Exxon ($XOM) podcast mentions
Those are your— wouldn't say your Exxon and Chevron because they have refining capacity, but your pure— your companies that purely drill for oil, those are less attractive to me than those that have refining capacity. I'm Justin Klein, reminding you about KAPB Financial's Parallel Investing. We make a trade for clients, make the same trade for ourselves. Same day, same price, same percentage, no front running, no special treatments. We invest right alongside our clients. And you can learn more by heading over to InvestTalk.com. Please tell your friends and family about our free podcast downloads, which you can find anytime at iTunes or Spotify. And make sure to check out our YouTube channel as well. Mark your calendars for October 24th. You're invited to Join the KPP team and guest experts for the in-person InvestTalk Retirement Summit. Independent thinking, shared success. This is InvestTalk.
Justin Klein · InvestTalk · AI Data Centers Are Eating the Land Market: Real Estate's Next Big Disruption · 2026-09-16Kate, people say, well, we don't trust Exxon to regulate their own carbon emissions. Meta had to be taken to court to do some content moderation. When Jensen Huang says there are plenty of laws, what is he talking about?
Carl Quintanilla · Squawk on the Street · 11AM Hour: Senator Richard Blumenthal on AI, Early Facebook Investor Roger McNamee & Clarity Act Fails to Advance 9/16/26 · 2026-09-16The sovereign debt crisis, which kind of coincided with the US debt ceiling crisis of 2011, correlations of 85-90%. So these are companies moving kind of in lockstep with each other. Now, how does it manifest itself in terms of price action? If you're having stocks that are 85-90% correlated, It means that, you know, let's just pick the top 10 stocks from 15 years ago. I don't know, Exxon, Pfizer, Microsoft, JPMorgan. Pick kind of a cross-sector and industry group comparison, right? If each of them moves down 1.5 to 2% on a given day, it means that the S&P is moving about the same. Right? So the stock moves and the index moves are very close to each other.
Dean Curnutt · Forward Guidance · The Market Is Mispricing A Correlation Shock | Dean Curnutt · 2026-09-16Well, Jim, we did get to David's point, that power outage at an Exxon Joliet refinery yesterday. I mean, probably not a huge issue, but a reminder of how important maintenance season is. And by the way, the backwardation on crude is accelerating. I think March delivery is now 90-something like that. Right.
Carl Quintanilla · Squawk on the Street · 9AM HOUR: Trump Dismisses AI Fears, 10-Year Yield Hits Fresh 2007 Highs, the Fed's 2-Day Meeting In Focus 9/15/26 · 2026-09-15And this is going to continue to be a theme, leveraging these resources for political gain. And that is another aspect of the backdrop of rising inflation. Now, from time to time, we receive questions via web for— excuse me, I don't know why I have hiccups, uh, from investtalk.com. And let's go answer that question now. Alex says, howdy Justin and Luke. Alex from Texas asks about ticker symbol DINO. Like a week ago, two ago, this question is more so what happened to a stock whenever it splits a segment of its business into its own standalone operation? I read that DINO will separate its lubricant specialty segment into independent publicly traded company in the second half of 2027. I was wondering what does that do to the stock? Very, very simple. It's kind of like a dividend. That's what spinoffs are. You will get it in your account like a dividend, but it won't be cash. It will be in a new ticker, ticker symbol. And that can be a good thing. It can unlock value because investors often, they want pure plays. And when you have a business that has multiple arms to it that aren't very synergistic, shall we say, meaning there's no real value of holding one along with another. For example, I'll give you an example. Exxon or Chevron, they're what's called vertically integrated. They have drilling operations, but they also have refining operations. And so they can work together to control the flow of products. And communicate and kind of capture a lot of the synergies of those two businesses because they work together closely. But if they have two businesses that don't have much to do with one another, it often makes sense for— I don't know why I get hiccups— to— it often makes sense for them to split up, trade separately. So that when you're investing, you know, I'm getting this very concentrated type exposure and I'm not getting diluted by this other business that's out there. So there might be a lot of investors that want to own a lubricants and specialty business, for example, but that's not Dyno's main business. They're in oil refineries, pipelines, export exploration services, et cetera. So it's a little bit more pure play. And I think this is a good thing overall.
Justin Klein · InvestTalk · China's Rare Earth Export Halt: When Supply Chain Leverage Becomes a Market Weapon · 2026-09-14Everyone, reminder, if you want to get a question into us, email us at podcasts@fool.com. That's podcasts with an S. I also put the email in the show description. So you can get it there as well. Today's comes in from James from Atlanta. He's a huge fan of the show, been listening since COVID and loves what we do. So the question is, would love to hear everyone's thought on how you view dividends, both in the return calculation and the company's messaging. While I see the role they play in energy stocks, he mentions ExxonMobil, Chevron, kind of that been doing it for a long time, growing dividends here. I struggle to see the value of a growth stock paying one, and he uses Disney Disney, Google, or Alphabet more specifically, and as I would think that the capital could be better spent on CapEx and business growth rather than dividends. So what— where do you kind of land on the spectrum here? Is it, you know, should these growth companies like Alphabet and Disney be not spending dividends and probably be spending on business growth, or, you know, is there value into, into the dividend?
Tyler Crowe · Motley Fool Hidden Gems Investing · AI Leaders Want to Slow Down Development For… · 2026-09-14Countries don't cease to exist 'cause they're invaded. They cease to exist because they go broke. And the way they go broke is through inflation where their purchasing power just falls and they can no longer borrow money. And, and they essentially enter into this kind of downward spiral. And the inflation in the United States is pretty dramatic. It's a 40% cumulative price increase since January of 2020. That's crazy. I mean, that was when COVID started. The majority of Americans have not seen a 40% increase in their earnings and their wages to compensate. So essentially this is a decline in the standard of living for the majority of Americans or the consumer. American households have taken a pay cut that they did not vote for. Uh, the bankruptcy number is the real tell. Corporate bankruptcy's up 12%, which is the greatest in over a decade, and it's concentrated across small and medium-sized businesses, which don't have the ability to, you know, hedge floating rate debt. They're kind of the shock absorbers for inflation or monetary policy. And they've been, you know, the chassis has been broken, if you will, or just snapped. Whenever you have something like this, you do have winners and losers. This arguably is a transfer of wealth from people at the pump to homeowners in Odessa, Texas that have seen their home prices up 77%. Exxon, Saudi Aramco, Chevron. There are a lot of Americans making a lot of money off of higher energy prices. You're a net exporter of energy and the largest producer, but it again, transfer of wealth from everyone at the pump and almost every product incurs a price increase 'cause it came to you using diesel fuel, right? So you have, again, you have wealth transfer from diesel-dependent families, school buses, drive-throughs to landowners sitting on the Permian Basin. And Trump trading oil stocks while overseeing the policy, you know, it's gone from a conflict of interest to a business model. He's got, I think, almost 5 or registered almost $5 million in gains during a war he's prosecuting incompetently. And then he just puts out a thing saying he doesn't actually care about the money he's making or price increases. So this is, what is this? This is a regressive tax dressed up as a foreign policy story.
Scott Galloway · Prof G Markets · The Rate Hikes Are Coming · 2026-09-14I would push back a little bit, and that is a lot of people are actually looking at the debt markets because for the first time they feel like they're being rewarded for the risk they're taking. And that is you are getting— you are getting not, not serious money, but if you can buy a corporate bond that looks very healthy, including, you know, and get a 6, 7, 8% return, you know, that's not bad. And keep in mind, the debt. So it's almost like my investment strategy right now is not to get rich, it's to not get poor. The way you don't get rich, you know, you not get rich but you don't get poor, is with bonds. Because bonds, typically credit has real teeth. They're not as volatile typically. And with a company like Apple, unless shit gets really real at Apple, like unimaginably real, it's hard to imagine they would, not have the assets and the cash flow to pay the interest on their bonds, right? So I do think, and by the way, I have never been a big debt investor. I don't understand it. I've never been interested in it. I've always deluded myself into thinking I can outperform what feel like fairly paltry returns. But I do think still a mixed portfolio of stocks and bonds makes sense. Just going back to the markets, we said that there's always a transfer of wealth and winners and losers. Some of the winners, with $100+ oil. Shell's up 27%, ExxonMobil 34%, Chevron 37%. Norway's Equinor is up 84%. They supply 30% of all the natural gas consumed in the EU. Home sellers, okay, home prices, as we talked about, up 2% nationally, up 77% in Odessa, Texas. And then railroads, which are much more efficient from an energy standpoint. Canadian Pacific, Kansas City plus 21%, Union Pacific 23%, CSX up 34%. So a transfer of wealth from consumers who have to pay higher prices at the grocery store and at the pump.
Scott Galloway · Prof G Markets · The Rate Hikes Are Coming · 2026-09-14And today, most of the oil in the world belongs to sovereign oil companies. And America was left without a great copper champion. And when I was younger, during, say, the Clinton era, we started embracing China. I was very early into China. I first went into China in the early 1980s. George Shultz introduced me to China. I was in fact the first American to go mining in China, in Western China, in Xinjiang. And, you know, I watched the incredible rise of the Chinese people. No one has uplifted their economy that far, that fast in human history. And we thought by bringing China into the WTO, we were going to turn the Chinese into Americans. All the girls wanted Manolo Blahnik shoes and Birkin bags. All the guys wanted Porsches. And they did an incredible job of uplifting their society. But things haven't worked out exactly as we thought between our respective societies. Now, most of the mining fell to junior mining companies listed in Australia or Canada. For decades. These companies were registered in Canada like ships are registered in Liberia. Legislation was friendlier up there for the risks with mining. Thousands of these little juniors would go around looking for mining and the big mining companies became more and more brain dead. They became like giant donut-shaped law firms with mediocre operating companies in the middle. For example, Exxon doesn't really drill for oil today. It's a big law firm. But they hire people like Schlumberger or Baker Hughes to do their work and they just sort of move on. And if you look at the food chain, when I was young, I grew up in the 1950s, the United States government made a little pyramid, food pyramid for us, and it said you're supposed to drink 4 glasses of cow's milk every day and a certain amount of milk and cheese and eggs and ham. And at the top of that food pyramid, was steak, meat. And when I was in school, you know, we were given that food pyramid. And when I was a kid, you know, I'm remembering this vividly at the age of 8, they made us get under the desk to practice for nuclear war in the event of a nuclear bomb. And I was the kid that told my teacher, this is crazy.
Robert Friedland · Odd Lots · Robert Friedland on the World's Monumental Shortage of Copper · 2026-09-12Code.org became one of the largest providers of AP Computer Science Principles curriculum. And one of the efforts, you know, from Code.org, from the National Science Foundation, from the Exploring Computer Science group, from everybody was there actually aren't enough people who can teach computer science, right? Because it's a specialized area. Like, you don't suddenly start teaching physics if you don't know physics. Well, what Code.org did was it created these packaged curriculums. So even if you'd never taught it before, if you were a math teacher or a biology teacher, or even like a school technology specialist, you would be able to teach this course. And many teachers I talked to decided to teach the Code.org course. One of the most unusual things though about this AP course was the College Board approved a number of curriculum providers to provide these box curriculums to teachers. It doesn't do that in any other subject, right? In other courses like English or biology, the College Board has standards and tells teachers what they need to teach kids to take the exam, and then the teachers develop the curriculum. But because, you know, they wanted to grow computer science, they approved Box curriculum and including, you know, approving the university, uh, courses that had been developed for AP Computer Science, um, and, um, the code.org course, the College Board began approving Box curriculums from tech companies like Microsoft and Apple. So there's an Apple AP Computer Science course that teaches kids to program in Swift. Which is Apple's programming language, and another one from Microsoft, which is like learn to code using Microsoft's Minecraft for education. And what's striking about this is, um, you know, like you can imagine that parents would not want, say, Pfizer AP Biology, right? Or Northrop Grumman AP Physics, right? Or ExxonMobil Environmental Science AP. So it's striking that like The College Board approved the Apple course and Microsoft courses for AP, something it does in no other subject.
Natasha Singer · The Vergecast · Schools are catching onto tech’s playbook · 2026-09-10Hey guys, love the show. Mark from San Diego. Just looking for your long-term and shorter-term outlooks on oil with all the gyrations in the Middle East. I still own various funds as well as individual stocks like Exxon and Chevron and that kind of stuff, uh, oil stocks. I'm wondering if I should trim now or sit on it. I'm in no rush to sell them, but they've been up quite a bit in the last couple of years since I bought them. So just your thoughts for long-term trim, sit on it, or add to it. And I listen to you on the show.
Steve Peasley · InvestTalk · Best of Caller Questions · 2026-09-09Because oil is a global market and the Middle East has the most oil, but it's not the only place to get oil. And so the lesson here is that if this isn't going to moonshot oil prices to levels that allow the big oil companies to extract oil at huge valuations or huge margins, shall we say, Then what is— then what is— so what I did is I said, if you're going to gain exposure and I'm telling you right now, you know, it's okay to have some exposure right now for potential supercycle spike because that's a, I think, a pretty good political bet that this will come to a head to a point where prices do accelerate to the upside and it puts pressure probably on the current US administration to do something. To resolve it. Right now oil's at, you know, $90 a barrel in that range, kind of hanging between $90 and $100. Higher, not great, but not a catastrophe for the world. But what it's telling me is that if you want to invest in this space, I don't really feel great about the big oil names, just EMPs in general. First off, you have to understand that they're price takers, means that they just get what the market says they're going to get. There's not much strategy behind that. Yeah, there's hedging and things like that, but overall they're price takers. So I said, what about the rest of the energy world? What about transport stocks, meaning the pipeline companies? And then I went and looked at Chevron, Exxon, and then Williams Company. I look at the last 10 years, even the last 15 years, last 10 years. Let's look at Williams Company. Total return, 14.25%. It's one of the largest oil pipeline companies out there. Then you look at Chevron, 9% total return over the last 10 years. Exxon, 7.5%. Last 15 years, Exxon 6.2%, Chevron 6.6%, Williams Company 8.5%. So clearly makes more sense to own the pipeline companies. Then what about the refiners? The largest one is Valero. What's that return over the last 10 years? 18.5% annualized. That's an incredible return. 15 years, 18% annualized, just consistent. And they're not building a lot of new refineries, and it's difficult to get new pipelines built.
Justin Klein · InvestTalk · Best of Caller Questions · 2026-09-09I think China stands behind, um, Exxon, who is still waiting to be paid for the second or third expropriation they had in Venezuela.
Ed Hurst · Bloomberg Surveillance · August Jobs Report · 2026-09-04But other supermajors like ExxonMobil may be hesitant to follow.
Elizabeth Troval · Marketplace · Chevron's big bet · 2026-09-03Well, all of these things matter, but the dividend growth is connected to the dividend payout ratio. For one thing, if they have a 20% payout ratio, you might argue they don't seem that committed to it. It doesn't seem like a big priority. If they have a 90% payout ratio, you might think they don't have a lot of margin of error. If earnings drop 11%, they might be facing a dividend cut. So we do tend to believe, and it's different sector by sector because of CapEx. Exxon and Chevron have grown the dividend every year since World War II, but they are very heavy CapEx companies. McDonald's, Procter Gamble, they have Pepsi, 100% cash flow productivity. They don't have the CapEx reinvestment needs. So we have to look at it case by case. But the payout ratio matters.
David Bahnsen · Bloomberg Surveillance · Market Risks and Equity Melt Up · 2026-09-03