Windfall Profits?

Posted in Uncategorized on June 14th, 2008 by Jack

There has been a lot of talk recently, particularly by Obama and the democrats in Congress for re-enacting a Windfall Profits tax on the oil industry. But what exactly are windfall profits and how does this apply to the startup entrepreneur?

The Economist defines windfall profit as a controversial concept, often used by politicians to justify imposing a TAX on PROFIT that in theory is earned unexpectedly, through circumstances beyond the control of the company concerned, and is thus deemed undeserved and ripe for the taking by the tax authorities.

Does this definition fit the current situation? Clearly, the tax authorities (Congress and the Democratic Candidate for President) want to take the profit. And clearly the authorities believe that the profit is undeserved. Many of the proponents of the current proposals for windfall taxes on oil have been claiming that Chevron or Exxon are making $1300 a minute in profit, or a billion a day, or many other shocking claims on the absolute value of the profit. And, if you’re not involved in big business on a day to day basis, the numbers are really, really big.

But are the authorities, particularly Obama and the Democrats, correct?

Here’s a basic analysis using the 2008 Fortune 1000 list.

N = 1000 Revenues
($ millions)
Profits
($ millions)
Profit %
Average 11,975.07 724.46 6.0%
Min 1,629.70 -38,732.00 -118.3%
Median 4,619.50 253.30 5.4%
Max 378,799.00 40,610.00 70.9%
Standard Deviation 26,308.06 2,814.67 11.6%
  • Ranked by Revenues, only 2 Oil companies make the top 10. Wal-Mart ranks #1 at $6 billion more than Exxon Mobil. The only tech company AT&T at #10.
  • Ranked by Profit, only 2 Oil Companies make the top 10. Exxon-Mobil ranks #1, but GE takes #2 before Chevron’s #3. In tech, Microsoft ranks 6, and AT&T 9.
  • Ranked by Net Margin, no Oil companies make the top 10. Exxon-Mobil, with 10.9% margin ranks 219. Chevron, with 8.9%, ranks 298. This compares to Microsoft (27.5%) at 25 and Google (25.3%) at 34.

It will take a long time for a startup or entrepreneur to make the F1000. However, high-tech businesses do have high profit %. Looking at the % ranking, we see Mirant, an electricity generator at 70.9%, which may be an outlier, as the next in rank is Blackstone, in the PE business, at 53.2%. Gilead Sciences, at #7, is at 38.2%.

When I created the financial model for my business, I calculated a 39% net profit long-term. Looking at these figures, I don’t find it completely out of the question. Of course it’s aggressively high. But if I don’t shoot for that goal, I’ll never create a real business.

On the other hand, it is pure hubris for Congress to go after the oil business, and to not, at the same time, attack GE, Bank of Ameria, or the Oracle of Omaha.

The Rankings

Top 10 Gross Revenue

Fortune
1000 Rank
Company Revenues
($ millions)
Profits
($ millions)
Profit %
1 Wal-Mart Stores 378,799.00 12,731.00 3.4%
2 Exxon Mobil 372,824.00 40,610.00 10.9%
3 Chevron 210,783.00 18,688.00 8.9%
4 General Motors 182,347.00 -38,732.00 -21.2%
5 ConocoPhillips 178,558.00 11,891.00 6.7%
6 General Electric 176,656.00 22,208.00 12.6%
7 Ford Motor 172,468.00 -2,723.00 -1.6%
8 Citigroup 159,229.00 3,617.00 2.3%
9 Bank of America Corp. 119,190.00 14,982.00 12.6%
10 AT&T 118,928.00 11,951.00 10.0%

Top 10 Net Profit

Fortune
1000 Rank
Company Revenues
($ millions)
Profits
($ millions)
Profit %
2 Exxon Mobil 372,824.00 40,610.00 10.9%
6 General Electric 176,656.00 22,208.00 12.6%
3 Chevron 210,783.00 18,688.00 8.9%
12 J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. 116,353.00 15,365.00 13.2%
9 Bank of America Corp. 119,190.00 14,982.00 12.6%
44 Microsoft 51,122.00 14,065.00 27.5%
11 Berkshire Hathaway 118,245.00 13,213.00 11.2%
1 Wal-Mart Stores 378,799.00 12,731.00 3.4%
10 AT&T 118,928.00 11,951.00 10.0%
5 ConocoPhillips 178,558.00 11,891.00 6.7%

Top 10 Profit %

Fortune
1000 Rank
Company Revenues
($ millions)
Profits
($ millions)
Profit %
708 Mirant 2,815.00 1,995.00 70.9%
666 Blackstone Group 3,050.10 1,623.20 53.2%
855 ENSCO International 2,143.80 992 46.3%
853 Equity Residential 2,147.20 989.6 46.1%
913 MEMC Electronic Materials 1,921.80 826.2 43.0%
402 Charles Schwab 6,063.00 2,407.00 39.7%
536 Gilead Sciences 4,230.00 1,615.30 38.2%
816 DST Systems 2,302.50 874.7 38.0%
959 CME Group 1,756.10 658.5 37.5%
297 Qualcomm 8,871.00 3,303.00 37.2%

Presenting to Win – Jerry Weissman

Posted in Uncategorized on June 9th, 2008 by Jack

Jerry Weissman’s Book Presenting To Win is an excellent reference for creating presentations, and killing what Jerry calls MEGO: Mine Eyes Glaze Over.

This book was recommended to me some time ago by Jim Long of Gabriel Ventures during an SVASE Event. I finally got around to reading it, and can see that it will be an excellent reference. I’ll probably have to by the Kindle version as well, so that I have it with me to show others.

The book has three basic sections, although it’s organized into 14 chapters. The first section is an intro, covering both Weissman’s background as well as why you need to create better presentations, and, most importantly, WIIFY. No, that’s not a Nintendo reference; it’s an acronym for What’s In It For You, which is the motivation factor that makes people pay attention to the presentation.

The second section discusses brainstorming and organizing your presentation into a story with one of the 16 possible flows:

  1. Modular
  2. Chronological
  3. Physical
  4. Spatial
  5. Problem/Solution
  6. Issues/Actions
  7. Opportunity/Leveratge
  8. Form/Function
  9. Features/Benefits
  10. case Study
  11. Argument/Fallacy
  12. Compare/Contrast
  13. Matrix
  14. Parallel Tracks
  15. Rhetorical
  16. Numerical

The discussion on the flows and their uses is very helpful. Weissman’s layout of brainstorming and how to turn it into a story is very intriguing but lacking in some details. I wish he expounded more on this, as it is the hardest part of creating a presentation (and probably the hardest to explain in words, so I do give him a little leeway…)

The third section is the technical nuts and bolts. Rather than discussion typography, Weissman refers to the latin phrase de gustibus non est disputandum - there’s no arguing taste. Instead, he gives a small discourse on perception psychology. Because we read from left to right, things coming in from the left are natural and things coming from the right are unnatural.

I can see where this will be one of those books that needs to be revisited from time to time for a refresher course.

Tags: