69.80 +0.05 (0.07%)
After hours: 7:45PM EDT
|Bid||69.64 x 1300|
|Ask||69.65 x 1400|
|Day's Range||68.78 - 69.76|
|52 Week Range||64.65 - 83.75|
|Beta (3Y Monthly)||1.21|
|PE Ratio (TTM)||16.81|
|Earnings Date||Nov 1, 2019|
|Forward Dividend & Yield||3.48 (5.06%)|
|1y Target Est||79.14|
So far, Chevron (CVX) stock has risen 4.1% in October. The stock might have risen due to higher oil prices and improving equity markets.
(Bloomberg) -- Climate change protesters outside a Manhattan courthouse this week expressed overwhelming support for New York’s landmark securities fraud lawsuit against Exxon Mobil, even if they weren’t entirely sure what the case was actually about.Several participants at a rally on the first day of a three-week trial said they believed the litigation had been brought by the office of New York Attorney General Letitia James to hold Exxon accountable for its role in climate change.“My understanding is New York State is suing Exxon so they will be financially responsible for creating climate change—the same way opioid manufacturers and distributors are being held accountable,” said Sandra Termini, a 68-year-old retired computer software engineer.But as we explained in our preview of the trial in New York State Supreme Court, what was originally advertised as a frontal assault on Big Oil for fueling the planetary climate crisis has—over the years—been transformed into the kind of hair-hurting corporate accounting lawsuit more common to the courthouses just a few subway stops north of Wall Street.The trial is over Exxon’s use of a “proxy cost” for carbon in its annual calculations predicting global energy demand, and its use of a greenhouse gas (GHG) metric for gauging expected climate taxes on specific projects. Such figures are used by fossil fuel companies to assure investors and regulators that they’re incorporating additional costs they may face in the future, and the potential decrease in value of untapped reserves as the world weans itself from fossil fuels.Not exactly the final word on who is most at fault for global warming. So how did this happen? How did New York’s legal broadsword turn into a scalpel?Back in late 2015, when then-New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman announced his unprecedented investigation of Exxon, he sold it as a general attack on one of the alleged perpetrators of climate change. He said he wanted to find out if Exxon and other oil companies hid early knowledge of fossil fuel’s role in global warming and then tried to undermine climate science—allegations laid out in reporting by two news organizations. The energy giant has denied any such wrongdoing.Proving the explosive claims turned out to be harder than Schneiderman thought. After years of legal battles with Exxon, which fought the investigation at every step, the attorney general’s office was left with a very different case to make.By June 2017, New York’s probe had become about how Exxon misrepresented the cost of climate change to its business, using two sets of numbers, one public and one private. The oil company rejected the new argument and seized on the shift in legal strategy, attempting unsuccessfully to use it as a reason to have the lawsuit dismissed.Since the New York investigation was announced, the oil company organized a massive legal response, suing to block parallel probes by New York and Massachusetts on the grounds that they were politically motivated and collusive. The effort failed.“Investigations shift all the time,” U.S. District Judge Valerie Caproni told Exxon lawyer Justin Anderson during a hearing in November 2017. “If that gives rise to federal-court proceedings, then the world of federal investigations will come to a halt.”But when New York state finally got its hands on some 4 million pages of documents, they weren’t enough to make the bigger case: that Exxon lied about climate science or the future value of its yet untapped assets.On Tuesday, outside the Manhattan courthouse, this didn’t seem to bother the protesters. Termini, the retired software engineer, wouldn’t budge on the importance of the case and the need to show support for an environment under threat from the burning of fossil fuels.“This is just fine,” she said of the securities fraud case. “Whatever works. Climate change is so huge—whatever we can do.”Gail Buckland, a 71-year-old author, curator and college professor at The Cooper Union, also expressed a broad view of the litigation. She held a sign reading: “Exxon defrauded us all.”“Exxon is one of the biggest problems we have on the planet,” Buckland said. She said she joined the protest “to be able to address the corporation and their dishonesty and their huge profits at the expense of my grandchildren and everyone’s future generations.”Eric Weltman, a Brooklyn-based organizer with the group Food & Water Action, said New York is holding Exxon accountable and “making them pay for literally decades and decades of knowingly polluting our planet, threatening our climate, and frankly—you know—risking life on this Earth.”“When they stop drilling oil, I will believe it.” Exxon spokesman Scott Silvestri responded to the protesters by saying the company has invested about $10 billion in projects including biofuels, flare reduction and carbon capture and storage. Though Exxon lawyer Anderson said during the 2017 court hearing that Schneiderman’s investigation was based on climate change “alarmism,” Silvestri said Exxon now believes that “climate change risks warrant action.”“We’re focused on reducing our emissions, helping consumers reduce their emissions, conducting breakthrough research into lower-emissions technologies, and supporting public policy, such as a uniform cost of carbon, to reduce emissions at the lowest cost to society,” Silvestri said in a statement.Buckland, the professor and curator, said she thinks Exxon’s claims are dubious.“When they stop drilling oil, I will believe it,” she said.Dan Abbasi, managing director of private equity firm GameChange Capital and a longtime advocate of tackling climate change, said the unusual trial is a good start for addressing the crisis.“The executive and legislative branches have largely abdicated their responsibility; that leaves the judiciary,” he said. “The legal process is based on the discipline of evidence, and the evidence is extremely strong on climate change.”Public sentiment notwithstanding, Big Oil has been trying to move the growing number of state court lawsuits to more friendly federal court venues. Unlike New York, most climate change cases filed by local governments and another state, Rhode Island, cite nuisance laws aimed at punishing companies on behalf of taxpayers, rather than investors.On Oct. 22, the U.S. Supreme Court handed energy companies another defeat, letting government officials press ahead with three lawsuits that accuse more than a dozen oil and gas companies of contributing to the climate crisis.The court refused to block a lawsuit by Baltimore as companies try to shift it from Maryland state court into federal court. Individual justices then rejected similar requests in cases from Rhode Island and Colorado.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.
Exxon Mobil says it has prepared itself for the impact that climate change regulations will have on its finances, denying allegations from New York’s attorney general that the energy giant has deceived the public about how stricter emissions rules will affect its business.
(Bloomberg) -- Exxon Mobil Corp.’s lawyer slammed New York’s securities-fraud case as the trial opened, saying the state “twisted” reality by conflating two internal metrics the company uses to account for the financial impact of climate change on its business.Instead, Exxon has evidence proving the two metrics were used for different purposes and were never intended to be public, refuting New York’s claims that the differing numbers were kept to give the public a falsely rosy picture of the company’s financial health, attorney Theodore Wells said Tuesday.“This is like no other securities fraud case in the history of the country,” Wells said in his opening statement in a crowded Manhattan courtroom. “You cannot have a securities fraud case that has absolutely nothing to do with the public books and records of a corporation.”Environmental activists greeted the parties as they arrived for the first day of hearings. The case is the first to target an energy company for its climate disclosures and Exxon has argued it’s a politically motivated attack led by Democrats and wealthy environmentalists. Massachusetts has also been investigating and signaled recently it’s prepared to file a similar suit.New York has witnesses including analysts and investors who will testify that they weren’t aware Exxon keeps two numbers, known as proxy costs and greenhouse gas costs, said Kevin Wallace, an attorney for New York Attorney General Letitia James.“The fact that Exxon used two different numbers was well known internally,” Wallace said in his opening statement. “The misrepresentations were qualitatively and quantitatively material to its investors.”Read more:Oil Companies Rejected by Supreme Court on Climate Change SuitBig Oil’s Climate Change Reckoning Has Finally Arrived in CourtThe trial will be decided by New York State Supreme Court Justice Barry Ostrager. The verdict is likely to be appealed, delaying resolution of the case for years, barring a settlement. No matter how the case goes, it won’t address the broader question of whether Exxon or any other company is liable for climate change.To contact the reporter on this story: Erik Larson in New York at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editors responsible for this story: David Glovin at email@example.com, Heather SmithFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
A lawyer for New York's attorney general on Tuesday told a state judge Exxon Mobil Corp used two sets of books to hide the true cost of climate change regulations from investors, while an attorney for the oil major assailed the claims as false and politically motivated. The lawyers' opening statements kicked off a long-awaited trial in a civil lawsuit filed by the attorney general last year accusing Exxon of defrauding investors out of up to $1.6 billion. The trial, expected to last up to three weeks, will take place before Justice Barry Ostrager in Manhattan Supreme Court without a jury and could feature testimony from Rex Tillerson, who served as Exxon chief executive officer and U.S. Secretary of State.
As ExxonMobil heads to court this week for a New York suit accusing it of misleading investors about climate change, a team of researchers at George Mason, Harvard and Bristol universities tracked evidence of a decades-long campaign of deception.
The lawyers' opening statements kicked off a long-awaited trial in a civil lawsuit filed by the attorney general last year accusing Exxon of defrauding investors out of up to $1.6 billion. The trial, expected to last up to three weeks, will take place before Justice Barry Ostrager in Manhattan Supreme Court without a jury and could feature testimony from Rex Tillerson, who served as Exxon chief executive officer and U.S. Secretary of State.
Unfortunately, many advocates of total market funds don’t realize they aren’t fundamentally different from S&P 500 funds. As you probably know, the S&P 500 is made up of 500 of the largest publicly traded companies in the United States. Sure, there are 500 stocks in the index, and that should provide quite a bit of diversification.
ExxonMobil and New York’s attorney-general have launched opening salvos in a court fight concerning the oil company’s vulnerability to climate change. At opening arguments in New York’s state Supreme Court on Tuesday, Exxon argued that New York has for years hunted in vain for an opportunity to prove the company made material misstatements about its climate change risks. New York alleged the company’s internal estimates for the future cost of greenhouse gases were different from the company’s public statements.
(Bloomberg) -- Last month, millions of people around the globe gathered to protest what they consider a dangerous lack of vision among nations and industries when it comes to combating global warming, and the burning of fossil fuels that causes it.Chief among those singled out were the companies that have, for the better part of a century, profited from the sale of coal, oil and gas. U.S. cities, states and environmental groups have turned to the courts in recent years, hoping to punish these energy giants through litigation. Specifically, they allege that executives hid their knowledge of humanity’s role in climate change while casting doubt on those who raised the alarm.A major test of this strategy gets under way on Tuesday in Manhattan, as New York’s attorney general squares off against Exxon Mobil Corp. in a three-week trial. Environmentalists have hailed the case as the first of its kind, but that label comes with a caveat. Instead of seeking to lay the blame for a planetary crisis at the feet of oil companies, the trial will instead focus on something more mundane: whether Exxon cooked its books when it came to internal financial projections that incorporate the cost of global warming. The narrower legal claims haven’t dampened the hopes of Exxon’s detractors. “The significance of the litigation can’t be overstated,” said Lindsay Meiman, a spokeswoman for the environmental group 350.org, which plans to protest outside the courthouse. “It highlights a pivotal moment when the people are trying to get big polluters to pay for their destruction.”In the four years since New York first opened its investigation, the issue has become significantly more fraught. Scientists have since discovered that the Earth is warming faster than expected, replete with rising seas and unprecedented wildfires. The world’s oceans, which hold much of the carbon dioxide emitted by mankind, are not only warming—fueling floods and catastrophic storms—but also acidifying. Half of the planet’s coral reefs, the nurseries of sea life critical to the underwater food chain humans rely on, are now dead.Estimates of the amount of money required to slow climate change—money that would fund a radical shift in how civilization functions—are in the tens of trillions of dollars. Additional expenditures required to acclimate society to the damage already done would total trillions of dollars more. Someone, either taxpayers or companies or both, will have to pay.Enter the lawyers.New York’s probe, which in late 2015 made it a leader in the so-called ExxonKnew battle, followed reports by Inside Climate News and the Los Angeles Times alleging that Exxon’s own scientists discovered as far back as 1977 that man-made emissions were damaging the climate—and that the company covered it up. Exxon has denied the claims. Then-New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman’s investigation gained momentum when Massachusetts started its own inquiry in March 2016. Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey soon joined Schneiderman, former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and several other Democratic state attorneys general to announce a national effort to address the climate crisis. In a speech, Schneiderman touted his Exxon probe and suggested others like it were on the horizon.“With gridlock and dysfunction gripping Washington, it is up to the states to lead on the generation-defining issue of climate change,” he said at the time. “Our offices are seriously examining the potential of working together on high-impact, state-level initiatives, such as investigations into whether fossil fuel companies have misled investors about how climate change impacts their investments and business decisions.”Greenpeace said at the time that New York was “leading the charge to further expose the hypocrisy of fossil fuel companies,” and urged other states to follow suit. But the wave of state probes never materialized, leaving New York and Massachusetts to go it alone. And Schneiderman never got to finish his own investigation. He resigned in May 2018 following allegations of abuse by several women. It was up to his successors to pull the trigger on Exxon.Then-Acting Attorney General Barbara Underwood sued the fossil fuel company last year, before current New York Attorney General Letitia James was elected. In the complaint, the state alleged Exxon had committed securities fraud by misleading investors about the way it accounted for the future financial impact of climate change on its business. New York argues that the energy giant inflated its long-term value and stock price by downplaying the risks posed by tightening regulation, as well as an expected decrease in demand for fossil fuels.Exxon, which rejected the allegations and denied any wrongdoing, has long maintained that the New York lawsuit is a politically motivated effort to demonize the multibillion-dollar company.“This case is not about climate change, climate science, or climate policy,” Exxon lawyer Theodore Wells said in court papers this month. “It is also not about whether Exxon Mobil considers climate risks in its long-term business planning. Exxon Mobil indisputably considers those risks.”At the heart of the case is Exxon’s use of a so-called proxy cost for carbon in its annual calculations predicting global energy demand, as well as its use of a greenhouse gas (GHG) metric to account for expected climate taxes tied to specific projects. Such figures have become a common way for fossil fuel companies to show investors and regulators that they’re incorporating the additional costs faced by long-term projects, and the potential decrease in value of untapped reserves as alternative energy sources proliferate.New York alleges that Exxon’s management, including former Chief Executive Officer Rex Tillerson, knew for years that the Irving, Texas-based company was deviating from its public claims by using two sets of proxy figures—one private and one public. Put simply, New York claims investors were told that the true cost of climate change and related regulations were baked into Exxon’s financial projections, when in fact the company was lowballing those numbers.“By representing that it was applying higher projected carbon costs than it was actually using, Exxon Mobil made its assets appear significantly more secure than they really were, which had a material impact on its share price,” New York said in an Oct. 7 court filing. “In doing so, Exxon Mobil defrauded its investors.”Suing under the state’s powerful Martin Act, the New York attorney general’s office claimed that Exxon’s shareholders suffered damages of at least $476 million, and as much as $1.6 billion when the oil company’s allegedly bogus proxy figures were exposed by New York’s probe, according to court filings.The trial is likely to feature testimony from Tillerson, who subsequently served as U.S. secretary of state under President Donald Trump before being fired. He’s on the witness list for both sides. Exxon has balked at New York’s claims. The company argues its proxy costs and GHG costs are separate metrics that have different internal purposes, and were never presented to investors in the way New York alleged. In short, Exxon contends New York is conflating the two figures to show a discrepancy where there isn’t one. It also argues that, because the figures are used for internal investment decisions, false numbers would hurt only the company—not its shareholders.“If anyone would have been misled by the use of inaccurate GHG cost assumptions, it would have been only Exxon Mobil itself,” Wells said in court papers. “But Exxon Mobil had no reason to deceive itself into making bad investment decisions.” Tillerson has also denied any wrongdoing.The New York case, though a potential landmark, is an outlier when it comes to the types of legal strategy being employed against Big Oil. A growing number of so-called nuisance lawsuits have been filed by local governments against energy companies, cases that seek to compensate taxpayers rather than shareholders. If they survive efforts by defendants to derail them, that litigation could indeed lead to the wave of cases Schneiderman predicted. On Monday, Rhode Island joined the existing plaintiffs, suing major oil companies including Exxon in state court in Providence under the nuisance theory.Ann Carlson, a law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles who’s done consulting work for cities involved in such litigation, said the nuisance battles are at an early stage, with energy companies fighting to move the lawsuits to federal venues, which are traditionally more accommodating to defendant companies.While different, the New York lawsuit is nevertheless significant to the efforts of nuisance litigants because it could demonstrate a pattern of deceptive behavior by Exxon, and publicize the allegations of the plaintiffs, Carlson said.“The more evidence that comes out about oil companies engaging in misleading and deceptive behavior, whether about their own risk or the bigger risks from climate change, their political position weakens even further,” she said. “It gets easier to think about stronger regulation of oil companies.”From a strategic standpoint, said Janet Redman, Greenpeace USA’s climate campaign director, New York’s case “is the tip of the iceberg.” “Whatever comes up during this month’s trial in New York could certainly be used by other public prosecutors and potential plaintiffs against Exxon Mobil in the future,” she said. “While this is the first major climate case against Exxon Mobil to go to trial, many more are to come.”For now, all eyes are on the Manhattan courtroom where New York State Supreme Court Justice Barry Ostrager will preside over the non-jury trial. Any verdict is likely to be appealed, delaying resolution of the case for years, barring a settlement.James Fanto, a professor at Brooklyn Law School, said he’s unsure that litigation is even the best way to deal with Exxon’s climate policies in the first place, given the sharply partisan nature of global warming as an issue—despite the now-settled science. “The political arena seems the right one to deal with fossil fuels and the firms selling them,” Fanto said. 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.
ExxonMobil goes on trial this week over allegations that it intentionally misled investors over the risk of climate change to the company’s earnings
AMD and ASML Holding moved higher, big drug distributors pared losses after avoiding an opioid trial, and the Dow Jones today aimed to retake 27,000.
ExxonMobil said today it extended its support of the MIT Energy Initiative’s (MITEI) low-carbon energy research and education mission by renewing its status as a founding member for another five years. ExxonMobil first signed on as a member of the initiative in 2014.
With the S&P 500 suffering an earnings recession for the first time since 2017, a few big names deserve most of the blame.
The exploration and production company’s shares look cheap. That should change as investors discern its good prospects and shareholder-friendly blueprint for the future.
(Bloomberg) -- The trouble with Saudi Aramco’s off-again, on-again initial public offering has always been the valuation. Ever since Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman insisted the world’s largest oil producer was worth $2 trillion in 2016, he’s been determined to prove the skeptics wrong.His optimism met the reality of the global capital markets on Thursday, when the latest plan to float the state-owned company was delayed by at least a few weeks.At a meeting to give a green light for a deal, bankers made clear that international investors had little appetite to buy at a $2 trillion valuation, according to people familiar with the matter. To draw widespread interest Aramco’s value would need to be closer to $1.5 trillion, one of the people said, asking not to named discussing private conversations.What happens now will depend on how keen the crown prince is to attract foreign money to the Aramco offering and whether he’s finally willing to compromise on the valuation to get it.The outlook for what could be the largest IPO ever is likely to dominate Future Investment Initiative at the end of the month, Saudi Arabia’s annual showcase for the crown prince’s economic agenda that’s been dubbed Davos in the Desert. Many of the Wall Street banks hired to work on the IPO will send senior executives to Riyadh, where they’ll rub shoulders with the crown prince and the rest of the Saudi leadership as well as some of the world’s largest investors.Aramco said in a statement that the timing of the IPO will depend on market conditions and that it continues to engage with shareholders on activities related to the listing. One leading international money manager, who recently met Aramco executives in Saudi Arabia to discuss the IPO, said the main problem is officials in Riyadh believe Aramco should trade at a premium to other international oil companies. Many investors disagree and argue the risks of investing in Saudi Arabia merit a discount -- or at very best parity -- to the likes of Exxon Mobil Corp. and Royal Dutch Shell Plc.There’s little question Aramco merits a unique valuation. Drilling from some of the world’s largest fields under the barren Saudi desert, the company pumps more than twice the volume Exxon does and has some of the lowest production costs in the world.But there are also concerns for potential Aramco investors that don’t apply to Exxon, Shell and their ilk. Last month’s attack on the company’s largest crude processing plant at Abqaiq showed the political risk associated with the kingdom. There are also governance issues: the IPO would offer only a sliver of Aramco’s equity, leaving strategy in the hands of the Saudi state. As OPEC’s most important member, Saudi oil production would remain a political decision.One rough and ready way to value Aramco is to look at dividend yield. As part of the campaign to attract outside investors, Aramco pledged to soup up investor payments to $75 billion next year. At $2 trillion that means a dividend yield of 3.75%. That’s a lot less than the 5.1% currently offered by Exxon and the 6.6% Shell shareholders are getting.Bringing the dividend into line with Exxon would mean a valuation that’s much closer to $1.5 billion. If Saudi Arabia accepted that benchmark, it would still create the world’s most valuable company -- outstripping both Apple Inc. and Microsoft Corp. -- and a sale of 2% of the equity would yield $30 billion, more than the $25 billion Chinese e-commerce giant Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. raised in its 2014 IPO.If the crown prince doesn’t want to compromise on valuation, he has another option to get the deal done and raise money for the kingdom’s sovereign wealth fund. He can rely on Saudi money by securing big pledges from rich Saudi families -- some of whom had members held in the Ritz-Carlton hotel during 2017’s corruption clampdown -- pitching a retail offering to small investors and leaning on banks to lend to potential buyers.Even though it ditched plans for an international listing in New York or London, the Saudi government is still keen to get some foreign institutions to invest, one person involved in the deal said.To contact the reporters on this story: Dinesh Nair in London at firstname.lastname@example.org;Matthew Martin in Dubai at email@example.com;Javier Blas in London at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Will Kennedy at email@example.com, Ben ScentFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
China is reportedly looking to replace its chief executive, 800,000 people in California may lose power over wildfire concerns, Exxon is accused of defrauding investors on climate change, and the Chicago teachers union strike extends to its second week. Yahoo Finance's Alexis Christoforous discusses.
According to recent reports, Saudi Aramco has delayed its massive IPO until at least December. Aramco had been expected to announce plans next week, in what would have been one of the largest ever IPOS, worth upwards of $20 billion dollars. Yahoo Finance's Dan Roberts, Heidi Chung, Kristin Myers and Scott Gamm discuss on YFi AM.