What's wrong with Exxon Mobil?
The oil colossus keeps churning, but returns have been lagging.
By James Brumley
Think all large-cap oil stocks are the same? Think again.
Exxon Mobil (XOM) might look like BP (BP), Chevron (CVX) and ConocoPhillips (COP) on the surface. When you look under the hood, though, there's something different about Exxon Mobil that might motivate you to steer clear.
Birds of a feather not flocking together
First, investor returns have been oddly varied from one of these stocks to the next. During the past three years -- the span of the economic recovery -- ConocoPhillips shares have advanced a little more than 100%, while Chevron is up 70%. Yet Exxon Mobil shares have gained just 23%. That's only a tad better than the performance of BP -- you know, the $136 billion company that created more than a $20 billion liability for itself by spilling nearly 5 million gallons of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico in early 2010?
Think about that for a second. Exxon Mobil, which didn't create the worst environmental disaster in more than a decade, has rewarded investors almost as poorly as the company that did.
At the heart of the stock's stagnation is tepid earnings growth. Though Exxon Mobil's bottom line of $41.0 billion last year was better than 2009's $19.3 billion, it was still shy of 2008's net income of $45.2 billion -- the only one of the four major oil names in focus to do worse last year than it did in 2008.
And here's the amazing (again, not in a good way) part about Exxon's returns over the past three years: The company was buying back a truckload of shares during that time, which should have significantly helped the stock's value and earnings. It didn't. Although XOM has bought back $52 billion worth of its own stock since 2009 -- about 13% of the current $395 billion market cap -- last year's per-share profit of $8.42 still is weaker than 2008's $8.66.
Why can't Exxon do what the other major players seem to be able to do?
The hard part about hating it
Performance numbers aside, the company seems attractive. Exxon invests a great deal of money back into its business. Indeed, it has budgeted $185 billion for exploration and development over the next five years. That's huge -- huge enough to increase the company's output by an estimated 1 million barrels of crude per day. The raised output will translate into a little more than $36 billion in additional annual revenue at today's oil prices.
Of course, it won't benefit XOM shareholders anytime soon, since every bit of that new incremental revenue for the next five years is being laid out to turn those revenue spigots on. Yes, after that period, Exxon will benefit from greater production, if those new sources last more than five years -- a serious concern in the shadow of weakening production forecasts for 2012.
Unfortunately for current shareholders, all that really matter in terms of a stock's price are the "here and now" performance numbers. And Exxon Mobil just doesn't look poised to post any strong ones for a while.
Plus, there's no guarantee XOM won't have to keep pouring a ton of cash into new development beyond the current five-year plan. After all, its current oil and gas sources are already starting to dry up, hence the lowered output expectation for this year.
None of this is to say Exxon Mobil is a bad company. It's a fine company, particularly if you like dividends and take comfort in size. The yield of 2.2% is respectable and grows reliably, and the company's $395 billion market cap makes it one of the biggest in the world.
It seems, however, that size also has made it tough for Exxon to grow the top and bottom lines. Where else can it go to win new customers as well as efficiently develop new production? The answer: Not enough places.
While it's hard to say it's an outright "sell," Exxon Mobil is the last major integrated oil name that should be considered a "buy." Energy investors might want to explore other options -- even BP, now that the fallout from the Gulf of Mexico oil spill is starting to settle.
Energy investors also will want to keep their eyes on this Canadian clash of pipeline titans.
As of this writing, James Brumley did not hold a position in any of the aforementioned securities.
As Milton Freidman once asked of communist Phil Donohue .............. " can you give me an example of an economic system, past or present, which is not based upon greed?"
The poor dear, Phil the communist" was just speechless.
Hold on to your stocks boyz , you will take a ride as you did in 2008. The greedy oil companies along with the hedgefunds and the SPECULATORS, and the banks are driving it that way as they did in 2008. Oil goes up and the market falls and people are so greedy they keep buying and running the market up so the big stockers can buy it and then sell and drop the market and make boocou money.
Its all about GREED>!
Gary guns you are right about us having plenty of oil here to suffice this country for numerous years.
MORE ON MSN MONEY
Copyright © 2013 Microsoft. All rights reserved.
Quotes are real-time for NASDAQ, NYSE and AMEX. See delay times for other exchanges.
Fundamental company data and historical chart data provided by Thomson Reuters (click for restrictions). Real-time quotes provided by BATS Exchange. Real-time index quotes and delayed quotes supplied by Interactive Data Real-Time Services. Fund summary, fund performance and dividend data provided by Morningstar Inc. Analyst recommendations provided by Zacks Investment Research. StockScouter data provided by Verus Analytics. IPO data provided by Hoover's Inc. Index membership data provided by SIX Financial Information.
Try as the bears might, they couldn't break US stocks. But investors still face frothy prices and considerable headwinds.
VIDEO ON MSN MONEY
Top Stocks provides analysis about the most noteworthy stocks in the market each day, combining some of the best content from around the MSN Money site and the rest of the Web.
Contributors include professional investors and journalists affiliated with MSN Money.
Follow us on Twitter @topstocksmsn.