Vitol paid out $10.6 billion to shareholders in buybacks in 2024
Vitol's $10.6 billion in buyback payments were up from the $6.4 billion it paid in 2023 - extending its highest ever.
Buybacks rose in 2024 as a continuation of record earnings even though profits started to drop from all-time highs.
Vitol made around $8-8.5 billion in net profit last year, down from $13 billion in 2023 and $15 billion in 2022.
Vitol and rival global commodity traders such as Trafigura and Gunvor made lower net profit in their 2024 financial year, as markets stabilised after a period of turmoil in 2022-2023 as trading houses made record earnings during Europe's energy crisis and Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
As well as funding its share buybacks, Vitol has been putting its bumper earnings towards investments in upstream and downstream assets across the globe. In 2024 Vitol acquired Italian refining company Saras.
It has also diversified from its traditionally oil-heavy portfolio, increasing its activities in the natural gas trading business, as well as coal and metals.
The total equity attributable to company owners for the 2024 financial year was $30.6 billion, down from $32.4 billion in 2023 according to the earnings document.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
21 minutes ago
- Reuters
Oil tycoon Shvidler loses appeal over UK's Russian sanctions
LONDON, July 29 (Reuters) - Billionaire oil tycoon Eugene Shvidler on Tuesday lost his appeal against British sanctions imposed on him over Moscow's invasion of Ukraine at the UK's Supreme Court, a ruling lawyers said makes it difficult for similar challenges to succeed. Russian-born Shvidler, who is a British and U.S. citizen, was sanctioned over his association with former Chelsea Football Club owner Roman Abramovich, plus his former position as a director of London-listed Russian steel producer Evraz (EVRE.L), opens new tab. Shvidler – whose net worth is estimated by Forbes magazine at $1.6 billion – appealed to the Supreme Court, with his lawyers arguing that others with greater involvement in business of importance to Russia were not sanctioned, citing BP's (BP.L), opens new tab previous joint venture with Rosneft ( opens new tab. The Supreme Court rejected Shvidler's appeal by a four-to-one majority in a ruling that Shvidler said "brings me back to the USSR". The ruling also maintains Britain's 100% record of defending its Russian sanctions in court. Shvidler said in a statement that no British companies or business people with ties to Russian state-owned companies have been sanctioned, adding that Britain's sanctions were "more about cheap virtue-signalling for purely political purposes". "There may be little public sympathy for me, as a wealthy US/UK businessman, but this judgment applies to all who face state power," he added. Britain's Foreign Office, which has overseen the sanctioning of more than 1,700 individuals or entities since Russia's invasion, welcomed the ruling "and the message it sends about the strength of the UK sanctions regime". Shvidler had said British sanctions have destroyed his business and disrupted his and his family's lives. His lawyers previously said he has no involvement in or influence over Russian politics and had not even been to Russia since attending the late Russian President Boris Yeltsin's funeral in 2007. But the majority of the Supreme Court ruled that the sanctions struck a fair balance between Shvidler's rights and the aims of the sanctions regime. In the majority's judgment, Judges Philip Sales and Vivien Rose said sanctioning Shvidler "sends a clear signal to people in Mr Shvidler's position that they would be wise to distance themselves from Russian business now". But Judge George Leggatt, in a strident dissenting ruling, said Britain's "flimsy reasons" for sanctioning Shvidler did not justify the "serious invasion of liberty" sanctions entailed. He noted BP's profitable joint venture with Rosneft, having two members on its board, and said it was irrational to only sanction Shvidler if "sanctioning an individual for working as a director of a company which had invested in the Russian extractives sector was thought likely to contribute to achieving the purposes" of British sanctions. BP declined to comment. Maia Cohen-Lask, a partner at Corker Binning, said the Supreme Court's ruling was "a huge blow not just for Mr Shvidler but for any person who has been sanctioned despite their lack of any links to the Putin regime". The Supreme Court also dismissed a separate appeal brought by Russian businessman Sergei Naumenko, whose 44 million euro ($51 million) superyacht was detained in London.
BBC News
21 minutes ago
- BBC News
Consortium 'ready' to buy ailing Morecambe
London-based sports investment company Panjab Warriors have released a statement to say they are "ready, willing and able" to buy Shrimps were suspended by the National League until 20 August on Monday over failing to comply with the league's Warriors have been in talks with the club's owner Jason Whittingham for over a year and a deal had looked set to be concluded earlier this have now said in a joint-statement with minority shareholders, the Shrimps Trust and Lizzi Collinge MP that the National League is ready to sanction the deal and "immediately lift the suspension and embargo should it be agreed". As it stands, Morecambe's fixture away to Boston United on 9 August, their first home game against Brackley Town on 16 August, and the trip to Scunthorpe United on 19 August, will no longer take place as who has been looking to sell the club since 2022, announced a new buyer, named as a consortium led by Jonny Cato, had been found earlier in July, but it remains unclear where that bid also said on Sunday he had "not heard from" Panjab Warriors in the past week and talks with Cato were Lancashire side, who were promoted to League One in 2021, were relegated from League Two last season - their second relegation in the past three seasons.
Fashion United
an hour ago
- Fashion United
Made in Italy under scrutiny: A call for transparency and credibility
"Made in Italy" has recently come under intense scrutiny, not only due to tariffs that continue to penalise many sectors despite recent trade agreements, but primarily because of persistent issues surrounding illegal labor exploitation. Companies are also grappling with significant difficulties in effectively monitoring their entire supply chains, encompassing both direct suppliers and sub-suppliers. These incidents of exploitation, the latest of which involves the prestigious Loro Piana brand, consistently highlight a critical theme for FashionUnited: the paramount importance of transparency and clear communication. Businesses must sincerely, simply, and carefully explain what "Made in Italy" truly signifies and how its standards are upheld throughout the production process. Saying "Made in Italy" without concrete explanation is no longer enough Simply stating that a product is "Made in Italy" without a concrete explanation is no longer sufficient to entice customers. This is particularly true in light of revelations concerning exploitation and unsafe working conditions, even involving highly prestigious brands. The knowledge that a designer handbag or luxury garment, retailing for thousands of euros, is sometimes paid to the supplier for a mere few tens of euros, as uncovered by various investigations, exacerbates the problem and alienates consumers from designer labels. Less than a week ago, Giusy Bettoni, founder and CEO of CLASS, an international eco-hub based in Milan, spoke with FashionUnited. She warned that claiming to be "Made in Italy" without a precise, clear, simple, concrete, and concise explanation of the concept is unhelpful, benefiting neither fashion nor the supply chain. A few months prior, Renzo Rosso, owner of OTB, the holding company behind brands such as Diesel, Jil Sander, Maison Margiela, Marni, and Viktor&Rolf, also urged brands to speak up. He encouraged them to explain and demonstrate what "Made in Italy" genuinely represents. "We have unique qualities, good taste, we must assert ourselves for who we are and for what we have to offer," explained the founder of OTB. "Italy produces around 80 percent of the world's luxury goods and is considered the number one country for the production chain. This is why our artisans are sought after all over the world, we must not let them escape," Rosso emphasized to RaiNews24 during the programme Pomeriggio 24, on Made in Italy Day. Among the prominent supporters of a concrete approach to "Made in Italy" is the Minister of Enterprise and Made in Italy, Adolfo Urso. Last week, he announced that the introduction of a certification system was under consideration. This announcement followed the placement of the Loro Piana brand under judicial administration for alleged violation of workers' rights. Urso told trade associations during a fashion roundtable that some illegal businesses in the fashion supply chain have tarnished the image of "Made in Italy." A statement from the Ministry of Enterprise and Made in Italy clarified, "To counter the illegal behaviour of a few regarding labour, which can damage the reputation of the entire sector, Urso highlighted that the government is working on legislation to certify the sustainability and legality of companies in the sector, with the aim of offering a structural solution to the problem." This proposed legislation seeks to certify the supply chain belonging to the brand owner, based on specific preliminary checks. The goal is to prevent the brand owner from being held responsible for illegal or opaque behavior attributable to suppliers or sub-suppliers along the chain. What truly defines "Made in Italy" However, the fundamental questions remain: what truly defines "Made in Italy," and can certification genuinely provide a comprehensive solution? Experience with certifications for gender equality indicates that such measures, while useful, have not fundamentally altered corporate approaches or fully equalized treatment in the workplace. Similarly, the introduction of increasingly stringent regulations, while necessary, is often insufficient on its own. Therefore, this issue is complex and deeply cultural, encompassing numerous facets. In some instances, it may be necessary to move beyond the "Made in Italy" label and instead focus directly on the credibility of the brand, its people, and the company itself. Patrizio Bertelli, owner of Prada, was an early proponent of this view, decades ago advocating for "Made in Prada" to de-stigmatize offshoring to China. His philosophy was that if a product bore the brand's logo, it inherently guaranteed quality production, sustainable practices, and social responsibility. Adriano Goldschmied, widely known as "the godfather of denim," echoes this sentiment. He has consistently maintained that a product must be "made anywhere" but ultimately a winner. As far back as 2017, he told FashionUnited that "Made in Italy" could be seen as a "sin of presumption." He argued that consumers trust the brand, not merely the "made in" label. "I'll give you an example: this phone I have in my hand is an Apple; the consumer doesn't care whether it's made in Taiwan or the US, but they care that it works well, which is guaranteed by the brand. This philosophy of 'Made in Italy', in many cases, has taken the Italian market out of reality. It is also true that in Italy there are excellent companies that know how to do their job, examples of great skill and quality," Goldschmied explained. "The consumer is informed, they know how to recognise quality and that's what counts, not the 'made in' label. You have to be 'made anywhere but a winner'," Goldschmied concluded. This reflection holds more relevance now than ever. To successfully navigate this complex situation, the industry must regain credibility through storytelling that communicates impeccable, real, and concrete story-making. The consumer is informed, they know how to recognise quality Credits: FashionUnited, image generated with the help of Artificial Intelligence This article was translated to English using an AI tool. FashionUnited uses AI language tools to speed up translating (news) articles and proofread the translations to improve the end result. This saves our human journalists time they can spend doing research and writing original articles. Articles translated with the help of AI are checked and edited by a human desk editor prior to going online. If you have questions or comments about this process email us at info@
