Companies are supposed to tell shareholders about risks to their investments...

Thread Starter

GopherT

Joined Nov 23, 2012
8,012
They looked at all scenarios and the expenses involved with each. They warned of making decisions on uncertain science. They did not state there would be global warming. So, if they planned for the two extremes, yes, global warming would be more profitable, as the expenses are lower. Business 101, not a grand conspiracy.

I'm not saying there is a grand conspiracy. I am just saying that the company has spent money and continues to spend money on the topic but no information is passed to shareholders about the risk or reason. That may be an issue, depending on how the law is interpreted and the degree of fact vs. speculation on the cause of global warming (and whether or not the globe is warming). It will be a difficult end game for the NYS AG. Just another topic I will watch with interest - like the VW saga.
 

Brownout

Joined Jan 10, 2012
2,390
This shouldn't come as a shock to anyone. There's been a push to get oil companies to be more transparent concerning their research on Global Warming. In the 70's and 80's, big oil was a leader in GW research, but since then seems to have buried their information and instead funded contrary science to the tune of millions of $$. Not only do investors have a right to know the details of what the corporations know, but it's also a matter of law. All publicly held corporations are required to disclose any information that potentially affects market evaluation. That's the only way investors can make informed decisions; the only way public financing can possibly work,

I'm unconvinced that releasing the information would increase profits. Otherwise, why haven't the done it already? Why would it take an investigation to have the information made public? After all, the propose of business is to make a profit. Why would oil companies spend millions of dollars disputing GW and lobbying the government against support for the same it it would increase profits? Only an idiot would spend millions to decrease profits, and investors would run away from any corporation that would. If the buying public went to other sources because of concerns of GW (or any other reason) that would further increase reserve supply, driving the price down, along with profits. Sales and revenue would decrease as well. None of this would be good news for the industry or it's investors.
 
Last edited:

JoeJester

Joined Apr 26, 2005
4,390
I don't see why an potential investor would want to review decades old data. Even the IRS doesn't look back unless there's evidence of wrong doing and even then, there is a limit to how far they can go back.

The potential investor and current investor is more interested in the company's performance in their portfolio today than 30 years ago when they didn't own any of the stock.
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
7,723
Look at the source of this bogus news story.
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/En...-cherry-picking-climate-legacy/6231445509659/
Reporting from InsideClimate News drew the attention of presidential contenders and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who called on the Department of Justice to investigateExxon's legacy stance on climate issues.

Sanders, in a letter to U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch, said a "misinformation campaign" led by Exxon Mobil "caused public harm similar to the tobacco industry's actions -- conduct that led to federal racketeering convictions."
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...nders-climate-campaign-fossil-fuel-extraction
 

JoeJester

Joined Apr 26, 2005
4,390
Nice graphs. Not one related to research science. "Six market events" and the graph still moved upward.

The first graph has no annotations on why the stocks tanked ... and it ONLY goes back to 1995. Where is the 70s and 80s?
 

Brownout

Joined Jan 10, 2012
2,390
If the research science was not needed; why are you calling for it's release?
I didn't say research science isn't needed. I said invester data doesn't need to be only research science. Invester data includes a wide breath of data types including financial, monetary, currency, fiscal, public policy, etc. etc. etc. ... and even researchscience.
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
7,723
This story is not about research, investors or even the public. It's about the agenda of groups that are trying to use the age old tactic of using force (the US government) to extort money from organizations they have a disagreement with and political power. Today's weapon of choice for extortion is the 'good' climate and today's target is the 'evil' XOM.

Exxon stands accused of making money on oil and wanting to keep making money on oil, for that they must pay.
 

JoeJester

Joined Apr 26, 2005
4,390
I didn't say research science isn't needed. I said invester data doesn't need to be only research science. Invester data includes a wide breath of data types including financial, monetary, currency, fiscal, public policy, etc. etc. etc. ... and even researchscience.
And what does the research data prior to the Crash of 33 tell you? Could it have been prevented? Does your DeLorean work properly to change history?

You can only change the players (management) if your not getting the performance you desire (making or losing money). Research is part of the business costs, intellectual property. If you want the historical data, maybe they ought to sell it to you ... at COST, adjusted for inflation. But then, the value to you is more than that. Break out the big bucks. Burn the Witches!
 

Brownout

Joined Jan 10, 2012
2,390
A publicly traded company can't sell information to investors that is required by law to be made public. In fact, by offering the information for sale, the company would be virtually admitting guilt.
 

JoeJester

Joined Apr 26, 2005
4,390
Are you suggesting the company holds no rights to their research?

In government and business, some things are restricted from the general public. The need to know still rules. Othewise there would not confidentality agreements that people sign ... And some sign annually.

Investors can review the books by visiting the company. There is no need to have it available to the general public as you desire.

Besides ... What is the required length of time a publically traded company to maintain their research records? Cite the law.
 
Last edited:

JoeJester

Joined Apr 26, 2005
4,390
I don't think I've ever saw research passed to investors. Can anyone link to a research document from a publically traded company ... I don't mean the marketing campaigns from the trading companies.

Government funded research doesn't count.
 

Brownout

Joined Jan 10, 2012
2,390
I'm saying a publicly traded company has a legal requirement to disclose to its investors, information that could influence financial results, per Sarbanes-Oxley. By offering such information for sale, the company has admitted to illegally withholding information.
 
Last edited:

JoeJester

Joined Apr 26, 2005
4,390
If there is a legal requirement, provide a link to the legal cite.

A researcher could be sick for a period of time, that could influence the stock price. Does the investor need to be cognizant of that?
 

Brownout

Joined Jan 10, 2012
2,390
If there is a legal requirement, provide a link to the legal cite.
Why? Do you believe companies are allowed to hide information that might affect their valuation? Ever hear of Enron?

A researcher could be sick for a period of time, that could influence the stock price. Does the investor need to be cognizant of that?
Unlikely that would influence stock price. On the other hand, if a researcher discovers something that might cause the stock to drop. then it must be disclosed.
 
Last edited:

JoeJester

Joined Apr 26, 2005
4,390
Ever hear of Enron?
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 was the result of the Enron "Off Balance Sheet" shenanigans.

Which section do you think they are not in compliance with? http://www.soxlaw.com/

What I want is for the publically traded companies to be in compliance with the law. When they are found guilty of violating the law ... put the Board of Directors and Officers in jail.

Now, if you have charges against them, cite the section you think they have failed to comply with.

Unlikely that would influence stock price. On the other hand, if a researcher discovers something that might cause the stock to drop. then it must be disclosed.
I don't think the word "might" appears in the law you cited.

If the entity shared the information with the U.S. Government, don't you think there is a public record of that information in the NARA depository? After all, there are federal records requirements.

You still haven't cited the legal requirement for any business to maintain records for more than 50 years.

Here are some record retention recommendations. Here is the IRS record retention requirements. Finally, the NOLO website. Enjoy the reading.
 
Last edited:

Brownout

Joined Jan 10, 2012
2,390
I see you continue to ignore my question. Do you think publicly traded companies are allowed to withhold material information that could affect valuation, or not?
 
Top