ExxonMobil Analysis

Metra Walthour

American Public University System

ExxonMobil is an American established gas and oil firm that has a head office in the metropolis of Irving, Texas. Even though it is American established and holds its head office in Texas, it is additionally a multinational firm that is recognized and utilized worldwide. The Exxon Firm was instituted in the year of 1934 across the mergence of the Average Oil Firm of New Jersey and the Anglo-American Oil Company. Even though these two firms joined in 1934, the name and company of Exxon did not come about until 1972. Exxon Mobil was instituted afterward, in 1999, alongside the mergence of Exxon and Mobil. ExxonMobil is an extremely prosperous firm, generally because “it is the third biggest firm by revenue and the subsequent biggest openly traded firm by marketplace backing in the world.” (Nagurney, 2010) An example of how big and successful ExxonMobil is, is lead by its largest shareholder, which happens to be the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. “The company is ranked No. 5 globally in 2013. ExxonMobil’s reserves were 72 billion BOE (barrels of oil equivalent) at the end of 2007 and, at then rates of production, were expected to last over 14 years. With 37 oil refineries in 21 countries constituting a combined daily refining capacity of 6.3 million barrels, ExxonMobil is the largest refiner in the world, a title that was also associated with Standard Oil since its incorporation in 1870.” (Nagurney, 2010) All of the products that ExxonMobil markets around the world are marketed through the brands of Exxon, Mobil, and Esso. The company consists of different operating divisions, including those that are global divisions. Two of the main divisions that ExxonMobil consists of are Upstream, which includes extraction, wholesale operations, oil exploration, and shipping; and Downstream, which includes matters such as refining, marketing, and retail operations.
ExxonMobil's business operations have been a subject and easy target for criticism. The company reported record profits for 2005, which only added fuel to the fire so to speak. The topic of almost every company and conversation around different companies and different people around the world had something to do with how the cost of most consumer goods was increasing at a rate that most consumers and businesses had never seen before. This same exploit of the business of ExxonMobil did nothing but bring negative attention to the company. With all of this going on, according to Abernathy, “ExxonMobil knew that their profits wouldn't be well accepted by the general public and did its best to do a little damage control by creating charts comparing their profits to other industries, holding press conferences and by trying to educate the public on the costs of running their business by creating small informational advertisements.” (Abernathy, 2007) Despite valid efforts to control the negativity, no matter how hard they tried, the company steadily received negativity, and bad press from the outside. There was not much that could be done to make up for the damage that was previously caused. Following the necessary steps to try and get the company back to where it needed to be, ExxoMobil attempted to clear the air about its profit margin by completing a comparison of the profit margins of the oil & natural gas industry to other industries.
To get a true comparative measure of Exxon Mobil's profit margin you want to calculate Exxon Mobil's profit margin, which is calculated to be 10 cents, and then, you want to compare it to the profit margins of other firms in the same industry. “When examining the most recent numbers, the oil & natural gas industry has and average return on sales of 5.8 cents, which is 3.2 cents less than ExxonMobil's true returns.” (Hull & Foothill, 2007) Comparing Exxon Mobil to these different industries would not be very accurate because of the fact that different industries have different operating costs. In order to get a better picture of how Exxon Mobil compares and lines up against other firms or industries, the Return on Equity (ROE) should be looked at. The ROE shows how well the firms generate money with money that was brought in through equity. “An ROE figure has different factors that would be accounted for such as how levered a firm is, how high operating costs are, and how efficient a firm is at generating money with its assets, combined giving you a more accurate picture of a firm's profitability.” (Hull & Foothill, 2007)
“Exxon Mobil's physical inventory levels of crude oil, products, and merchandise' decreased by $0.3 billion during 2005.” (Hull & Foothill, 2007) Again, when analyzing the numbers, the total balances show that the ending balances are $7.8 billion and $8.1 billion for 2005 and 2004. Analyzing the numbers further, we see that petroleum products and crude oil decreased by $0.2 billion and $0.1 billion. However, ExxonMobil tracks its inventory using a dollar value LIFO (Last In, First Out) method. This simply means that inventory is tracked in dollars rather than units, which makes it difficult to determine the physical levels of inventory. An increase in inventory using the dollar value can be due to one of two reasons. These two reasons refer to the facts that either there has been a change in the units on hand, which would be gallons for ExxonMobil, or the cost per unit has changed. From all of the information given from the case, one can determine that the physical inventory level has dropped. This drop obviously stemmed from the increase in the price per barrel during that year of 2005. In my opinion, If ExxonMobil was to have used the First In, First Out (FIFO) method for measuring the cost of Crude oil, products, and merchandise' inventories, COGS for 2005 would have been reported at $206.438 billion. According to Arslan and Sture: “This can be calculated by first finding the change in the LIFO reserve account ($15.4 billion $9.8 billion = $5.6 billion), then subtracting this figure from COGS calculated under the LIFO method, which was $212.038 billion, so $212.038 billion  $5.6 billion = $206.438 billion. It makes sense that the Cost of Goods Sold (COGS) under FIFO are lower than COGS under LIFO because prices were on the rise, meaning you'd be selling the products that you paid most for now, and holding on to inventory that you paid less for.” (Arslan & Sture, 2008) Calculations of ExxonMobil's tax savings came to be about $6 billion. This balance equals out to be the complete difference between inventory on a LIFO basis and inventory on a FIFO basis. From this information, it can be concluded that when multiplying $15.4 billion by 39%, it will then equal up to about the total amount of income taxes that ExxonMobil has saved or deferred through 2005. “The balance sheet and income statement are both significantly affected by a company's preferred method of valuing its inventory. Exxon Mobil's ending inventory is evidently much lower under the LIFO method than it would have been under the FIFO method because prices were rising. Not to mention, Exxon Mobil had a slight LIFO liquidation because they sold more than they had purchased, which resulted in a lower COGS and a higher net income.” (Moreland, 2007) In my opinion, because ExxonMobil's decided on using LIFO over FIFO, they were able to save around $6 billion. With this type of savings, they were then able to increase cash flow, which allows the firm or company to be a lot more versatile. Again, if ExxonMobil had used the First In, First Out (FIFO) method in calculating the net income in 1998, their net income would have come out much lower than it did. With the FIFO method ExxonMobil's Cost of Goods Sold would have been solely mad up of the inventory that cost the company a certain amount of dollars per barrel, and ending inventory would have been made up of goods that now only cost the company a much lower amount of dollars per barrel. If Last In, First Out were to be used, Cost of Goods Sold would have been made up of inventory that cost the company $9, and ending inventory would have been filled with goods that cost Exxon Mobil $23 per barrel. “Subtracting the $23 per barrel from revenue using FIFO would give you a much lower income than subtracting the $9 per barrel using the LIFO. Exxon Mobil would receive a tax savings with the higher COGS.” (Arslan & Sture, 2008) There are different reasons, in my opinion, that a company would and should want to use Last In, First Out (LIFO) to value its inventory instead of using First In, First Out (FIFO), but I think the main reasons that concerned ExxonMobil were a tax savings, matching current costs wit current revenues, and hedging future earnings. “As the prices for oil were on the rise, COGS under LIFO were increasing likewise. A higher COGS equates to a lower taxable income, thus giving Exxon Mobil a tax savings. Matching current costs with current revenues provides a better measure of current earnings for a company, during times of inflation non LIFO earnings may fail to match current costs with current revenues, creating "inventory profits".” (Arslan & Sture, 2008) What is being said is that the Cost of Goods Sold may cost less now then when originally purchased, which now creates profit when sold. When this happens, Cost of Goods Sold are discreet and profit is exaggerated. Lastly, with LIFO,” future price declines will not substantially affect a company's future reported earnings. Under the LIFO method, the inventory most recently purchased is the first to be sold, which means that there isn't much highly priced inventory left that is susceptible to decline.” (Arslan & Sture, 2008) This would minimize mark downs to market from price drops.

References

Abernathy, M. (2007). Running on empty: Will exxon mobil cause a breakdown for chevron and the administrative state? Washington and Lee Law Review, 64(2), 583-623. ANALYSIS: EXXON AND MOBIL MERGE (1999). . Washington, D.C.: National Public Radio. Arslan, H., & Sture, S. (2008). Finite element analysis of localization and micro-macro structure relation in granular materials. part II: Implementation and simulations. Acta Mechanica, 197(3-4), 153-171. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00707-007-0514-0 Hull, Lindsay, and Michael O. Foothill. "A Comparative Financial Analysis of Exxon Mobil Corporation vs Chevron Corporation and Investment Recommendation." A Comparative Financial Analysis of Exxon Mobil Corporation vs Chevron Corporation and Investment Recommendation. N.p., 25 June 2007. Web. Moreland, K. A. (2007). International financial reporting-inventory costing at exxon and BP. Issues in Accounting Education, 22(4), 549-561. Nagurney, A. (2010). Formulation and analysis of horizontal mergers among oligopolistic firms with insights into the merger paradox: A supply chain network perspective. Computational Management Science, 7(4), 377-406. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10287-009-0095-6