|Bid||69.11 x 1100|
|Ask||69.19 x 900|
|Day's Range||68.67 - 69.30|
|52 Week Range||64.65 - 83.49|
|Beta (3Y Monthly)||0.98|
|PE Ratio (TTM)||20.16|
|Earnings Date||Jan 30, 2020 - Feb 3, 2020|
|Forward Dividend & Yield||3.48 (5.08%)|
|1y Target Est||79.02|
These 3 stocks did not help the Dow Jones Industrial Average finish Friday above 28000. Here are the bottom 3 losing stocks from this week.
Does the November share price for Exxon Mobil Corporation (NYSE:XOM) reflect what it's really worth? Today, we will...
The federal government's EIA report revealed that domestic crude production climbed to yet another record high of 12.8 million barrels per day.
In recent years, the investment community has focused significant attention on alternative energy companies for obvious reasons. From both a geopolitical standpoint as well as an environmental one, clean energy solutions simply find wide appeal. However, not every player in this sector is equal, as Plug Power (NASDAQ:PLUG) and PLUG stock demonstrates.Source: Shutterstock In many ways, Plug Power stock is an enigma. It has tremendous potential because the world seeks a pivot away from fossil-fuel energy sources. Moreover, the company has inked some impressive deals with big league organizations. Yet PLUG stock is nothing short of speculative. For a brief moment, shares were once trading in four-digit territory.Now, the tables have clearly turned. Plug Power stock barely avoided sinking deeper into ignominy when it produced its third quarter 2019 earnings report. But again, the results were frustratingly mixed, just like the equity: the hydrogen fuel specialist met analysts' for per-share profitability (a loss of 8 cents) but failed to deliver on the top line (revenue of $56.4 million against an expected $59.2 million).InvestorPlace - Stock Market News, Stock Advice & Trading TipsInterestingly, Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) CEO Elon Musk has labeled hydrogen fuel cell vehicles - Plug Power's bread and butter - "mind-bogglingly stupid." And from a traditional angle, I can understand why he said that. If you look at the financial picture for PLUG stock, it's not pretty. Plus, the ugliness leaves shares vulnerable to equity dilution if the company meets unforeseen challenges. * 7 Stocks to Sell Before They Roll Over Yet we all know that Plug Power stocks is super risky. The question is, how viable is the longer-term growth picture? Here are three pros and cons for PLUG that should help you decide: Pro 1: Unlimited Fuel for PLUG StockOne of the major headwinds clouding big oil firms like Exxon Mobil (NYSE:XOM) or Chevron (NYSE:CVX) is that they're levered to finite resources. Hence, over the past several years, we've read stories about peak oil. Even if some of the most macabre doom-and-gloom forecasts don't pan out, the fact is, we have limited oil resources.You absolutely cannot say the same thing about hydrogen: it's the most abundant element not just on earth but in the universe. When we start colonizing Mars and other planets, you'd imagine that we'll use hydrogen-based vehicles.Of course, I'm talking about stuff well into the future. For the here and now, because hydrogen is so abundant, we won't have to deal with OPEC or other unfavorable characters. That's a huge plus for PLUG stock. Pro 2: Hydrogen Refueling is Almost Like Pulling up to the PumpWithout question, the underlying technologies behind electric vehicle companies like Tesla or Nio (NYSE:NIO) are remarkably compelling. But a huge drawback of EVs is that they take too damn long to refuel or more accurately, recharge.Right now, the quickest charging station can charge your EV from empty in about 30 minutes. And we're not talking a full recharge either. Rather, this quickest draw of the electric West will get you to approximately 80% capacity. * 7 Large-Cap Stocks to Give a Wide Berth We live in an on-demand economy where virtually everything operates at break-neck speeds. So how, pray tell, are we going to expect Americans to wait half-an-hour to recharge their EVs?On the other hand, hydrogen vehicles will get you in and out at the refueling station in roughly five minutes. That's almost on par with refueling a big, fossil-fueled SUV, thus not requiring a mass-scale societal shift.Of course, this is a huge boost for Plug Power stock. Pro 3: Big SupportersHydrogen has a lot of detractors -- remember the Hindenburg? Despite valid concerns about hydrogen fuel cells, some huge names in the auto industry have backed this element.Specifically, both Toyota (NYSE:TM) and Honda (NYSE:HMC) have pegged hydrogen as the energy source of the future. And they're not paying mere lip service. Toyota is the largest hydrogen fuel cell car producer for the U.S. market, while Honda isn't too far behind.Plus, both companies have teamed up with a Royal Dutch Shell (NYSE:RDS.A, NYSE:RDS.B) subsidiary to develop hydrogen fueling stations in California. Considering that Plug Power has inked deals with major partners, this massive support is a tailwind for PLUG stock. Con 1: Isn't It Ironic?With hydrogen being the most-abundant element ever, you'd expect that hydrogen fuel provides economic relief for converted drivers. After all, Economics 101 dictates that excess supply should lead to lower demand (prices).But that's not what's happening in this market. Instead, hydrogen refueling costs are expensive, even pricier than gasoline prices on an apples-to-apples comparison. According to CNBC contributor Joe D'Allegro:"The average price for hydrogen fuel in California is about $16/kg -- gasoline is sold by the gallon (volume) and hydrogen by the kilogram (weight). To put that in perspective, 1 gal of gasoline has about the same amount of energy as 1 kg of hydrogen. Most fuel cell electric cars carry about 5 kg to 6 kg of hydrogen but go twice the distance of a modern internal combustion engine car with equivalent gas in the tank, which works out to a gasoline-per-gallon equivalent between $5 and $6."This is where EVs clearly win out. And it's also where standard gasoline-powered vehicles emerge victorious, which is negative for PLUG stock. Con 2: Infrastructure Limits Plug Power StockCalifornia, where you'd expect the alternative fuel to be popular, has only 39 hydrogen refueling stations, with another 25 due to soon appear on the map. That's not nearly enough to satisfy driving demand, especially if hydrogen-powered cars proliferate.But thanks to California green initiatives, the state has a plan to develop 200 hydrogen stations by 2025. While that would be a 413% lift from current numbers, it still wouldn't be nearly enough. * 7 Great High-Yield Stocks With Payouts Over 5% There are over 12,000 gasoline stations in California and that number could easily grow considering the state's population growth. Therefore, 200 hydrogen fueling stations would only cover less than 2% of existing gasoline infrastructure.With such limited coverage, it's hard to imagine hydrogen cars being anything more than niche vehicles for the rich. Con 3: Hydrogen-Powered Cars are ExpensiveIt's not just the refueling costs that are expensive; the cars themselves are available only to the rich. As D'Allegro wrote:The biggest problem: The cars remain expensive. Nexo, for instance, is the most expensive Hyundai on sale in the U.S., with a starting price of $59,345 (starting prices for the brand's comparably-sized Santa Fe start at $24,250). The Toyota Mirai and Honda Clarity fuel cell models have a similar MSRP in the $59,000 range. These car purchases are eligible for government rebates -- in California there is a $5,000 tax rebate available.Among other factors, most folks will likely pay for a high-end, gas-powered luxury car than an essentially experimental hydrogen car. Further, cost accessibility is an issue that could impact the vulnerable PLUG stock.As of this writing, Josh Enomoto did not hold a position in any of the aforementioned securities. More From InvestorPlace * 2 Toxic Pot Stocks You Should Avoid * 10 Cheap Stocks to Buy Under $10 * These 10 Stocks to Buy Make the Perfect 'Retirement' Portfolio * 5 Streaming Stocks to Buy for Huge Upside Over the Next Decade The post 3 Pros, 3 Cons to Buying Plug Power Stock as World Pivots from Fossil Fuels appeared first on InvestorPlace.
Papua New Guinea is set to start talks with Exxon Mobil Corp to try to negotiate better terms from the P'Nyang Gas Project, Minister for Petroleum Kerenga Kua said on Friday, with an agreement expected by the end of the month if all goes well. The P'Nyang project will help feed an expansion of Exxon's PNG LNG (liquefied natural gas) plant, in which Australia's Oil Search and Santos Ltd are also stakeholders. Talks over the project were put on hold earlier this year, when the government sought to revise a separate LNG agreement it has with French energy firm Total, in which Exxon is also involved.
Financial planners often recommend the 4% rule as a guideline for determining the annual amount that a retiree can withdraw from portfolios without depleting their nest egg over a 30-year retirement. And high-yield dividend stocks are a critical component of executing this strategy.Financial adviser William Bengen devised the 4% rule after evaluating stock and bond data across several decades and discovering that a pattern of 4% yearly withdrawals provided reasonable security without bleeding a portfolio dry for at least 30 years, even through occasional market downturns.The concept is simple: Draw down 4% of the portfolio value in the first year of retirement, then a matching amount (adjusted for inflation) in each subsequent year. Bengen himself later updated the number from 4% to 4.5%.It's a good starting point for planning a comfortable retirement, but investors must consider a couple factors when applying it. For instance, the 4% rule doesn't account for big one-time purchases that might push your spending growth above the rate of inflation. It also assumes future market performance will resemble past results.That said, income from your investments can count toward that amount, so if you draw a high (and preferably growing) yield from your portfolio, it means you'll only need minimal price appreciation to remain on track.Here are 14 high-yield dividend stocks to buy that yield 4% or more. These picks have other qualities that are beneficial to retirees, too - some feature much lower volatility than the broader market, and many are consistent dividend raisers whose payouts may keep up with or even outrun inflation. SEE ALSO: 20 Dividend Stocks to Fund 20 Years of Retirement
BP (NYSE:BP) stock remains steady as the company transitions to a new CEO. The problem is that has remained too steady.Source: JuliusKielaitis / Shutterstock.com The stock has seen little movement in the nine years Bob Dudley has served as CEO. Mr. Dudley took over in the midst of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill that devastated both the stock and the company dividend. * 7 Tech Stocks to Buy for the Rest of 2019 As leadership transitions to incoming CEO Bernard Looney in February, investors may credit Mr. Dudley with saving the company. However, stockholders have seen almost no profits in that time other than the dividend payments. Now, as new leadership takes over and as BP finally escapes the liabilities of the oil spill, many wonder if they can finally look forward to gains in BP PLC stock.InvestorPlace - Stock Market News, Stock Advice & Trading Tips Oil Spill Turned BP Into a Dividend StockFor the last few years, BP stock has generated little excitement and considerable dividends. The company paid $3.36 per share in yearly dividends before the oil spill. At the current $2.46 per share in annual payouts, it still has not caught up to that level. However, it has risen steadily since management cut the payout.The company's dividend yield currently stands at an impressive 6.2%. Ian Bezek also makes a great point that shareholders do not pay foreign taxes on dividends from British companies. This is a bonus to holding shares in the company formerly known as British Petroleum.The problem involves a seemingly immovable stock price. BP traded at $38 per share when Bob Dudley took over as CEO in 2010. As Mr. Dudley prepares to step down, the equity trades at around $39.50 as of the time of this writing. For this reason, investors should probably continue to view BP stock primarily as an income play. Here's why. The Case For and Against BP StockNew leadership and the prospects for higher demand beg the question of whether investors need to buy BP stock for gains. In that area, I do not feel so optimistic.Admittedly, BP stock bulls have a reasonable argument. Although profits will fall this year, analysts forecast average annual earnings growth of 31.5% per year over the next five years. If this comes to pass, BP stock will again become a growth play. Moreover, countries such as China and India have an ever-increasing need for oil. The need should increase further once a U.S.-China trade deal becomes a reality.However, investors also have good reason to mistrust such a rosy forecast. Companies such as ExxonMobil (NYSE:XOM) and Chevron (NYSE:CVX), like BP, have seen profits fall over the last year. So bad is the problem that Chesapeake Energy (NYSE:CHK) now questions its ability to stay in business.West Texas Intermediate crude currently trades at about $57 per share. While most would not consider this "low," oil prices have struggled to gain traction in recent years as production levels in the Permian Basin have kept prices in check.The oil discovery in Iran will probably not help matters. The Iranian government claims it has discovered 53 billion additional barrels of oil. Despite sanctions, this likely helps to keep a lid on prices. When one figures-in the increasing importance of alternative energy, I see little reason to believe demand will rise enough to take the price of BP stock with it. The Bottom Line on BP PLC StockAmid a change in leadership, investors should continue to look at BP stock as an income play. BP should remain a good buy for dividend investors. The $3.05 per share in predicted profits will cover the $2.46 per share in dividends. The question is whether the equity can offer more.BP stock has seen little net price growth in nine years. Moreover, output continues to stay ahead of forecasted demand growth, indicating prices will fall. Despite this, analysts continue to hold to optimistic forecasts of long-term profit growth.Considering these conditions, I recommend BP stock only as a dividend play. I see the prospects for stock gains as mixed, but if they occur, see it as a bonus.As of this writing, Will Healy did not hold a position in any of the aforementioned stocks. You can follow Will on Twitter at @HealyWriting. More From InvestorPlace * 2 Toxic Pot Stocks You Should Avoid * 7 Tech Stocks to Buy for the Rest of 2019 * 7 Biotech Stocks to Buy With Plenty of Power in the Pipeline * 5 Stocks to Buy That Are Set for Monster Growth in 2020 The post Amid Changes, Continue to Treat BP Stock as a Dividend Play appeared first on InvestorPlace.
The oil giant’s attributes and drawbacks mean it should trade at a premium to emerging market competitors but a discount to Western oil companies, Bernstein analysts write.
Despite claims to consider environmental sustainability, ESG funds invest in Exxon and Occidental Petroleum
(Bloomberg) -- When New York’s climate change lawsuit against Exxon Mobil went on trial last month in a Manhattan courtroom, the energy giant’s lead lawyer took great pains to emphasize that the state’s allegations weren’t really about climate change.After all, Theodore Wells said, Exxon was accused of hatching a cynical, arguably pedestrian scheme to mislead investors. The alleged securities fraud may have been intended to mask the impact global warming will have on Exxon’s finances, but it wasn’t a grand reckoning of its responsibility for the man-made phenomenon.The reason, of course, was that New York couldn’t find enough evidence to back up its initial contention that Exxon hid its knowledge of global warming. In the end, however, that may not matter: Regardless of who wins, there are states, municipalities and environmental groups lined up around the block, suing or planning to sue Exxon and other energy companies for being the main perpetrators of a planetary catastrophe.And while a victory for New York could be a public relations boon for plaintiffs in those pending cases, a win for Exxon is unlikely to stop their litigation—most of which is based on very different legal arguments.Just as the New York trial was getting underway last month, Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey hit Exxon with a new consumer lawsuit. Her complaint cut to the chase, accusing the company of withholding dire climate warnings from its own scientists for decades and duping the state’s consumers with bogus “green” gasoline ads, among other things.“It’s well past time for Exxon to tell the truth and be held accountable for the misrepresentations it has made to every investor, at every gas station, on every television, and online,” Healey said in a statement. Exxon has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing.Additionally, more than a dozen “public nuisance” lawsuits seek to hold energy companies responsible for billions of taxpayer dollars spent on acclimating to a warming world, or picking up the pieces following unprecedented hurricanes, floods and wildfires.Rhode Island filed such a complaint last year, while a dozen city governments from California, Washington, Colorado, Maryland and New York have also sued. In just the last few weeks, the mayor of Honolulu said his city would soon file a nuisance suit of its own, comparing the litigation to lawsuits against Big Tobacco that led to a $246 billion industry settlement. The Hawaiian island of Maui, it’s own county, has also said it plans to sue. Since the cost of slowing global warming (and acclimating to damage already done) could reach tens of trillions of dollars, the stakes in these cases—if they survive—may be significantly higher than those faced by cigarette makers.Patrick Parenteau, an environmental law professor at Vermont Law School, said the growing number of nuisance cases are supported by claims of a well-funded “campaign of deception” and Big Oil’s history of opposing legislation intended to address the problem.So far, nuisance cases have met with mixed success, as the companies fight to move them from state to federal courts, where they often get more favorable treatment. Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court let officials from Maryland, Rhode Island and Colorado press ahead with three state lawsuits that accuse more than a dozen oil and gas companies, including Exxon, of contributing to climate change.Local governments have won rulings in California, where a federal judge moved a climate change lawsuit by the City of Imperial Beach and San Mateo and Marin counties back to state court. (The companies have appealed.)Plaintiffs have lost nuisance cases as well. In a federal lawsuit filed in early 2018, New York City accused Exxon, Chevron, BP, Royal Dutch Shell and ConocoPhillips of promoting fossil fuel sales despite knowing the damage it poses to the planet. A U.S. district judge threw out the lawsuit, which was based on a state law, saying federal law governs carbon dioxide emissions. The city appealed, with arguments scheduled for Nov. 22.A spokesman for Shell said the company doesn’t “believe the courtroom is the right venue to address climate change.” None of the other defendant companies responded to emails seeking comment.Lawsuits filed by the cities of Oakland and San Francisco met the same fate when they were dismissed. Appeals are pending in those cases as well.“Unless governments take adequate action against climate change, which is highly unlikely, lawsuits will continue to pile up,” said Michael B. Gerrard, director at the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School. But states and cities seeking redress in the courts say it is the only avenue open to them. The federal government under President Donald Trump has spent the past three years trying to undo climate regulations put in place by President Barack Obama, including taking the U.S. out of the landmark Paris Agreement intended to reduce fossil fuel emissions globally.Hana Vizcarra, a staff attorney at Harvard Law School Environmental and Energy Law Program, said nuisance lawsuits are difficult to make because plaintiffs must “draw the line” from a company’s actions to the damage done. The continued fight over state jurisdiction will be crucial, she said.“If they survive the fights over venue, there will be a continued appetite to bring these cases,” Vizcarra said.Read More: How Exxon’s Climate Change Trial Became a Battle Over NumbersAs for the New York case, it’s now up to Supreme Court Justice Barry Ostrager, who presided over the non-jury trial. He is scheduled to hand down a verdict in the coming weeks. Whoever loses is almost certain to appeal.The trial turned on the two ways Exxon measured how much climate change—and specifically climate change-related laws—would affect its bottom line. According to the company, its so-called “proxy cost” was a public number representing how much fossil fuel prices would fall as those regulations diminished fossil fuel demand. The other number was an internal “greenhouse gas cost” associated with new extraction projects, such as fracking or oil sands, it said. New York said the proxy cost was at one point $80 a ton while the greenhouse gas cost was $40.New York said the two gauges were like keeping two sets of books—clear evidence that Exxon was lying to the investing public. The proxy cost made the company look like it was being fully transparent about its financial future, New York argued, but since Exxon used the lower cost when deciding whether to dig up more oil, it was a classic case of securities fraud, since investors were buying stock based in part on a lie.Exxon responded that New York’s case made no sense, since the greenhouse gas cost was narrowly focused, used to measure the viability of specific projects, and—most importantly—more optimistic. What, Exxon argued, would it gain by fooling itself? Read More: Why New York Doesn’t Need a Smoking Gun to Win the Exxon Climate TrialDuring the course of the trial, former Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson took the stand in what may have been the most dramatic point of the three week-proceeding. New York often elicited testimony intended to show that Exxon sought to defraud investors, a strategy that seemed to annoy Ostrager.The lawsuit was filed in part under New York’s powerful Martin Act, which doesn’t require a showing of intent. It only requires that New York show Exxon shareholders could have been misled by the company’s actions. As the trial ended, the state dropped counts based on common law fraud alleging that Exxon’s statements about its accounting were intended to defraud investors, and that investors relied on them when buying stock. The remaining two counts, brought under the Martin Act, require the judge find only that Exxon’s statements were sufficient to mislead to investors, regardless of whether Exxon meant to do so.Robert McTamaney, a New York-based corporate attorney, calls the Martin Act “an atrocity,” given how low the bar for victory can be. As for the nuisance lawsuits, he concurred that they may gain traction if they are allowed to proceed in state courts. Nevertheless, he said he believes the courts are the wrong place to settle the question of climate change.“The correct outcome, in my judgment, is to leave this area to the Congress and legislatures,” McTamaney said. “And in any event, it is a global problem which demands a global solution.”Others are intent on using the courts to make those responsible for the global crisis pay to fix it. New York’s lawsuit against Exxon, said Daniel Rohlf, a lawyer at Earthrise Law Center, is the first battle in a larger war. A professor at Lewis and Clark Law School in Portland, Oregon, Rohlf said a ruling against Exxon would have a big impact on pending litigation elsewhere.“It would send a loud and clear signal to both corporations and the public that carbon emissions aren’t free,” he said. “The time has come to account for those costs in the way we do business, and in the way we live.To contact the author of this story: Erik Larson in New York at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editor responsible for this story: David Rovella at email@example.comFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
(Bloomberg) -- Elizabeth Warren unveiled a new policy proposal Tuesday to prosecute large corporations for perjury if they mislead the public and government regulators.The Democratic presidential candidate’s proposal takes aim at companies such as Exxon Mobil Corp., which she said had spent millions of dollars to spread misinformation about the effects of fossil fuels on climate change.If Warren’s idea becomes law, companies would be subject to as much as $250,000 in fines, and executives could face jail time if regulators determined they knowingly submitted false or misleading information to regulatory agencies. Her latest policy roll-out is part of a larger anti-corruption plan that she has made a centerpiece of her campaign.“If bad actors like Exxon break the rules and deliberately lie to government agencies, my plan will treat them the same way the law treats someone who lies in court – by subjecting them to potential prosecution for perjury,” Warren wrote in a Medium post on Tuesday.Exxon’s scientists work “in an open and transparent way,” the oil producer said in a statement. The Irving, Texas-based company “has supported climate science in partnership with government and academic institutions for nearly 40 years,” it said, citing dozens of peer-reviewed publications and work with Stanford University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the U.S. government and the United Nations.A New York judge is currently presiding over a case in which the state’s attorney general’s office is accusing Exxon of making misleading statements about the financial effects of climate change policies. Last week, the state dropped two claims that formed part of the original case.Warren would also ban federal agencies and courts from considering research that has been financed by a specific industry and has not been peer-reviewed. Corporations would be required to disclose how their research was funded and make clear any financial relationships between the researchers and their corporate backers before being considered by federal agencies. Any conflicts of interest would exclude that research from the rulemaking process, she said.She also assailed tobacco companies for backing what she called misleading information on the health risks of smoking.Warren’s proposal comes a few weeks after she stepped up her criticism of major U.S. corporations, including Facebook Inc., Wells Fargo & Co., BP Plc and Walmart Inc. and singled out senior-level government officials who accepted jobs with them after working for the federal government.The Massachusetts senator has vowed to increase oversight of lobbying and to impose hiring restrictions for people who have worked in top government posts.(Updates with Exxon comment in fifth paragraph.)\--With assistance from Kevin Crowley.To contact the reporter on this story: Misyrlena Egkolfopoulou in Washington at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Wendy Benjaminson at email@example.com, Carlos Caminada, Joe CarrollFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren on Tuesday proposed a new "corporate perjury" law that she would pursue if elected to the White House, inspired by Exxon Mobil Corp's past failure to share accurate climate change research with government regulators. "No one would be liable for mistakes, for submitting research in good faith that turns out to be wrong, or for raising honest disagreements," Warren wrote on the website Medium. "ExxonMobil has continuously and publicly researched and discussed the risks of climate change, carbon life-cycle analysis and emissions reductions," Exxon's Scott Silvestri said.
U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren on Tuesday proposed a new "corporate perjury" law that she would pursue if elected to the White House, inspired by Exxon Mobil Corp's past failure to share accurate climate change research with government regulators. Warren said companies and executives could face criminal liability for false information they knowingly provide to U.S. agencies, leading to up to $250,000 in fines or jail time. "No one would be liable for mistakes, for submitting research in good faith that turns out to be wrong, or for raising honest disagreements," Warren wrote on the website Medium.
W&T Offshore's (WTI) third-quarter 2019 production rise is supported by the Mobile Bay acquisition, which added 74 million Boe of net proved reserves to its portfolio.
DOW UPDATE Shares of Cisco and Exxon Mobil are trading lower Monday morning, dragging the Dow Jones Industrial Average into negative territory. The Dow (DJIA) was most recently trading 109 points lower (-0.
Saudi Arabia’s state-owned oil giant Aramco released a lengthy document late Saturday that lays the ground for investors to buy into the world’s most profitable company, but it remains unknown how much is on offer.
After more than three years of planning and several false starts, Saudi Arabia on Sunday formally announced its intention to go ahead with a landmark initial public offering of state-owned oil firm Saudi Aramco. The IPO has been delayed several times in parallel to big swings in the oil price this year, which have made it challenging to value the company. Saudi didn’t say how much of Aramco it will sell or how much money it will raise, but it is widely reported to be looking to sell 1% to 2% of its shares on the local bourse.
RIO DE JANEIRO/LONDON (Reuters) - As the weeks ticked down to Brazil's biggest-ever oil auction, state-run Petrobras held increasingly frantic talks to find potential partners, with the heaviest blow coming when major Exxon Mobil Corp pulled out days before, according to six people familiar with the matter. While many firms were far from ready to take on enormous signing fees and investments, Exxon came closest but ultimately failed to reach acceptable terms for the blockbuster bidding round, according to four of the sources, who requested anonymity to discuss confidential negotiations. The big Brazilian round was the latest offshore auction this year to undershoot expectations, hurt by competition from shale oil and other unconventional sources as well as lower demand forecasts.
Climate change poses just the kind of “shock” to the economy that she and colleagues can no longer just ignore, Federal Reserve Gov. Lael Brainard said Friday at a first-of-its-kind Fed summit in San Francisco.
Iranian President, Hassan Rouhani, announced he found 53 billion barrels of crude oil. Prosper Trading Academy Senior Strategist Scott Bauer joins Yahoo Finance’s Adam Shapiro, Julie Hyman and Brian Sozzi to discuss the news on On The Move.