market has determined
their worth to be, via Stock valuation.

Case in point, one that's been mentioned here before is Chevron:

CVX is currently trending at around $157/share ... which despite them
having asset exposures in Ukraine, is nevertheless up by over +30% YTD
because of market conditions.

"Chevron’s profit more than quadrupled during the first quarter of 2022..."
(FYI, best profits in a decade)

"The oil giant reported $6.3 billion in earnings during the period up from
$1.37 billion during the same quarter in 2021. Chevron’s revenue rose to
$54.37 billion, up from $32.03 billion during the first quarter of 2021."

<https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/29/chevron-cvx-earnings-q1-2022.html>

FYI, $32B --> $54B is a +69% increase in revenues, whereas earnings increased
from $1.37B --> $6.3B is +460% (a +360% increase). Not too shabby.


-hh

[TomS]

As I have already noted, oil company revenues and profits are up substantially from a VERY LOW LEVEL. In fact, they, on average, lost money in 2020 (negative profits).

But that was not the question. The question is what is a REASONABLE profit MARGIN for oil companies. You should be able to answer this because you think that their profit margin now is UNREASONABLE, which means you have an idea of what IS reasonable.

Note that this is not a trick question, and I am sincere in hearing your opinion on this.

[Alan]

No. You've claimed that...

...and you're wrong.

[TomS]

Then prove it. And then tell us what a REASONABLE profit margin is.

[-hh]

True, but the citation noted that profits are at the highest point in a *decade*, not just since CoVid.

>
> But that was not the question. The question is what is a REASONABLE profit MARGIN
> for oil companies. You should be able to answer this because you think that their profit
> margin now is UNREASONABLE, which means you have an idea of what IS reasonable.
>
> Note that this is not a trick question, and I am sincere in hearing your opinion on this.

Actually, it is a trick question, because the question wasn't what is reasonable, but
what is 'excess'.

And even when we recognize that 2020 was a bad year for the sector, that's now
more than a year in the past, so it isn't showing up on "YoY" percentage changes
anymore. Looking into it for net profits, it looks like Forbes says that the segment
averages around +6.5%, and Investotopia says that 2021 was running at 4.7% until
in 4Q21, it zoomed to be 31.3% ... and the 1Q22 earnings reports are indicating
that they're higher even now still:

<https://www.forbes.com/2011/05/10/oil-company-earnings.html?sh=4904ba912dc8>
<https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/012015/what-average-profit-margin-company-oil-gas-drilling-sector.asp>

Overall, its hard to say what % profit rate is reasonable in a market known for its
volatility, in part because it is known to be a relatively fungible product. Its probably
pretty safe to say that to be able to financially recover from the hit of a "100 years"
loss event in just a year or two is pretty damn extraordinary and smacks of some
sort of market change on a fungible commodity which suggests exploitation, and
more so the longer that that persists.


-hh

[TomS]

The Fool makes the remarkable claim that oil companies did not lose money in 2020 - they did, A LOT!
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/XOM/financials?p=XOM
You changed the question from "reasonable" to "excess". That is just semantics: unreasonable IS excess. The question remains: what profit margin IS excess, meaning anything less IS reasonable. Note that profit margin is expressed as a percentage as the usually quoted dollar amounts make sense only in the context of total revenue, which the media conveniently ignores.

Again, you should be able to articulate this if you are intellectually honest.

[-hh]

> The Fool makes the remarkable claim that oil companies did not lose money in 2020 - they did, A LOT!

Incorrect. I did not make any claim specific to 2020, other than to note that YoY metrics
are now comparing 2022 to 2021, not 2020. Likewise, I did not state if oil companies
made or lost money in 2020; what I did state was that Forbes said +6.5% profits were typical.

> You changed the question from "reasonable" to "excess".

Also incorrect. The individual who introduced the word 'excess' was you, which is
still directly quoted (scroll up):

" Hey Idiot, if you claim that oil companies are earning EXCESS profits you
SHOULD be able to define what a REASONABLE profit is."

> That is just semantics: unreasonable IS excess.

No, you've now introduced yet another term, namely "unreasonable". For example,
some could choose to have a scale go: "reasonable --> unreasonable --> excessive"

> The question remains: what profit margin IS excess, meaning anything less IS reasonable.

No, that would be ... unreasonable. /s

You appear to be trying to make the question be unnecessarily black or white, without
justification, nor any subjective/contextual grey accommodation. Trick question much?
More objectively, if the general performance is +6.5% profits, then how much variance
around that value is normal and not anything to get worked up about?

> Note that profit margin is expressed as a percentage as the usually quoted dollar
> amounts make sense only in the context of total revenue, which the media conveniently ignores.
> Again, you should be able to articulate this if you are intellectually honest.

Good thing then that I was already expressing the profits as percentages...right?

-hh

[Bigbird]

> Hey Idiot, if you claim that oil companies are earning EXCESS profits
> you SHOULD be able to define what a REASONABLE profit is.

I didn't claim any such thing. Your dementia is in total control of
your life, Betty Boo Hoo.

[Bigbird]

No, that is not the question.

> You should be able to answer this
> because you think that their profit margin now is UNREASONABLE, which
> means you have an idea of what IS reasonable.

As I said already you clearly do not understand the concept of price
gouging/profiteering.

It has everything to do with raising prices in extraordinary
circumstances simply because the market will stand it.

Would you like me to draw you a supply and demand curve?

Take your meds, Betty Boo Hoo.

[TomS]

Answer the question, then, at what profit margin does gouging occur?

[TomS]

LOL! You mistake yourself for the Fool.

> > The question remains: what profit margin IS excess, meaning anything less IS reasonable.
> No, that would be ... unreasonable. /s
>
> You appear to be trying to make the question be unnecessarily black or white, without
> justification, nor any subjective/contextual grey accommodation. Trick question much?
> More objectively, if the general performance is +6.5% profits, then how much variance
> around that value is normal and not anything to get worked up about?

You should be able to state what profit level ISN'T excessive, unreasonable or gouging (you decide which term to use). It's like Dims who say that so-and-so (like Elon Musk) isn't paying his/her fair share of taxes, but never says what a "fair share" is. High profit margins stimulate competition for obvious reasons. CEOs are also sensitive to them given the threat of more government regulation. That said, they have a fiduciary responsibility to their share holders to maximize profits.

> > Note that profit margin is expressed as a percentage as the usually quoted dollar
> > amounts make sense only in the context of total revenue, which the media conveniently ignores.
> > Again, you should be able to articulate this if you are intellectually honest.
> Good thing then that I was already expressing the profits as percentages...right?

Yes, it IS a step in the right direction. Now, tell me what that variance is.

>
> -hh

[Alan]

I've said nothing about "reasonable profit margin".

You, on the other hand, have explicitly claimed that the oil companies'
profits this year only look good because of how bad they looked for the
last two years.

And you've been shown at least twice that that is untrue.

[TomS]

Of course not - you are AVOIDING talking about it.

>
> You, on the other hand, have explicitly claimed that the oil companies'
> profits this year only look good because of how bad they looked for the
> last two years.
>
> And you've been shown at least twice that that is untrue.

No, it is true. When you start from a low base a large percentage increase is misleading. But if you refer, instead, to their ACTUAL operating profit margin there is no misinterpretation of that. At least HH is referring to this. Why do you resist this?

Note that Lyin' Biden and his lackies in the media were not shedding any tears when the industry was losing MASSIVE amounts of money. Exxon, alone, lost TWENTY-NINE BILLION dollars in 2020. That IS a fact.

[-hh]

That would be where classical profit margins of +6.5% have been usurped in the
near term with profit margin of 31% ... right? Is that clearly within normal variance?

>
> Note that Lyin' Biden and his lackies in the media were not shedding any tears when
> the industry was losing MASSIVE amounts of money. Exxon, alone, lost TWENTY-NINE
> BILLION dollars in 2020. That IS a fact.

Last I checked, Biden wasn't the POTUS in 2020; that was Trump.

Likewise, last time I checked the business tax code, business losses are tax
deductible & get carried forward. As such, XOM's $29B loss wasn't as much
of a loss like individuals face, but a credit which offsets subsequent profits...
which makes a 31% profit margin despite that all the more interesting ... right?

-hh

[Alan]

I'm saying that since I didn't introduce it, I don't have to support or
rebut it.

>
>>
>> You, on the other hand, have explicitly claimed that the oil
>> companies' profits this year only look good because of how bad they
>> looked for the last two years.
>>
>> And you've been shown at least twice that that is untrue.
>
> No, it is true. When you start from a low base a large percentage
> increase is misleading. But if you refer, instead, to their ACTUAL
> operating profit margin there is no misinterpretation of that. At
> least HH is referring to this. Why do you resist this?

But the large increase IS NOT from a low base, Sunshine.

That is precisely what has been pointed out to you.

>
> Note that Lyin' Biden and his lackies in the media were not shedding
> any tears when the industry was losing MASSIVE amounts of money.
> Exxon, alone, lost TWENTY-NINE BILLION dollars in 2020. That IS a
> fact.

As has already been pointed out, Biden was a private citizen in 2020...

...and why should he have shed any tears.

The point is that the oil companies this year are making massive profits
when compared to the years BEFORE 2020.

[Bigbird]

Why do you think it is defined by a specific profit margin? It's as if
you understand nothing about business in general no matter this concept.

[-hh]

On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 6:29:04 AM UTC-4, Bigbird wrote:
> TomS wrote:
> > ...

> >
> > Answer the question, then, at what profit margin does gouging occur?
>
> Why do you think it is defined by a specific profit margin?

Tommy wants that to try to play the "gotcha!" game.

> It's as if you understand nothing about business in general no matter this concept.

Or he thinks he understands while others do not, so he's trying to use that
belief that he has superior insight to entrap others ... but it isn't working for him.

We know that there is no inherently fixed "right or wrong" profit margin in business,
because enterprise is invariably a continuum of varying degrees of risk for which
there would be expected to have a reward consummate with that risk.

Thus, a low risk highly fungible product should trend to thin profit margins due to
market efficiencies competition, and the other extreme of a binary coin flip should
be expected to have an appropriately high "50% profit" payoff to reflect its risk level.


-hh

[TomS]

LOL! You, the Fool and Lyin' Biden sure seem to think that you know when oil company profits are egregious, usually based on just ONE NUMBER, so it is reasonable to assume that you should have an opinion on when profit margins are NOT in that category. An inability to articulate this IS intellectual dishonesty, which isn't unknown among you libtards.

Look at the net income margin for Exxon, a proxy for the industry. Last year it was 8.33%, the same as for 2021. In 2020 Exxon's margin was NEGATIVE 12.6%. In 2018 and 2019 it 7.46% and 5.61%. It is clear that while the margins are better than 3 out of the last 5 years, it was not egregiously so. In any case, a one or two-percent increase has absolutely no impact on gas prices.

[-hh]

On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 11:47:45 AM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 5:00:16 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 6:29:04 AM UTC-4, Bigbird wrote:
> > > TomS wrote:
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > Answer the question, then, at what profit margin does gouging occur?
> > >
> > > Why do you think it is defined by a specific profit margin?
> > Tommy wants that to try to play the "gotcha!" game.
> > > It's as if you understand nothing about business in general no matter this concept.
> >
> > Or he thinks he understands while others do not, so he's trying to use that
> > belief that he has superior insight to entrap others ... but it isn't working for him.
> >
> > We know that there is no inherently fixed "right or wrong" profit margin in business,
> > because enterprise is invariably a continuum of varying degrees of risk for which
> > there would be expected to have a reward consummate with that risk.
> >
> > Thus, a low risk highly fungible product should trend to thin profit margins due to
> > market efficiencies competition, and the other extreme of a binary coin flip should
> > be expected to have an appropriately high "50% profit" payoff to reflect its risk level.
> >
>

> LOL! You, the Fool and Lyin' Biden sure seem to think that you know when oil company
> profits are egregious, usually based on just ONE NUMBER, so it is reasonable to assume
> that you should have an opinion on when profit margins are NOT in that category.
> An inability to articulate this IS intellectual dishonesty, which isn't unknown among you libtards.

Blah...blah...blah. All insults; no substance.

> Look at the net income margin for Exxon, a proxy for the industry.

Claim. Let's see some of those peers reviewed in parallel too.

> Last year it was 8.33%, the same as for 2021.

Ummm...last year *WAS* 2021. Perhaps you misstated something?

> In 2020 Exxon's margin was NEGATIVE 12.6%. In 2018 and 2019 it 7.46%
> and 5.61%. It is clear that while the margins are better than 3 out of the
> last 5 years, it was not egregiously so. In any case, a one or two-percent
> increase has absolutely no impact on gas prices.

That's a 1 or 2 percentage POINT increase, not a percentage increase.

Now if you meant 1Q22, before claiming that it was all very nominal compared
to 2021, do make sure to account for how some companies chose to quite
aggressively take large write-offs in just the quarter due to the Ukraine war.

In the case of XOM, it reportedly was a $3.4B write-off, which is why their
profits were only $5.48B instead of ($3.4B + $5.48B =) ~$8.9B. Just that
one choice is what cut their profits down to only 8.33% .. it would have been
roughly 13.5% otherwise ... much more than "one or two" percentage points:

<https://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2022-04-29/exxon-profits-surge-loses-billions-in-russian-exit>

-hh

[Bigbird]

TomS wrote:

> In any case, a one or two-percent increase
> has absolutely no impact on gas prices.

If it has no impact on gas prices why are you claiming it has anything
to do with price gouging?

You really have no idea what price gouging is do you.

You truly are a micro stroke prone, demented old fart, Betty Boo Hoo.

[TomS]

Last year means last 12 months.

> > In 2020 Exxon's margin was NEGATIVE 12.6%. In 2018 and 2019 it 7.46%
> > and 5.61%. It is clear that while the margins are better than 3 out of the
> > last 5 years, it was not egregiously so. In any case, a one or two-percent
> > increase has absolutely no impact on gas prices.
> That's a 1 or 2 percentage POINT increase, not a percentage increase.
>
> Now if you meant 1Q22, before claiming that it was all very nominal compared
> to 2021, do make sure to account for how some companies chose to quite
> aggressively take large write-offs in just the quarter due to the Ukraine war.
>
> In the case of XOM, it reportedly was a $3.4B write-off, which is why their
> profits were only $5.48B instead of ($3.4B + $5.48B =) ~$8.9B. Just that
> one choice is what cut their profits down to only 8.33% .. it would have been
> roughly 13.5% otherwise ... much more than "one or two" percentage points:

This loss is a direct result of their exit from Russia. The 8.33% profit margin stands. In any case, when a company has real losses that reduce real profits and the real profit margin. You just can't make-believe that those losses didn't happen. So, no, your 13.5% figure is pure fantasy.

>
> <https://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2022-04-29/exxon-profits-surge-loses-billions-in-russian-exit>
>
> -hh

[TomS]

Well, BirdBrain you CERTAINLY DON'T!

[Bigbird]

Yet again your response is notable only for the inability to rebut or
refute ANYTHING.

Feeling any numbness, Betty?

[-hh]

That's not clear: are you using an annual metric with a sliding YoY, or are
you using just 1Q performance that's then been annualized & compared
to CY21, or are you trying to do something else?

> > > In 2020 Exxon's margin was NEGATIVE 12.6%. In 2018 and 2019 it 7.46%
> > > and 5.61%. It is clear that while the margins are better than 3 out of the
> > > last 5 years, it was not egregiously so. In any case, a one or two-percent
> > > increase has absolutely no impact on gas prices.
> >
> > That's a 1 or 2 percentage POINT increase, not a percentage increase.

YA example of Tommy not being clear.

> > Now if you meant 1Q22, before claiming that it was all very nominal compared
> > to 2021, do make sure to account for how some companies chose to quite
> > aggressively take large write-offs in just the quarter due to the Ukraine war.
> >
> > In the case of XOM, it reportedly was a $3.4B write-off, which is why their
> > profits were only $5.48B instead of ($3.4B + $5.48B =) ~$8.9B. Just that
> > one choice is what cut their profits down to only 8.33% .. it would have been
> > roughly 13.5% otherwise ... much more than "one or two" percentage points:
>
> This loss is a direct result of their exit from Russia.

Understood, but the point is that they weren't forced to take that write-off,
or even to do it so quickly (eg, single quarter).

> The 8.33% profit margin stands.

With that contextual understanding now.

> In any case, when a company has real losses that reduce real profits and
> the real profit margin. You just can't make-believe that those losses didn't
> happen. So, no, your 13.5% figure is pure fantasy.

Oh, I'm not saying that they didn't happen: I'm noting that it was done as
a "one shot" that significantly reduced the appearance of the company's
profitability to make it appear to be smaller.

For example, supposed that they hadn't been making robust profits, but
just barely scraping by: instead of taking just one Q for the entire write-off,
they could have instead chosen to take it over more than one quarter, so
as to not have any quarter go negative to potentially scare off investors.

The key here is that this serves as an example of things that one can do,
to change financial appearances while still staying GAAP compliant.

> > <https://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2022-04-29/exxon-profits-surge-loses-billions-in-russian-exit>
>

-hh

[TomS]

Both.

> > > > In 2020 Exxon's margin was NEGATIVE 12.6%. In 2018 and 2019 it 7.46%
> > > > and 5.61%. It is clear that while the margins are better than 3 out of the
> > > > last 5 years, it was not egregiously so. In any case, a one or two-percent
> > > > increase has absolutely no impact on gas prices.
> > >
> > > That's a 1 or 2 percentage POINT increase, not a percentage increase.
> YA example of Tommy not being clear.
> > > Now if you meant 1Q22, before claiming that it was all very nominal compared
> > > to 2021, do make sure to account for how some companies chose to quite
> > > aggressively take large write-offs in just the quarter due to the Ukraine war.
> > >
> > > In the case of XOM, it reportedly was a $3.4B write-off, which is why their
> > > profits were only $5.48B instead of ($3.4B + $5.48B =) ~$8.9B. Just that
> > > one choice is what cut their profits down to only 8.33% .. it would have been
> > > roughly 13.5% otherwise ... much more than "one or two" percentage points:
> >
> > This loss is a direct result of their exit from Russia.
> Understood, but the point is that they weren't forced to take that write-off,
> or even to do it so quickly (eg, single quarter).

The HELL THEY WEREN'T! It is impossible to do business inside Russia right now.

> > The 8.33% profit margin stands.
> With that contextual understanding now.
> > In any case, when a company has real losses that reduce real profits and
> > the real profit margin. You just can't make-believe that those losses didn't
> > happen. So, no, your 13.5% figure is pure fantasy.
> Oh, I'm not saying that they didn't happen: I'm noting that it was done as
> a "one shot" that significantly reduced the appearance of the company's
> profitability to make it appear to be smaller.

Exxon didn't make these numbers up - they are actual operating figures, not the make believe number you came up with.

>
> For example, supposed that they hadn't been making robust profits, but
> just barely scraping by: instead of taking just one Q for the entire write-off,
> they could have instead chosen to take it over more than one quarter, so
> as to not have any quarter go negative to potentially scare off investors.

Exxon doesn't make up the accounting rules, the SEC does.

>
> The key here is that this serves as an example of things that one can do,
> to change financial appearances while still staying GAAP compliant.

LOL! You libtards started out by claiming oil companies profits were excessive, now you are trying to excuse why they aren't as large as you thought! Here is a pretty obvious insight to anyone, like me, who has run a business: profit margins go up as business volume increases because your fixed expenses become a smaller part of the total.

>
> > > <https://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2022-04-29/exxon-profits-surge-loses-billions-in-russian-exit>
> >
>
> -hh

[-hh]

Impossible. The former compares 1/31/22-3/31/22 to 3/31/21-3/31/22, whereas
the latter compares 1/31/22-3/31/22 to 1/31/21-12/31/21.

> > > > > In 2020 Exxon's margin was NEGATIVE 12.6%. In 2018 and 2019 it 7.46%
> > > > > and 5.61%. It is clear that while the margins are better than 3 out of the
> > > > > last 5 years, it was not egregiously so. In any case, a one or two-percent
> > > > > increase has absolutely no impact on gas prices.
> > > >
> > > > That's a 1 or 2 percentage POINT increase, not a percentage increase.
> > YA example of Tommy not being clear.
> > > > Now if you meant 1Q22, before claiming that it was all very nominal compared
> > > > to 2021, do make sure to account for how some companies chose to quite
> > > > aggressively take large write-offs in just the quarter due to the Ukraine war.
> > > >
> > > > In the case of XOM, it reportedly was a $3.4B write-off, which is why their
> > > > profits were only $5.48B instead of ($3.4B + $5.48B =) ~$8.9B. Just that
> > > > one choice is what cut their profits down to only 8.33% .. it would have been
> > > > roughly 13.5% otherwise ... much more than "one or two" percentage points:
> > >
> > > This loss is a direct result of their exit from Russia.
> > Understood, but the point is that they weren't forced to take that write-off,
> > or even to do it so quickly (eg, single quarter).
>
> The HELL THEY WEREN'T! It is impossible to do business inside Russia right now.

So? That doesn't mean that one has to completely write off the entire asset.
For example, one could have suspended them.

> > > The 8.33% profit margin stands.
> > With that contextual understanding now.
> > > In any case, when a company has real losses that reduce real profits and
> > > the real profit margin. You just can't make-believe that those losses didn't
> > > happen. So, no, your 13.5% figure is pure fantasy.
> >
> > Oh, I'm not saying that they didn't happen: I'm noting that it was done as
> > a "one shot" that significantly reduced the appearance of the company's
> > profitability to make it appear to be smaller.
>
> Exxon didn't make these numbers up - they are actual operating figures,
> not the make believe number you came up with.

The discretion is in if to take a particular action, not the math that
results from that decision.

> >
> > For example, supposed that they hadn't been making robust profits, but
> > just barely scraping by: instead of taking just one Q for the entire write-off,
> > they could have instead chosen to take it over more than one quarter, so
> > as to not have any quarter go negative to potentially scare off investors.
>
> Exxon doesn't make up the accounting rules, the SEC does.

Except that this isn't about the accounting once the decision has been
made, it is about the flexibility for what decisions to make, when, and
for how much/etc. Point being that XOM has the latitude to decide
how-where-when to do the write-off, but chose to take it all in a single Q.

> >
> > The key here is that this serves as an example of things that one can do,
> > to change financial appearances while still staying GAAP compliant.
>
> LOL! You libtards started out by claiming oil companies profits were
> excessive, now you are trying to excuse why they aren't as large as
> you thought!

Incorrect. First, I never asserted if their profits were excessive or not,
but noted some contextual aspects the that question .. plus I also noted
how the very aggressive write-off of Russian assets had the effect in
their reporting to decrease the magnitude of their reported profits.

> Here is a pretty obvious insight to anyone, like me, who has run
> a business: profit margins go up as business volume increases
> because your fixed expenses become a smaller part of the total.

"Business 201" for Tommy: when you know that profit margins are
running hot and you're trying to keep m(arginal) taxation rates down, that's
when to use your discretion to find additional expenses to make & claim.

-hh

[TomS]

Both.

> > > > > > In 2020 Exxon's margin was NEGATIVE 12.6%. In 2018 and 2019 it 7.46%
> > > > > > and 5.61%. It is clear that while the margins are better than 3 out of the
> > > > > > last 5 years, it was not egregiously so. In any case, a one or two-percent
> > > > > > increase has absolutely no impact on gas prices.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's a 1 or 2 percentage POINT increase, not a percentage increase.
> > > YA example of Tommy not being clear.
> > > > > Now if you meant 1Q22, before claiming that it was all very nominal compared
> > > > > to 2021, do make sure to account for how some companies chose to quite
> > > > > aggressively take large write-offs in just the quarter due to the Ukraine war.
> > > > >
> > > > > In the case of XOM, it reportedly was a $3.4B write-off, which is why their
> > > > > profits were only $5.48B instead of ($3.4B + $5.48B =) ~$8.9B. Just that
> > > > > one choice is what cut their profits down to only 8.33% .. it would have been
> > > > > roughly 13.5% otherwise ... much more than "one or two" percentage points:
> > > >
> > > > This loss is a direct result of their exit from Russia.
> > > Understood, but the point is that they weren't forced to take that write-off,
> > > or even to do it so quickly (eg, single quarter).
> >
> > The HELL THEY WEREN'T! It is impossible to do business inside Russia right now.
> So? That doesn't mean that one has to completely write off the entire asset.

Why?

> For example, one could have suspended them.
> > > > The 8.33% profit margin stands.
> > > With that contextual understanding now.
> > > > In any case, when a company has real losses that reduce real profits and
> > > > the real profit margin. You just can't make-believe that those losses didn't
> > > > happen. So, no, your 13.5% figure is pure fantasy.
> > >
> > > Oh, I'm not saying that they didn't happen: I'm noting that it was done as
> > > a "one shot" that significantly reduced the appearance of the company's
> > > profitability to make it appear to be smaller.
> >
> > Exxon didn't make these numbers up - they are actual operating figures,
> > not the make believe number you came up with.
> The discretion is in if to take a particular action, not the math that
> results from that decision.

Exxon accounts must follow SEC rules - it is not optional. In any case, Exxon has decided it is impossible to do business in Russia and has pulled their employees from Russia. This is an irreversible decision requiring the total write-off of assets in Russia.
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/exxon-mobil-begins-removing-us-employees-its-russian-oil-gas-operations-2022-03-01/

> > >
> > > For example, supposed that they hadn't been making robust profits, but
> > > just barely scraping by: instead of taking just one Q for the entire write-off,
> > > they could have instead chosen to take it over more than one quarter, so
> > > as to not have any quarter go negative to potentially scare off investors.
> >
> > Exxon doesn't make up the accounting rules, the SEC does.
> Except that this isn't about the accounting once the decision has been
> made, it is about the flexibility for what decisions to make, when, and
> for how much/etc. Point being that XOM has the latitude to decide
> how-where-when to do the write-off, but chose to take it all in a single Q.
> > >
> > > The key here is that this serves as an example of things that one can do,
> > > to change financial appearances while still staying GAAP compliant.
> >
> > LOL! You libtards started out by claiming oil companies profits were
> > excessive, now you are trying to excuse why they aren't as large as
> > you thought!
> Incorrect. First, I never asserted if their profits were excessive or not,
> but noted some contextual aspects the that question .. plus I also noted
> how the very aggressive write-off of Russian assets had the effect in
> their reporting to decrease the magnitude of their reported profits.

"You" refers to the total libtard community, including Lyin' Biden who I quoted.

> > Here is a pretty obvious insight to anyone, like me, who has run
> > a business: profit margins go up as business volume increases
> > because your fixed expenses become a smaller part of the total.
> "Business 201" for Tommy: when you know that profit margins are
> running hot and you're trying to keep m(arginal) taxation rates down, that's
> when to use your discretion to find additional expenses to make & claim.

You didn't pass Business 101 because you NEVER RAN A BUSINESS - I HAVE!
PS All businesses try to minimize taxes - it is a drag on profits. I actually INCREASED my taxes by increasing my IRA withdrawals well above the minimum because I think the Dims WILL increase taxes (or prevent the extension of the Trump tax cuts) and want as much income taxed at the lower rates as possible.
>
> -hh

[-hh]

Show your math then, for both of your claims you're apparently making.

> > > > > > > In 2020 Exxon's margin was NEGATIVE 12.6%. In 2018 and 2019 it 7.46%
> > > > > > > and 5.61%. It is clear that while the margins are better than 3 out of the
> > > > > > > last 5 years, it was not egregiously so. In any case, a one or two-percent
> > > > > > > increase has absolutely no impact on gas prices.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's a 1 or 2 percentage POINT increase, not a percentage increase.
> > > > YA example of Tommy not being clear.
> > > > > > Now if you meant 1Q22, before claiming that it was all very nominal compared
> > > > > > to 2021, do make sure to account for how some companies chose to quite
> > > > > > aggressively take large write-offs in just the quarter due to the Ukraine war.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In the case of XOM, it reportedly was a $3.4B write-off, which is why their
> > > > > > profits were only $5.48B instead of ($3.4B + $5.48B =) ~$8.9B. Just that
> > > > > > one choice is what cut their profits down to only 8.33% .. it would have been
> > > > > > roughly 13.5% otherwise ... much more than "one or two" percentage points:
> > > > >
> > > > > This loss is a direct result of their exit from Russia.
> > > > Understood, but the point is that they weren't forced to take that write-off,
> > > > or even to do it so quickly (eg, single quarter).
> > >
> > > The HELL THEY WEREN'T! It is impossible to do business inside Russia right now.
> >
> > So? That doesn't mean that one has to completely write off the entire asset.
>
> Why?

Because the timeline of the write-down is controlled by the corporation.

Even if it had been a government seizure, there are legal means to have
delayed taking it immediately, if so desired, such as by arguing that the
write-off doesn't have to be applied until all legal appeals are exhausted.

> > For example, one could have suspended them.
> > > > > The 8.33% profit margin stands.
> > > > With that contextual understanding now.
> > > > > In any case, when a company has real losses that reduce real profits and
> > > > > the real profit margin. You just can't make-believe that those losses didn't
> > > > > happen. So, no, your 13.5% figure is pure fantasy.
> > > >
> > > > Oh, I'm not saying that they didn't happen: I'm noting that it was done as
> > > > a "one shot" that significantly reduced the appearance of the company's
> > > > profitability to make it appear to be smaller.
> > >
> > > Exxon didn't make these numbers up - they are actual operating figures,
> > > not the make believe number you came up with.
> >
> > The discretion is in if to take a particular action, not the math that
> > results from that decision.
>
> Exxon accounts must follow SEC rules - it is not optional.

Already addressed in my prior post ... see below: I'll mark
the section with a 'Silence From Tommy' to highlight it for you.

> In any case, Exxon has decided it is impossible to do business in Russia
> and has pulled their employees from Russia. This is an irreversible decision
> requiring the total write-off of assets in Russia.

Oh, so you're claiming that it is literally impossible ... and irreversible .. for
companies like XOM to ever do business in that region ever again?

Got wager confidence on that?

Because I'd say that the odds are better than 50-50 that western corporations
(eg, DJIA; SP500, etc) will be conducting business back in that region within
the next ten years.

> https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/exxon-mobil-begins-removing-us-employees-its-russian-oil-gas-operations-2022-03-01/
> > > >
> > > > For example, supposed that they hadn't been making robust profits, but
> > > > just barely scraping by: instead of taking just one Q for the entire write-off,
> > > > they could have instead chosen to take it over more than one quarter, so
> > > > as to not have any quarter go negative to potentially scare off investors.
> > >
> > > Exxon doesn't make up the accounting rules, the SEC does.
> >
> > Except that this isn't about the accounting once the decision has been
> > made, it is about the flexibility for what decisions to make, when, and
> > for how much/etc. Point being that XOM has the latitude to decide
> > how-where-when to do the write-off, but chose to take it all in a single Q.

Silence From Tommy. (highlighted as per above)

> > > >
> > > > The key here is that this serves as an example of things that one can do,
> > > > to change financial appearances while still staying GAAP compliant.
> > >
> > > LOL! You libtards started out by claiming oil companies profits were
> > > excessive, now you are trying to excuse why they aren't as large as
> > > you thought!
> >
> > Incorrect. First, I never asserted if their profits were excessive or not,
> > but noted some contextual aspects the that question .. plus I also noted
> > how the very aggressive write-off of Russian assets had the effect in
> > their reporting to decrease the magnitude of their reported profits.
>
> "You" refers to the total libtard community, including Lyin' Biden who I quoted.

Oh, so then what you're claiming is that I'm supposedly to blame for every
remark that anyone made that you disagree with? Nope. Grow up.

> > > Here is a pretty obvious insight to anyone, like me, who has run
> > > a business: profit margins go up as business volume increases
> > > because your fixed expenses become a smaller part of the total.
> >
> > "Business 201" for Tommy: when you know that profit margins are
> > running hot and you're trying to keep m(arginal) taxation rates down, that's
> > when to use your discretion to find additional expenses to make & claim.
>
> You didn't pass Business 101 because you NEVER RAN A BUSINESS - I HAVE!

YA example of an insult attempt from Tommy because he knows I'm right.

BTW, "m(arginal)" is a typo; not sure where it came from.

But of course if Tommy is willing to make a modest wager on his assertion,
I'd be more than willing to take him to the cleaners.

> PS All businesses try to minimize taxes - it is a drag on profits.

And smarter enterprises will look beyond the current fiscal quarter and year.

Case in point, a business may adjust their PC assets purchasing decisions
with the Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System (MACRS) depreciation
rules in mind.

> I actually INCREASED my taxes by increasing my IRA withdrawals well
> above the minimum because I think the Dims WILL increase taxes
> (or prevent the extension of the Trump tax cuts) and want as much
> income taxed at the lower rates as possible.

You show that you already know that the way that the Republicans wrote the
2017 tax bill, that your "tax increase" for individuals is guaranteed if politicians
do nothing.

Likewise, you also already know the Republicans are actively obstructing
everything again, which pretty much guarantees the 2025 rates reversion on
individual filers. Unfortunately, you want to shift blame away from those
who originally crafted that bill back in 2017.

Quite ironic, since you no longer own a business that benefits from the
permanent tax breaks that they got in 2017.

In any event, since Tommy's implying that he wants to brag, just what does
his "well above the minimum" claim actually represent? Was it an extra year's
worth of withdrawals? Two? Three? Four? RMD at age 76 was ~4.5%, so that's
~$45K RMD per million IRA balance, so electing to take a $100K withdrawal
today (& taxes thereon) would represent a shade over just 'one extra year'.

From a tax implications standpoint, the current-vs-future tax delta for the main
brackets is just ~4% (eg, 22% tax rate goes back up to 25%; 24% to 28%), so
essentially its a bet that paying today at a 4% lower tax rate will pay for itself
because one doesn't expect to make that level of return over the next four years.

Given how Tommy has also been shouting about high inflation rates, one should
also consider looking into if the annual tax bracket adjustments are going to keep
up too, because if not, this narrows the potential delta.

Similar models can be done for "Rothifying" IRA/401k balances too, and this past
quarter's down markets represents a good time to consider such moves. Of course,
for those who are still gainfully employed, moving too much can raise one's (M)AGI*
high enough to jeopardize one's maximum allowed annual contribution into a Roth
IRA; having to later do an excess contribution removal can be fairly easy or painful,
depending on one's brokerage's procedures.


* - I forget if its based on AGI or MAGI, so I wrote it this as (M)AGI for whichever applies.

-hh

[TomS]

Hey, you sound like Lyin' Biden trying to blame inflation on Putin. Exxon's profits WEREN'T in the egregious category BEFORE the Russian invasion, and they certainly aren't now. Your contorted reasoning doesn't change that. In any event, even a FIVE PERCENT difference in the price of gas isn't going to impress ANYONE when prices have risen SEVENTY FIVE PERCENT under Lyin' Biden. And you STILL don't admit to what a reasonable profit is margin for oil companies.

No, I am right - you NEVER RAN A BUSINESS

>
> BTW, "m(arginal)" is a typo; not sure where it came from.
>
> But of course if Tommy is willing to make a modest wager on his assertion,
> I'd be more than willing to take him to the cleaners.
> > PS All businesses try to minimize taxes - it is a drag on profits.
> And smarter enterprises will look beyond the current fiscal quarter and year.
>
> Case in point, a business may adjust their PC assets purchasing decisions
> with the Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System (MACRS) depreciation
> rules in mind.
> > I actually INCREASED my taxes by increasing my IRA withdrawals well
> > above the minimum because I think the Dims WILL increase taxes
> > (or prevent the extension of the Trump tax cuts) and want as much
> > income taxed at the lower rates as possible.
> You show that you already know that the way that the Republicans wrote the
> 2017 tax bill, that your "tax increase" for individuals is guaranteed if politicians
> do nothing.

Hey dude, that is just a fact, so why comment?

>
> Likewise, you also already know the Republicans are actively obstructing
> everything again, which pretty much guarantees the 2025 rates reversion on
> individual filers. Unfortunately, you want to shift blame away from those
> who originally crafted that bill back in 2017.

The Republicans aren't obstructing anything - the Dims totally refuse to negotiate with them, therefore there is nothing to obstruct.

>
> Quite ironic, since you no longer own a business that benefits from the
> permanent tax breaks that they got in 2017.

I have benefitted to the tune of four to five thousand dollars per year, dude. I also don't have to itemize, which takes hours of time - another benefit.

>
> In any event, since Tommy's implying that he wants to brag, just what does
> his "well above the minimum" claim actually represent? Was it an extra year's
> worth of withdrawals? Two? Three? Four? RMD at age 76 was ~4.5%, so that's
> ~$45K RMD per million IRA balance, so electing to take a $100K withdrawal
> today (& taxes thereon) would represent a shade over just 'one extra year'.

About triple.

>
> From a tax implications standpoint, the current-vs-future tax delta for the main
> brackets is just ~4% (eg, 22% tax rate goes back up to 25%; 24% to 28%), so
> essentially its a bet that paying today at a 4% lower tax rate will pay for itself
> because one doesn't expect to make that level of return over the next four years.

4% is A LOT better than what you get with Treasuries.

>
> Given how Tommy has also been shouting about high inflation rates, one should
> also consider looking into if the annual tax bracket adjustments are going to keep
> up too, because if not, this narrows the potential delta.

Marginally, at best.

>
> Similar models can be done for "Rothifying" IRA/401k balances too, and this past
> quarter's down markets represents a good time to consider such moves. Of course,
> for those who are still gainfully employed, moving too much can raise one's (M)AGI*
> high enough to jeopardize one's maximum allowed annual contribution into a Roth
> IRA; having to later do an excess contribution removal can be fairly easy or painful,
> depending on one's brokerage's procedures.

Can't use Roth anymore - no earned income. Retirement is GREAT - I HIGHLY recommend it.

>
>
> * - I forget if its based on AGI or MAGI, so I wrote it this as (M)AGI for whichever applies.

I've already forgotten most of what you wrote, it is SO WRONG!

>
> -hh

[TomS]

I forgot to add that I am going to make a major real estate purchase this year and need the cash from the IRA account. By pulling money out over several years I am paying taxes at a MUCH LOWER rate than if I pulled the money out all at once (24% vs 35%).

[-hh]

Nope. I'm specifically commenting on your prediction that there will never be
any western enterprises operating in northern Asia ever again.

> Exxon's profits WEREN'T in the egregious category BEFORE the Russian invasion,
> and they certainly aren't now. Your contorted reasoning doesn't change that.

Oh, look: a claim. What is your definition for what is an "egregious" level of profit?

> In any event, even a FIVE PERCENT difference in the price of gas isn't going to
> impress ANYONE when prices have risen SEVENTY FIVE PERCENT under Lyin' Biden.

Particularly when you're trying to ignore three things:

1) Gas prices when Biden took office ($2.392/gal) were 20% lower than their
pre-CoVid peak ($2.962/gal) during Trump. As such, at least a quarter of the
price increase you're trying to complain about is predicable recover if there
hadn't been any complicating factors of disruption:

<https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=EMM_EPMR_PTE_NUS_DPG&f=W>

2) Gas supply chain had significant disruptions due to and during CoVid that has
impacted supply availability as demand returned, which classical will result in a
price spike independent of simple symmetrical recovery.

3) The "FIVE PERCENT" that you're shouting about isn't comparable to changes
in retail prices because it is percentage points. For the actual percentage (not
percentage point) increase from 8.3% profits to 13.5% profits is (13.5/8.3) = +62%.

> And you STILL don't admit to what a reasonable profit is margin for oil companies.

Where did I claim that I did (or would) define what constitutes 'reasonable'?

As I said below:

> > But of course if Tommy is willing to make a modest wager on his assertion,
> > I'd be more than willing to take him to the cleaners.

So how about it Tommy? Are you confident enough in your "never" assertion to
actually back up your hot air with some IRL consequence?

> > > PS All businesses try to minimize taxes - it is a drag on profits.
> > And smarter enterprises will look beyond the current fiscal quarter and year.
> >
> > Case in point, a business may adjust their PC assets purchasing decisions
> > with the Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System (MACRS) depreciation
> > rules in mind.
> > > I actually INCREASED my taxes by increasing my IRA withdrawals well
> > > above the minimum because I think the Dims WILL increase taxes
> > > (or prevent the extension of the Trump tax cuts) and want as much
> > > income taxed at the lower rates as possible.
> >
> > You show that you already know that the way that the Republicans wrote the
> > 2017 tax bill, that your "tax increase" for individuals is guaranteed if politicians
> > do nothing.
>
> Hey dude, that is just a fact, so why comment?

For the specific reason that was already explained.

> > Likewise, you also already know the Republicans are actively obstructing
> > everything again, which pretty much guarantees the 2025 rates reversion on
> > individual filers. Unfortunately, you want to shift blame away from those
> > who originally crafted that bill back in 2017.
>
> The Republicans aren't obstructing anything - the Dims totally refuse to
> negotiate with them, therefore there is nothing to obstruct.

“One hundred percent of my focus is standing up to this administration,”
- Mitch McConnel

<https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/05/mitch-mcconnell-joe-biden-obstruction>

Oops.

> >
> > Quite ironic, since you no longer own a business that benefits from the
> > permanent tax breaks that they got in 2017.
>
> I have benefitted to the tune of four to five thousand dollars per year, dude.

Since 2017? You sold your business over a decade ago.

> I also don't have to itemize, which takes hours of time - another benefit.

That's expiring in 2026.

> > In any event, since Tommy's implying that he wants to brag, just what does
> > his "well above the minimum" claim actually represent? Was it an extra year's
> > worth of withdrawals? Two? Three? Four? RMD at age 76 was ~4.5%, so that's
> > ~$45K RMD per million IRA balance, so electing to take a $100K withdrawal
> > today (& taxes thereon) would represent a shade over just 'one extra year'.
>
> About triple.

So its RMD + 2 years, which is not really all that huge of an amount at all.

> >
> > From a tax implications standpoint, the current-vs-future tax delta for the main
> > brackets is just ~4% (eg, 22% tax rate goes back up to 25%; 24% to 28%), so
> > essentially its a bet that paying today at a 4% lower tax rate will pay for itself
> > because one doesn't expect to make that level of return over the next four years.
>
> 4% is A LOT better than what you get with Treasuries.

I Bonds are currently paying 9.62%:

<https://www.treasurydirect.gov/news/pressroom/currentibondratespr.htm>

And if you know what you're doing, even a simple old EE guarantees a 3.6% rate.
Apparently you don't really know how to work the system for US Bonds.

> >
> > Given how Tommy has also been shouting about high inflation rates, one should
> > also consider looking into if the annual tax bracket adjustments are going to keep
> > up too, because if not, this narrows the potential delta.
>
> Marginally, at best.

Its still YA variable to consider, as even just a 0.1% difference is still $1K per M.

> >
> > Similar models can be done for "Rothifying" IRA/401k balances too, and this past
> > quarter's down markets represents a good time to consider such moves. Of course,
> > for those who are still gainfully employed, moving too much can raise one's (M)AGI*
> > high enough to jeopardize one's maximum allowed annual contribution into a Roth
> > IRA; having to later do an excess contribution removal can be fairly easy or painful,
> > depending on one's brokerage's procedures.
>
> Can't use Roth anymore - no earned income.

You didn't read what was written: "Rothifying" an IRA/401k is to perform a Roth conversion,
which has no employment requirement.

> Retirement is GREAT - I HIGHLY recommend it.

Well, you've not spending any time in the sailplane in 2022:

<https://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-3.0/gliding/flightbook.html?sp=2022&st=olcp&rt=olc&pi=19144#>

And the total for the four (4) years prior was less than 50 hours in the seat.



-hh

[-hh]

On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 1:37:48 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
> On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 10:29:38 AM UTC-7, TomS wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 5:32:27 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:

> > >...

> > > Oh, so you're claiming that it is literally impossible ... and irreversible .. for
> > > companies like XOM to ever do business in that region ever again?
> > >
> > > Got wager confidence on that?

> > > …
> > > > I actually INCREASED my taxes by increasing my IRA withdrawals …
> > > …

>
> I forgot to add that I am going to make a major real estate purchase
> this year and need the cash from the IRA account.

Given how rates have already headed up, sounds like you’ve moved a tad late.

> By pulling money out over several years I am paying taxes at a MUCH LOWER
> rate than if I pulled the money out all at once (24% vs 35%).

Parametrically, since the top of the 35% bracket is $628K and the bottom of
24% is $173K, sounds like most possible that you’re trying to brag about is
$455K, which with the delta tax rate of <11% is max $50K tax optimization.
Similarly, the 3xRMD claim means that the RMD = $450K/3 = ~$150K, which
at 4.5% for age 76 RMD pegs the max pre-tax IRA balance at ~$3.3M.

But honestly, you should have been doing that since rates dropped back in 2018
as part of a tax optimization strategy, regardless of real estate thoughts for 2022…

-hh

[TomS]

How NICE of you to notice that the weather has sucked so far this year. And your point is? On the other side I bought a new golf cart and am playing A LOT of golf.

>
> And the total for the four (4) years prior was less than 50 hours in the seat.

No, you fucking idiot: last year I flew over 190 hours. By comparison, the average private pilot gets 30-40 hours per year. And glider flying is HIGHLY weather dependent.

If I were you I would blow my brains out. Of course, you would have to steal a gun first.

>
>
>
> -hh

[TomS]

Hey Lyin' Asshole, you need to get a life. You are obsessed with trying to figure out my net worth. Leave it at I am a multimillionaire - that is ALL you need to know. You, I take it, are not, which is ALL that I need to know.

[Alan]

Oh, look!

Another claim you'll never substantiate!

[-hh]

Silence from Tommy.

> > > Exxon's profits WEREN'T in the egregious category BEFORE the Russian invasion,
> > > and they certainly aren't now. Your contorted reasoning doesn't change that.
> >
> > Oh, look: a claim. What is your definition for what is an "egregious" level of profit?

Silence from Tommy.

> > > In any event, even a FIVE PERCENT difference in the price of gas isn't going to
> > > impress ANYONE when prices have risen SEVENTY FIVE PERCENT under Lyin' Biden.
> > Particularly when you're trying to ignore three things:
> >
> > 1) Gas prices when Biden took office ($2.392/gal) were 20% lower than their
> > pre-CoVid peak ($2.962/gal) during Trump. As such, at least a quarter of the
> > price increase you're trying to complain about is predicable recover if there
> > hadn't been any complicating factors of disruption:
> >
> > <https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=EMM_EPMR_PTE_NUS_DPG&f=W>
> >
> > 2) Gas supply chain had significant disruptions due to and during CoVid that has
> > impacted supply availability as demand returned, which classical will result in a
> > price spike independent of simple symmetrical recovery.
> >
> > 3) The "FIVE PERCENT" that you're shouting about isn't comparable to changes
> > in retail prices because it is percentage points. For the actual percentage (not
> > percentage point) increase from 8.3% profits to 13.5% profits is (13.5/8.3) = +62%.

Silence from Tommy.

> > > And you STILL don't admit to what a reasonable profit is margin for oil companies.
> >
> > Where did I claim that I did (or would) define what constitutes 'reasonable'?

Silence from Tommy.

Silence from Tommy.

That your standard retirement brag pastime just isn't actually being enjoyed all that much
in retirement, despite the big brag of the new sailplane.

> On the other side I bought a new golf cart and am playing A LOT of golf.

Did you sell the glider to pay for it? /s

> > And the total for the four (4) years prior was less than 50 hours in the seat.
>
> No, you fucking idiot: last year I flew over 190 hours.

The page where you faithfully record all your hours says 22:33 ...what's up with that?

<https://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-3.0/gliding/flightbook.html?sp=2021&st=olcp&rt=olc&pi=19144#>

> By comparison, the average private pilot gets 30-40 hours per year. And glider flying is HIGHLY weather dependent.

Average private pilot isn't retired...right?

> If I were you I would blow my brains out. Of course, you would have to steal a gun first.

Oh, we're all aware of your anger issues & how you want to be anyone other than yourself.
Especially someone who's younger, healthier, wealthier, better looking, AND with a sense of humor!

-hh

[-hh]

On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 1:07:47 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
> On 2022-05-07 10:05 p.m., TomS wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 6:03:26 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
> >> On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 1:37:48 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 10:29:38 AM UTC-7, TomS wrote:
> >>>> On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 5:32:27 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>> Oh, so you're claiming that it is literally impossible ... and irreversible .. for
> >>>>> companies like XOM to ever do business in that region ever again?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Got wager confidence on that?
> >>>>> …
> >>>>>> I actually INCREASED my taxes by increasing my IRA withdrawals …
> >>>>> …
> >>>
> >>> I forgot to add that I am going to make a major real estate purchase
> >>> this year and need the cash from the IRA account.
> >>
> >> Given how rates have already headed up, sounds like you’ve moved a tad late.
> >>
> >>> By pulling money out over several years I am paying taxes at a MUCH LOWER
> >>> rate than if I pulled the money out all at once (24% vs 35%).
> >>
> >> Parametrically, since the top of the 35% bracket is $628K and the bottom of
> >> 24% is $173K, sounds like most possible that you’re trying to brag about is
> >> $455K, which with the delta tax rate of <11% is max $50K tax optimization.
> >> Similarly, the 3xRMD claim means that the RMD = $450K/3 = ~$150K, which
> >> at 4.5% for age 76 RMD pegs the max pre-tax IRA balance at ~$3.3M.
> >>
> >> But honestly, you should have been doing that since rates dropped back in 2018
> >> as part of a tax optimization strategy, regardless of real estate thoughts for 2022…
> >
> >

> > Hey Lyin' Asshole, you need to get a life. You are obsessed with trying to figure
> > out my net worth.

Tommy doesn’t realize that with that parametric maximum, it was actually just noting
how small of an amount he was trying to brag about.

Plus he’s also blown his chance to say the math was wrong… /s

> > Leave it at I am a multimillionaire - that is ALL you need to know.
> > You, I take it, are not, which is ALL that I need to know.
>
> Oh, look!
> Another claim you'll never substantiate!

Actually, it’s two unsubstantiated claims…

…not that Tommy will ever successfully proving either.

-hh

[-hh]

BTW, I didn’t bother with parametric minimum, because #years was vague at
“several”. For example, for Base+RMD+2*RMD within 24%, max there is $330K,
with min 35% being $420K for Base+RMD+N*RMD, so it’s $90K / (N-2) = RMD.
For the fewest plausible values of “several” being 3, then assuming leveled
application, N=6, so it’s $90/4 = $22.5K/yr … divide by 4.5% = $500K IRA.

-hh