"jps" wrote in message
...

That's a nice theory.

However, as DSK pointed out, shareholders haven't been substantially
rewarded for the climb in profits.

jps

Higher profits usually produce higher stock prices. Few public companies
pay dividends anymore. It's all in the stock price.

I am not saying it's right - I am just saying it's the way it is. A CEO
that does not show bottom line growth ain't gonna be a CEO for long. And
although publicly reported quarterly, most large companies now report
monthly and even weekly, internally. That's why I don't work for one
anymore.

RCE

That's a nice theory.

However, as DSK pointed out, shareholders haven't been substantially
rewarded for the climb in profits.



RCE wrote:
Higher profits usually produce higher stock prices. Few public companies
pay dividends anymore. It's all in the stock price.


Actually, that's not true. It was true that many
investors... and many 'investment writers' widely
published... back in the late 1990s were loudly disdainful
of dividends.

Nowadays investors are very definitely interested in
dividends, and the stock-touters talk about them a lot.


I am not saying it's right - I am just saying it's the way it is.

Maybe we follow very different segments of the financial
news media.


... A CEO
that does not show bottom line growth ain't gonna be a CEO for long.

Well, no. He pockets his $50 million and saunters off stage
left, whistling a happy tune. And his platinum parachute is
paid for by the employees & common stockholders. It's the
new corporate kleptocracy... profits are irrelevant.


.... And
although publicly reported quarterly, most large companies now report
monthly and even weekly, internally. That's why I don't work for one
anymore.


And the auditors have become paid consultants on how to
cheat. Did you notice that Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling might
actually have a court date? Good thing the Bush
Administration is really cracking down on corporate
malfeasance... how many years has it been now?

But I digress.... I own several oil company stocks, and the
neither dividends nor price appreciation has not followed
reported profits... yet...

Regards
Doug King

In article ,
says...

Well, no. He pockets his $50 million and saunters off stage
left, whistling a happy tune. And his platinum parachute is
paid for by the employees & common stockholders. It's the
new corporate kleptocracy...

I love it.

We're not experiencing fascism, we're the subjects of a kleptocracy.

I can't decide whether to laugh or cry.

jps

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

Well, no. He pockets his $50 million and saunters off stage
left, whistling a happy tune. And his platinum parachute is
paid for by the employees & common stockholders. It's the
new corporate kleptocracy...

I love it.

We're not experiencing fascism, we're the subjects of a kleptocracy.

I can't decide whether to laugh or cry.

jps


You know what? None of this matters. For every proven crook running a
company, I'll find you an honest, hard working example. It all depends on
one's personnel perspective of the world and business. If you tend to be of
the cynical bent, you are going to find conspiracy and deceit behind every
door. If you're a glass half full type your going to gravitate towards the
belief that the system can work, despite Herculean problems.
I've always been more of the latter. Obviously others here are not. Makes
the world go 'round. In my life there have been more people telling me I
couldn't do something than those who encouraged me to try. I rarely
listened to the first group.

RCE

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 02:30:27 -0500, RCE wrote:


You know what? None of this matters. For every proven crook running a
company, I'll find you an honest, hard working example.

Personally, I'd expect you could find hundreds of honest businessmen for
each crook, but there lies the problem. As you know, it's quite
competitive out there. Competing with crooks isn't a level playing field.
If we don't punish the crooks far more heavily than we do, even an honest
businessman is tempted to shade the edges. What did Ebbers get? 25
years for an $11 billion fraud and there was talk that it was a "stiff"
sentence. If I'd lost my retirement and was forced to eat cat food
during my Golden Years because of some fat cat's greed, I'd be thinking
he'd better be spending heavily on security.

It all depends on
one's personnel perspective of the world and business. If you tend to be
of the cynical bent, you are going to find conspiracy and deceit behind
every door. If you're a glass half full type your going to gravitate
towards the belief that the system can work, despite Herculean problems.
I've always been more of the latter. Obviously others here are not.
Makes the world go 'round. In my life there have been more people telling
me I couldn't do something than those who encouraged me to try. I rarely
listened to the first group.

RCE

RCE wrote:
You know what? None of this matters. For every proven crook running a
company, I'll find you an honest, hard working example.


That's very true. It's also necessary for the functioning of
our whole hi-techindustrialized economy. But that doesn't
help if it's *your* IRA that's been plundered.


thunder wrote:
Personally, I'd expect you could find hundreds of honest businessmen for
each crook,

Cynic that I am, I agree wholeheartedly.

... but there lies the problem. As you know, it's quite
competitive out there. Competing with crooks isn't a level playing field.

Agreed.

If we don't punish the crooks far more heavily than we do, even an honest
businessman is tempted to shade the edges. What did Ebbers get? 25
years for an $11 billion fraud and there was talk that it was a "stiff"
sentence.

Look at the next part of the equation... who hands out lots
& lots of money to politicians? Mom-n-Pop stores? No.
Businessmen who can profitably make goods & services without
gov't intervention or plum cost-plus contracts? No again.

Therefor it is in the politicians interest to foster a
climate where huge comglomerates operate in murky fiscal
webs, large sums can change hands in the fog, and crooked
CEOs (or other corporate officers) go unpunished.

That's not cynicism, that's the hard cold reality of what is
happening today.


...If I'd lost my retirement and was forced to eat cat food
during my Golden Years because of some fat cat's greed, I'd be thinking
he'd better be spending heavily on security.

Oh, don't worry, they do. You might also want to check out
the recent growth in spending on security for gov't offices
& officials; and the bloom of laws about threats or assaults
on various gov't drones.


.....Obviously others here are not.
Makes the world go 'round. In my life there have been more people telling
me I couldn't do something than those who encouraged me to try. I rarely
listened to the first group.


Should have been taking bets... that's what I do (sometimes).

DSK

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 09:34:47 -0500, DSK wrote:


Look at the next part of the equation... who hands out lots & lots of
money to politicians? Mom-n-Pop stores? No. Businessmen who can profitably
make goods & services without gov't intervention or plum cost-plus
contracts? No again.

I've said it before, but I think the incestuous relationship between
corporate welfare, in it's various guises, and campaign finance is the
biggest threat we have to this democracy. This Abramoff mess is just one
example. You have to wonder who the politicos are working for.

On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 23:09:41 -0500, DSK wrote:

I own several oil company stocks, and the
neither dividends nor price appreciation has not followed
reported profits... yet...

Then you haven't owned them long enough. Oil will be king until
alternative energy sources are developed, and that won't happen until
gasoline hits 5 to 10 dollars a gallon. On second thought, that might
happen sooner than we think.

My guess is that WW III will be all about oil and that history will
not be kind to the US energy policies of the last 30 years.

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 23:09:41 -0500, DSK wrote:

I own several oil company stocks, and the
neither dividends nor price appreciation has not followed
reported profits... yet...

Then you haven't owned them long enough. Oil will be king until
alternative energy sources are developed, and that won't happen until
gasoline hits 5 to 10 dollars a gallon. On second thought, that might
happen sooner than we think.

My guess is that WW III will be all about oil and that history will
not be kind to the US energy policies of the last 30 years.


Heck, WWII was about oil. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor as a result of the
oil embargo we imposed upon them.

I own several oil company stocks, and the
neither dividends nor price appreciation has not followed
reported profits... yet...

"Wayne.B" wrote
Then you haven't owned them long enough.

heh heh since 1978. If that's not long enough, what is?

What I meant by my comment above is that *current* price
trends are not reflecting profits (or at least not in
proportion), and the profits are not being passed on.

... Oil will be king until
alternative energy sources are developed, and that won't happen until
gasoline hits 5 to 10 dollars a gallon. On second thought, that might
happen sooner than we think.


Well, depends on what you mean by 'developed.' There are all
kinds of alternative energy technologies out there. Problem:
they all cost more & deliver less HP-per-gallon than petroleum.

And in some places, gasoline already costs $9/gal.


My guess is that WW III will be all about oil and that history will
not be kind to the US energy policies of the last 30 years.



Agreed. Totally.


NOYB wrote:
Heck, WWII was about oil. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor as a result of the
oil embargo we imposed upon them.


Largely, yes.

DSK