Wapsi Square Forum

Perhaps the oil co. suit was a bit insensitive.

But do you begrudge profits by tech companies (Apple?) and soft drink companies (more sugar, please).

Whether one tolerates, is indifferent to, or despises big oil, it's here and now and firmly entrenched in modern society.

Ok -- a quick check of Exxon showed quarterly revenue ending June 30, 2015 of 335.25B. Let's make that an even 1,200B for the year. 4B profit is 1/3% of sales -- not even a half penny on the dollar. It looks big, but on a Trillion dollar revenue stream, it's not much at all. That's the large numbers illusion -- quantity vs proportion. By quantity, it's huge. By proportion, it's miniscule.

When you consider how many people work for Exxon/Esso, split that "profit" and it wouldn't amount to much.

Yeah, usually something isn't considered profitable if you aren't making 60% profits on it.

Alkarii wrote:Yeah, usually something isn't considered profitable if you aren't making 60% profits on it.

Tell that to the supermarket chains, all of which (last i heard) were running on less than 5% margin.

Really? That's pretty slim. But then, I think that 60% percent is supposed to be the difference in the selling price of something and the manufacturing cost, although there are certain things where that isn't feasible. I imagine commodities would be in that category.

AnotherFairportfan wrote:

Alkarii wrote:Yeah, usually something isn't considered profitable if you aren't making 60% profits on it.

Tell that to the supermarket chains, all of which (last i heard) were running on less than 5% margin.

Supermarkets make their money on turnover. If you can only sell a product once, you need a big markup to make it profitable. If you turn over your whole inventory 10 times a year, each slim markup adds up.

The realtor can only sell a building once. The grocer sells out bananas every week. The building that doesn't sell just sits and costs money for debt service, utilities (don't let the pipes freeze) and other maintenance. The overripe leftover bananas are tossed. So: $20K profit on a building or 5c profit on bananas x 1,000 x 52 weeks?

Supermarkets compete with prices... Walmart is all about "saving the customer money." The supermarkets might have started out with a wider profit margin, but low price competition set in, forcing prices down... And thereby forcing profit margins down. Now, all those companies are running on as little profit as possible to stay competitive. That's why they hate shoplifters, and try not to waste anything.

At least, that's my guess. *shrug*

Boring Sunday

More cat pics.
 
Rocket performs EBM (Essential Butt Maintenance).
 


While Mommy naps in the bedroom, Junior naps in her recliner.
 

Atomic wrote:

AnotherFairportfan wrote:

Alkarii wrote:Yeah, usually something isn't considered profitable if you aren't making 60% profits on it.

Tell that to the supermarket chains, all of which (last i heard) were running on less than 5% margin.

Supermarkets make their money on turnover. If you can only sell a product once, you need a big markup to make it profitable. If you turn over your whole inventory 10 times a year, each slim markup adds up.

The realtor can only sell a building once. The grocer sells out bananas every week. The building that doesn't sell just sits and costs money for debt service, utilities (don't let the pipes freeze) and other maintenance. The overripe leftover bananas are tossed. So: $20K profit on a building or 5c profit on bananas x 1,000 x 52 weeks?

Oil companies fit the supermarket model better than the realtor one. (BTW: did you know "realtor®" is a trademarked term - and should, properly, be capitalised?).

AnotherFairportfan wrote:Oil companies fit the supermarket model better than the realtor one. (BTW: did you know "realtor®" is a trademarked term - and should, properly, be capitalised?).

Indeed! And I'll be sure to xerox this message as I daub my nose with a kleenex and take some asprin. I didn't wear my galoshes in the rain, so I caught a cold. Even my jacket zipper was open, so I got soaked! Serves me right.

AnotherFairportfan wrote: ...(BTW: did you know "realtor®" is a trademarked term - and should, properly, be capitalised?).

Who in the world owns the trademark for Realtor? An associated conglomeration of some sort?

Jabberwonky wrote:

AnotherFairportfan wrote: ...(BTW: did you know "realtor®" is a trademarked term - and should, properly, be capitalised?).

Who in the world owns the trademark for Realtor? An associated conglomeration of some sort?

Actually, I don't think it's a "trademark", but it is a specifically registered term...kind of like CFP (certified financial planner)...and the industry put that registration/regulation in place to prevent just anyone from being able to call themselves a Realtor just because they show you a few houses.

Atomic wrote:

AnotherFairportfan wrote:Oil companies fit the supermarket model better than the realtor one. (BTW: did you know "realtor®" is a trademarked term - and should, properly, be capitalised?).

Indeed! And I'll be sure to xerox this message as I daub my nose with a kleenex and take some asprin. I didn't wear my galoshes in the rain, so I caught a cold. Even my jacket zipper was open, so I got soaked! Serves me right.

... did you have a derringer in your pocket at the time?

AnotherFairportfan wrote:BTW: did you know "realtor®" is a trademarked term - and should, properly, be capitalised?

Yup. And that's why I use the proper term: real estate agent.

I've spent about 30 years fighting to keep research and technical copy from looking like advertising copy.

Julie wrote:

Jabberwonky wrote:

AnotherFairportfan wrote: ...(BTW: did you know "realtor®" is a trademarked term - and should, properly, be capitalised?).

Who in the world owns the trademark for Realtor? An associated conglomeration of some sort?

Actually, I don't think it's a "trademark", but it is a specifically registered term...kind of like CFP (certified financial planner)...and the industry put that registration/regulation in place to prevent just anyone from being able to call themselves a Realtor just because they show you a few houses.

It is a trademark/service mark owned by the National Association of Realtors, first registered in 1949 and 1950.

AnotherFairportfan wrote:

Julie wrote:

Jabberwonky wrote:Who in the world owns the trademark for Realtor? An associated conglomeration of some sort?

Actually, I don't think it's a "trademark", but it is a specifically registered term...kind of like CFP (certified financial planner)...and the industry put that registration/regulation in place to prevent just anyone from being able to call themselves a Realtor just because they show you a few houses.

It is a trademark/service mark owned by the National Association of Realtors, first registered in 1949 and 1950.

ahhh...good to know.

Julie wrote:

AnotherFairportfan wrote:

Julie wrote: Actually, I don't think it's a "trademark", but it is a specifically registered term...kind of like CFP (certified financial planner)...and the industry put that registration/regulation in place to prevent just anyone from being able to call themselves a Realtor just because they show you a few houses.

It is a trademark/service mark owned by the National Association of Realtors, first registered in 1949 and 1950.

ahhh...good to know.

I looked it up on Wikipedia - it's not like i have all that info in my head. (Moe than a lot of people, which is why my girlfriend and i used to be deadly at Trivial Pursuit, but not ALL there is.)

AnotherFairportfan wrote:

Julie wrote:

AnotherFairportfan wrote:It is a trademark/service mark owned by the National Association of Realtors, first registered in 1949 and 1950.

ahhh...good to know.

I looked it up on Wikipedia - it's not like i have all that info in my head. (Moe than a lot of people, which is why my girlfriend and i used to be deadly at Trivial Pursuit, but not ALL there is.)

Yeah...but I'm usually too lazy to go hunting through Wikipedia these days...unless it's really "need to know" information, at which point I'll go all out in my research.

Had a flat tire last night. What sucks is that I don't have enough to get a new one and still make my car payment on time. My next payday is the 2nd, the day after the payment is due. But I may have enough to get a used one that would last a couple weeks.