Skip to comments.
EXXON CHAIRMAN GETS $400 MILLION RETIREMENT PACKAGE AMID SOARING GAS PRICES
ABC News via Drudge ^
Posted on 04/14/2006 1:20:10 PM PDT by aShepard
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 581-600, 601-620, 621-640, 641-654 next last
To: Tiberius109
"I'm a capitalist and a patriot but you cannot tell me these guys don't artificially jack up gas prices whenever they can for mere profit , public be dammed ." Why don't you give Exxon what they want - at the price that they ask - and if you refuse then they will get on the internet and whine that you are damning them for it.
To: ConTex
"Gonna announce yourself as the official Exxonmobil spokesperson yet? Your phoney drooling over exxon isn't fooling anyone, look at the posts on this thread." Why would one's occupation matter?
This diverts discussion to something irrelevant, and displays your own lack of interesting or insightful arguments on the topic.
To: aShepard
No doubt Mr. Raymond was entitled to his job therefore
entitled to all the perks, unlike us joeblows.
623
posted on
04/16/2006 6:53:15 PM PDT
by
abigailsmybaby
("This is the sort of English up with which I will not put." Winston Churchill)
To: abigailsmybaby
Especially us joeblows who are lowlife, scumbag union members.
624
posted on
04/16/2006 7:06:36 PM PDT
by
abigailsmybaby
("This is the sort of English up with which I will not put." Winston Churchill)
To: MNJohnnie
Guess you need to quit the Free Republic then...
Obviously, you are not fitting in with us Freepers, since you think us all Socialists.
So, go on now, git!
625
posted on
04/16/2006 7:07:42 PM PDT
by
gogogodzilla
(Raaargh! Raaargh! Crush, Stomp!)
To: jennyp
Since ABC and those it usually polls are very liberal...
... and that those liberals think (90%) that the position that the retirement package is fair...
... then that position is a liberal one.
:-)
626
posted on
04/16/2006 7:33:55 PM PDT
by
gogogodzilla
(Raaargh! Raaargh! Crush, Stomp!)
To: john drake
"There's something not right about this, in particular, as more American jobs continue to be shipped overseas. It's smacks of "I got mine, so F*$# Y@!". Not the kind of thinking or actions that are beneficial to the American economy, or people, in the long run, don't you think?" Should this apply to you as well?
So anyone not making a fraction of what you earn has reason to berate you, your salary, claim you don't deserve it, say that 'the system' is broken, and that you are a gluttonous jerk?
To: Young Scholar
"Let's nationalize them, and make their executives switch to a job where they do an honest day's work on an oil rig or something for the first time in their lives. And if they refuse they can give back all their bonuses since 2000, when they first started gouging American consumers." The problem with this plan is that it is stealing.
You are also suggesting some kind of slavery, where one's freedom can only be earned by returning wages that were earned legally.
To: Democratshavenobrains
"Also the fact that I don't have to buy a new computer every 300 miles." You do not have to buy gas every 300 miles, or ever.
You adopted that habit and lifestyle yourself, and now you expect others to subsidize it.
To: SteveMcKing
Notice I was being sarcastic; I just wanted to see if anyone on this thread (which is crawling with populists) would actually support a proposal that ridiculous.
To: IronJack
Yup. Too many of the so-called 'economics' masters here on this thread have no understanding of an elastic/inelastic demand.
Or that the demand for gasoline is inelastic.
631
posted on
04/16/2006 8:02:59 PM PDT
by
gogogodzilla
(Raaargh! Raaargh! Crush, Stomp!)
To: IronJack
Simple man, simple "solution." How and why would you complicate the matter?
To: Young Scholar
To: balrog666
........"I don't get it. Just what is the problem here?
"............
I'll repeat my earlier post-----
......"Most here would agree that if an entrepreneur created a $1 billion business, he deserves the $1 billion he earns from that."..........
........"of XOM to pay what it takes to get the most capable person to lead it? And is there any reason that executive doesn't deserve what they pay him?.............
__________________________________________________________
I totally agree on the creation of business is worth a huge payback.
But, here's a company that, say, has assets in the ground worth, say, $10 per unit;
Then, because of outside influences, this in-ground $10 asset can be sold for $60 per unit. So, I used to be responsible of eeking out a profit by converting a $10 unit to the marketplace;
Now, I have to eeek out a profit from the same commodity that I can sell for $60 per unit.
Now, I put an executive that has 35 to 43 years seniority with my company in charge of selling this $10 commodity for the new price of $60.
Have I increased the complexibility of his new $350 billion volume company? (Don't think so!)
As the president, can I minimize reporting of operational inefficiencies, (Well the added margin can certainly hide problems);
Can I recommend some strategic energy investments for all this new cash, or (maybe I can buy back $18 billion of shares to save a 2.10% dividend: but I sure don't want to invest in future company energy growth);
Will I retire within a year and leave the long term vision to someone else?? BINGO!
______________________________________________
But, I believe that it's the point of a total lack of vision by Raymond, and his toady Board of Directors.
These guys sit around, and while they're wringing their hands about how the petroleum business will eventually decline due to the lack of oil reserves, they come up with a windfall $36 billion in cash. So rather than invest in new energy resources (Exxon reduced their spending in oil exploration in 2005 to $964 million); or investing some of that windfall cash in new energy sources; or investing in partnerships with small companies with promising technology, which could provide a future avenue for growth;
These toadies decide that the best way to invest this windfall cash is to spend 1/2 of their cash mountain, $18 billion, to buy back less than one half of one percent of their outstanding stock, valued at the highest market price in the company history, all to save a dividend that is yielding 2.1%, which would enhance current stockholder price per share. Hell, they could have invested in US Treasuries at 5%, and booked $900 million in interest income profit, each year in the future.
So, forget funding the infrastructure buildout that would be needed to provide hydrogen fuel, or fuel cells, or biomass, or wind, or wave, or photovoltaic,or heaven forbid, nuclear; or whatever, these "visionaries" wasted a one time cash opportunity on enhancing current shareholder value, at the detriment of the future company prospects.
Personally, I don't think that this guy should be rewarded one extra cent for a company that fully benefitted from OPEC's pricing policy, and then headed the squandering of the resulting cash flow.
So, that's my problem view of Fatso Raymond walking away with this years $400 million, on top of the more than $500 million he has already been awarded in stock value!
634
posted on
04/16/2006 8:23:26 PM PDT
by
aShepard
(And all of us are proud of you!)
To: MediaAnalyst
My problem with Exxon goes much deeper.
See my #634
635
posted on
04/16/2006 8:25:57 PM PDT
by
aShepard
(And all of us are proud of you!)
To: SteveMcKing
Hardly. I'm all for capitalism, but there is also something that shouldn't smack of obscene. This is obscene.
If I were a member of the Board, I'd make sure the executives are compensated very well, however I'd seek balance, not plunder. This is a publicly traded company with probably millions of shareholders and pension funds that are owners. I'd think longer term planning of the economic challenges and capital needs facing the company are more important than making one CEO feel like a Rockefeller. Sorry, he's one man, and although he contributed to the current success of the company, so did his lieutenants, his work force, market conditions and his board of directors. The company was there before he joined, it'll be there after, he's one of a string of CEO's that will come and go, and he didn't create the company from scratch, either. That kind of risk taking deserves the extreme reward when it occurs, not this situation.
And as for the system being broken; I didn't claim that it was, however, I think short-term planning only (quarterly driven) will contribute to it's crippling in the long run. Greed can be a wonderful motivator and a terrible wrecker. There is a balance to be pursued. Period.
636
posted on
04/17/2006 2:34:04 AM PDT
by
john drake
(roman military maxim: "oderint dum metuant, i.e., let them hate, as long as they fear")
To: SteveMcKing
How and why would you complicate the matter? I didn't. I just recognize that it's not simple.
But I suspect you already knew that.
To: gogogodzilla
the demand for gasoline is inelastic. Which removes it from all the constraints of the so-called free market.
This is where the traders come in and tell you things like "Walk. Ride a bike. Don't drive. Yadayadayada."
As though, in a society structured on cheap energy, you now have the alternative of pretending it's not ... overnight.
To: antaresequity
"You read that correctly...58 Billion in taxes on fuel alone.."
True...but these huge quarterly profits for Big Oil aren't due to over-taxation. They aren't due to price of barrel of oil.
So where is the gouging coming from?
639
posted on
04/17/2006 6:23:51 AM PDT
by
Blzbba
(Beauty is just a light switch away...)
To: Blzbba
Simplton Americans think that "OIL" companies get all of their profit from Gasoline...which is as far from the truth as it gets...
A main source of their income is the mere fact that they are dealing a commodity that has since last year nearly doubled in value.
Instead of acting like Americans and using the contract or equity markets to hedge themselves...most choose to whine like socialist crybabys...demanding that their sugar daddy government tax the oil companys...
And of course we know that if the oil companys were slapped with a windfall tax, the price of gas would shoot up, and the slime bags in Washington would never roll back the tax. Further, you can bet that the tax would be used to fund yet even more pork crap...
Ridiculous...
640
posted on
04/17/2006 6:31:57 AM PDT
by
antaresequity
(PUSH 1 FOR ENGLISH - PUSH 2 TO BE DEPORTED)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 581-600, 601-620, 621-640, 641-654 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson