BP reported $13.8 billion annual profit in 2023 despite profits being down from the record $27.7 billion in 2021 when oil prices soared after Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
The company announced plans to boost shareholder returns by accelerating its buybacks and increasing its dividend, despite a drop in annual profit.
BP reported its second highest annual profit in a decade, $13.8 billion ($00A311bn), despite profits being down from the record $27.7 billion in 2022 when oil prices soared after Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
The company announced plans to boost shareholder returns by accelerating its buybacks and increasing its dividend, despite a drop in annual profit.
BP also reported that it was committed to announcing a $3.5 billion share buyback for the first half of 2024. The company's underlying replacement cost profit, used as a proxy for net profit, was $13.8 billion ($00A311bn) in 2023.
The energy giant also announced that it would be stepping up its plans to return cash to shareholders.
BP reported its second highest annual profit in a decade, $13.8bn (£11bn) in 2023.
Profits were down from the record $27.7bn in 2022 when oil prices soared after Russia·s invasion of Ukraine.
Accuracy
Profits were down from the record $27.7bn in 2022 when oil prices soared after Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the title claims that BP reported its second highest profit in a decade when it actually only made $13.8 billion which is half of what they announced last year and less than their record profit from 2022.
The article states that BP's annual profits were the biggest since 2012, but this statement is false as it excludes the results from 2019 which was also a profitable year for BP.
The article claims that BP has increased returns to investors through share buybacks, but it fails to mention that these returns are coming at the expense of future investments in low carbon energy.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy by stating that BP's annual profit figure was the biggest since 2012 without providing any context or evidence. Additionally, there is a dichotomous depiction of BP's policies as either being in line with environmental groups or not, which oversimplifies complex issues and ignores nuances.
]The price of oil fell back last year, which has cut profits at all energy firms.[
Bias
(85%)
The article reports on BP's second highest profit in a decade despite the price of oil falling back last year. The company also announced plans to return cash to shareholders and increase returns through buybacks. However, there is no mention of any specific policies or initiatives that BP has implemented to reduce its carbon footprint or transition towards renewable energy sources.
BP planned to increase returns to investors during the first three months of the year through $1.75bn of share buybacks.
The price of oil fell back last year
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author of the article has a conflict of interest with BP as they are an energy giant and have reported on their profits in the past. The author also reports on Nick Edser who is a business reporter for Getty Images.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topics of profits and energy giant as they are directly related to BP's business. The article also mentions Nick Edser who is a business reporter.
The company increased its pace of share repurchases and dividend
BP posted underlying replacement cost profit, used as a proxy for net profit, of $13.8 billion for 2023
Analysts had anticipated net profit of $13.9 billion for full-year 2023
Accuracy
BP reported a 96.3% Y/Y decline in Q4 profit to $0.4 billion, compared with $10.8 billion for the previous quarter.
Q4 Non-GAAP EPADS of $1.07 beats by $0.07 and revenue of $52.59 billion misses by $3.45 billion.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the title claims that BP shares have risen after an announcement of plans to boost shareholder returns but fails to mention that this increase was due to a drop in annual profit and not because of any actual improvement in the company's performance. Secondly, the article quotes analysts who describe BP's commitment to share buybacks beyond 2024 as a positive surprise when it should have been expected based on previous statements by the company. Thirdly, the article presents EBITDA targets for 2025 that are above consensus expectations but fails to mention that these targets may not be achievable due to various factors such as market conditions and regulatory changes.
Analysts describe BP's commitment to share buybacks beyond 2024 as a positive surprise when it should have been expected based on previous statements by the company.
The title claims that BP shares have risen after an announcement of plans to boost shareholder returns, when in fact this increase was due to a drop in annual profit.
The article presents EBITDA targets for 2025 that are above consensus expectations but fails to mention that these targets may not be achievable due to various factors such as market conditions and regulatory changes.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several examples of informal fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing analysts and experts without providing any evidence or context for their opinions. Additionally, the author uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing BP's commitment to share buybacks as a 'welcome positive surprise.' This is not objective reporting but rather an attempt to manipulate the reader's emotions. The article also contains several examples of dichotomous depictions, such as
The author uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing BP's commitment to share buybacks as a 'welcome positive surprise.'
<em>BP declared fourth-quarter net profit of nearly $3 billion</em>, beating analyst expectations of $2.6 billion.
<strong>BP has also contended with a mediatized leadership change.</strong>
Bias
(85%)
The article contains examples of monetary bias and religious bias. The author uses language that demeans one side as extreme or unreasonable.
BP also announced a dividend per ordinary share of 7.27 cents for the final three months of 2023, marking a 10% increase compared with the same period in the previous year.
BP in 2020 set out its ambition to become a net zero company "by 2050 or sooner."
The energy major increased the pace of its share repurchases, announcing intentions to execute a $1.75 billion share buyback before reporting first-quarter results.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topics of BP and net zero company as they are both companies that have been in the news for their environmental practices. The article also mentions RBC Capital Markets which is a financial institution that may benefit from positive coverage of these companies.
BP announced plans to boost shareholder returns, including increasing its dividend and buying back shares.
BP reported a 96.3% Y/Y decline in Q4 profit to $0.4 billion, compared with $10.8 billion for the previous quarter.
Q4 Non-GAAP EPADS of $1.07 beats by $0.07 and revenue of $52.59 billion misses by $3.45 billion.
The effective tax rate (ETR) on RC profit or loss for the fourth quarter and full year was 39% and 33% respectively, compared with 33% and 117% for the same periods in 2022.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(50%)
The article contains several examples of deceptive practices. Firstly, the author claims that BP reported a 96% Y/Y decline in Q4 profit to $0.4 billion compared with $10.8 billion for the previous quarter when in fact it was only a 25% decrease to $10.7 billion from $13.5 billion for the same period last year.
The author claims that BP reported a 96% Y/Y decline in Q4 profit, but this is not accurate.
Fallacies
(70%)
The article contains several logical fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that BP is one of the only majors taking the energy transition seriously without providing any evidence or sources for this claim. Additionally, the author makes a false dilemma by suggesting that renewable energy projects are expensive and unprofitable while ignoring other factors such as government subsidies and technological advancements in renewable energy. The article also contains inflammatory rhetoric when the author describes those who oppose solar installations as
Bias
(85%)
The article contains a significant amount of language that dehumanizes and demonizes those who disagree with the author's views on climate change. The use of phrases such as 'parasites getting huge government handouts' and 'the energy majors are demonised I've never understood' is inflammatory and biased.
The English Leftard family member recently refused to buy a solar installation because,
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Meghavi Singh has a conflict of interest on the topics BP and Q4 profit as she is reporting for Seeking Alpha which owns shares in BP. Additionally, Meghavi Singh reports that BP announced a $1.75B share buyback for the first half of 2024, but does not disclose any financial ties between herself and this announcement.
Meghavi Singh is reporting for Seeking Alpha which owns shares in BP.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Meghavi Singh has a conflict of interest on the topics BP and Q4 profit as she is an author for Seeking Alpha which receives compensation from companies that are mentioned in their articles.
