| Account | Shares | Price | Value | % of acct | Cost/sh | Gain $ | Gain % | Target |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 401K | 54 | $131.94 | $7,125 | 0.29% | $91.35 | $2,192 | +44.4% | — |
In short: Fourth of the named Canadian heavy producers exposed to "new supplies" flooding the heavy market. The qualifier that limits the damage is Lambujon's own parenthesis — "Midwest refineries remain dependent on Canadian crude" — a pipeline-bound customer base Venezuelan seaborne barrels reach far less easily than the Gulf Coast.
Imperial Oil (majority-owned by ExxonMobil) is the fourth Canadian heavy producer named, and the one where the article's own counter-argument bites hardest in its favour. TPH's caveat is that "Midwest refineries remain dependent on Canadian crude" — those plants are fed by pipelines running south from Alberta, and seaborne Venezuelan cargoes arriving at the Gulf Coast cannot easily reach them. Geography is a real, if partial, shelter.
So read the loser side of this trade as graded rather than uniform: producers whose barrels compete for waterborne Gulf Coast refining demand are most exposed; those selling into captive pipeline-fed inland markets are least. The common risk that no Canadian producer escapes is the strategic one — a credible alternative supplier weakens Canada's bargaining hand on tariffs regardless of which refinery buys which barrel.
In short: Owned since summer 2024 — "the oil stock your grandmother would own." Exxon owns 70% and Smead thinks only ~15% of the float actually trades (decades-held, big tax liabilities), so the NCIB shoves a 1.5% open-market buyback onto a tiny float — a technical squeeze. With its premium multiple it should do all-stock M&A (even a run at Cenovus).
Imperial Oil is a large, sleepy Canadian oil company that's 70%-owned by ExxonMobil — "the oil stock your grandmother would own." Because Exxon stands behind it, Imperial effectively borrows at Exxon's ultra-low cost, and it earns solid returns on its capital. Smead bought it in summer 2024 believing the market wasn't paying up for those returns.
His most distinctive point is technical, about who actually owns the shares. Exxon holds 70% and doesn't sell; of the rest, Smead thinks only about half genuinely trades — the other holders have owned it for decades and would owe enormous taxes if they sold. So when Imperial buys back stock in the open market, that buying lands on a tiny sliver of freely trading shares — a "squeeze" that props the price up. It can look expensive on the usual per-barrel yardstick for exactly that reason. He'd love to see Imperial use its premium-priced shares to buy other companies all-stock, even Cenovus.
24:19Now, why? We think it's more technical in nature. We got involved in their business. We started buying it in the summer 2024. Here was our big idea. It's a boring business. It's a sleepy business. It's the oil stock your grandmother would own, okay? But produced attractive returns on capital and we would argue they just weren't getting the right multiple for that at the time.
In short: Ebel cites "John Whelan at Imperial Exxon" on the ~$100B upstream-to-ports investment thesis and agrees with him. Peer/customer reference.
10:07another thing to invest. I think John Whelan at Imperial Exxon talked about this whole thing and I
10:15agree with him. This is a hundred billion dollar investment from upstream to midstream to ports. Just to put
In short: Framework reference (a Smead holding, discussed as a control-structure question). Could Imperial ever escape Exxon's ~70% control? Cole: only via Canadian politics — a charismatic politician plus a Canadian would-be controlling shareholder lobbying that "it makes no sense to have an American business so controlling a Canadian industry." The historian: "maybe" — that's what Trudeau's Petro-Canada tried in the 1970s.
Imperial Oil is ~70% owned by ExxonMobil, and here Smead — hosting his book podcast — asks whether that could ever change. His answer isn't a stock call; it's a structural one: the only realistic path to Exxon losing control is Canadian politics. He imagines a popular politician, backed by a Canadian buyer who wants control, arguing that such a Canadian industry shouldn't be dominated by an American parent — echoing the 1970s effort to build Petro-Canada as a national champion. It's a low-probability, long-horizon idea, offered as history and framework rather than a trade.
4:39I think I can see where it's not. And if I use your book as my key to understand how that could come to pass, it will only transpire through Canadian politics. That's it. That's the only way it happens. And I could see where a you know a very charismatic politician comes about and says you know in the scale business of oil like if we get down to fewer players like we will continually I think we'll do they will say why does it make sense to have an American business so ownorously controlling such a Canadian history and Canadian industry
In short: Owned since summer 2024 (Exxon is its "daddy" — cheap cost of capital). One of the best performers since. But at the investor day their "top idea is dividend growth" — "look at the wasteland around us; that's foolish." Should just keep buying back stock. Owned, critical of the capital-allocation pivot.
Imperial remains a Smead holding, bought in summer 2024 because 70%-owner ExxonMobil lends it a cheap cost of capital while it earns solid returns. But here he's openly critical: at its investor day the company's headline priority was "dividend growth," which Smead thinks is a weak use of cash when the stock could instead keep shrinking its share count through buybacks. He still owns it, but he's unhappy with the capital-allocation choice.
39:10Um and I'm sure that'll come up with a name that we'll talk about. Okay, that's a bit of that's a bit of a tease. Little breadcrumb. Little breadcrumb. You got to stay tuned. Um you mentioned Imperial. Uh do you like Imperial? We got a question on that. Yes, we bought it last summer. Um, you know, again, I mentioned they're in the who's your daddy theory. Um, Exxon is their daddy.
In short: Started buying summer 2024. Exxon owns 70% and gives Imperial its credit rating (cheap financing), yet participates pro-rata in the ~5%/yr buyback — so the idle minority holder's ownership compounds. Low dividend enables the buyback. Wild scenario: a Canadian acquirer does an all-stock deal and Exxon is no longer the largest holder in a decade.
Imperial is 70%-owned by ExxonMobil, which lends it a top-tier credit rating and cheap borrowing — like a rich uncle co-signing your loans. The quirk Smead loves: Exxon also sells its shares back pro-rata into Imperial's ~5%-a-year buyback. So if you're a passive minority holder who does nothing, your slice of the company keeps growing while you enjoy that cheap cost of capital. He started buying in summer 2024, and dreams up a scenario where, a decade out, a Canadian buyer does an all-stock deal and Exxon is no longer the biggest owner.
42:36major in my my view um we bought we started buying imperal Imperial oil last summer okay and here's why and I'll give you kind of a scenario on this so um attractive returns and it just looks like the overhang of their large parent was sitting out on the stock NOW some Dynamics if if you guys aren't aware so 70% of the business is owned by Exxon Mobile okay now because they're Consolidated by Exxon Mobile they also get exxon's credit rating okay um which is odd so think about it like this it's like it's like you own a business
Nothing matches this filter.
Verbatim excerpts from the public transcripts (auto-pulled at each mention's timestamp, lightly cleaned). Timestamps link into the video; "source page" opens that commentator's full analysis at this row. Click a mention's header line to expand it (one open at a time). For personal study — not investment advice.