PDA

View Full Version : Talk about lacking SA


rubberneck
04-14-2006, 18:05
In one of the most politically tone deaf moves in recent history, Exxon/Mobil sends its CEO off to retirement with a $400 million nest egg.

I am a big proponent of free markets but even this is too much. If the oil companies thought that the pols were out for blood a couple months ago they are in for a rude awakening. I guess they didn't learn anything from the Richard Grasso fiasco.

April 14, 2006— Soaring gas prices are squeezing most Americans at the pump, but at least one man isn't complaining.

Last year, Exxon made the biggest profit of any company ever, $36 billion, and its retiring chairman appears to be reaping the benefits.

Exxon is giving Lee Raymond one of the most generous retirement packages in history, nearly $400 million, including pension, stock options and other perks, such as a $1 million consulting deal, two years of home security, personal security, a car and driver, and use of a corporate jet for professional purposes.

Last November, when he was still chairman of Exxon, Raymond told Congress that gas prices were high because of global supply and demand.

"We're all in this together, everywhere in the world," he testified.

Raymond, however, was confronted with caustic complaints about his compensation.

"In 2004, Mr. Raymond, your bonus was over $3.6 million," Sen. Barbara Boxer said.

That was before new corporate documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission that revealed Raymond's retirement deal and his $51.1 million paycheck in 2005. That's equivalent to $141,000 a day, nearly $6,000 an hour. It's almost more than five times what the CEO of Chevron made.

"I think it will spark a lot of outrage," said Sarah Anderson, a fellow in the global economy program at the Institute for Policy Studies, an independent think tank. "Clearly much of his high-level pay is due to the high price of gas."

Exxon defends Raymond's compensation, pointing out that during the 12 years he ran the company, Exxon became the largest oil company in the world and that the stock price went up 500 percent.

A company spokesman said the compensation package reflected "a very long and distinguished career."

Some Exxon shareholders are now trying to pass resolutions criticizing the company's executive pay policies. The company is urging other shareholders to vote against those resolutions.

TFM
04-15-2006, 00:32
Exxon/Mobil sends its CEO off to retirement with a $400 million nest egg.

I'm not one to "player hate'", but that's BS. Too much greed.

Warrior-Mentor
04-15-2006, 13:13
Out of control. Why are we paying almost $3 at the pump?

BTW just read through Forbes list of top 1,000 companies in the world....guess who's up there...most of the oil companies.

You can't tell me their political contributions aren't a major factor on why we're not off fossil fuels yet.

If JFK could declare "in 10 years we'll land a man on the moon." why can't George Bush say "in 10 years we'll be off fossil fuels."? Because the oil companies would crush him and any one else who said that. But because of political correctness...they have to maintain the perception that they're working towards it. If our government was seriously committed to it, we could be driving alternate fuel source vehicles in a few years.

Rant off.

Monsoon65
04-17-2006, 00:49
What I like is when you check out the websites of the oil companies, they brag about their research in alternative fuel sources!!

Yeah, like they are about to put themselves out of business!

Pete
04-17-2006, 04:14
This is news only because the MSM wants to stir up the unwashed masses against "big oil".

What's $400m to the oil company? Not much. What is $400m to the drivers of America? Not much.


What, we each "paid" him less than $3.00 a year to have gas when ever we want it? Heck, the government takes more than that with each tank I use. And they don't do anything except stand there and rake in in.

Want to get some of that $400m money play? Buy stock in oil companies.

I'd say the majority of the stock holders think it was $400m well spent.

Pete

SF18C
04-17-2006, 04:31
Pete I could not agree more.

Why is it when somebody gets rich doing something they are not required to do does the press and all the socialist think the company is somehow resonsible to give all that money back.

The last time I got gas in North Carolina about 20% of the $2.50 per gallon was TAX! Now that seems high to me, what would you do if your grocery bill or state sales tax was 20%?

The bottom line is if gas is too expensive don't use it.

Guy
04-17-2006, 05:14
This is news only because the MSM wants to stir up the unwashed masses against "big oil".

What's $400m to the oil company? Not much. What is $400m to the drivers of America? Not much.


What, we each "paid" him less than $3.00 a year to have gas when ever we want it? Heck, the government takes more than that with each tank I use. And they don't do anything except stand there and rake in in.

Want to get some of that $400m money play? Buy stock in oil companies.

I'd say the majority of the stock holders think it was $400m well spent.

PeteI'm pretty sure the stockholders were very happy.

I read somewhere KBR may be offering stock soon, we have a few QPs working for them...

Take care.

Warrior-Mentor
04-17-2006, 12:01
Want to get some of that $400m money play? Buy stock in oil companies.

Not bad advice.


I'd say the majority of the stock holders think it was $400m well spent.

Disagree. Perhaps he did a "good" job. Why $400M? Why not $100M? It's still more than anyone man can spend in a lifetime (unless he starts buying jets).

I think his performance was probably more a function of macro-ecomonic factors and he happened to be in the right place in the right time. ASme as anyone who ran a dot.com in the 1990's (beofre the bubbble burst) - business genius or in the right business at the right time?

If someone STARTS a business or INVENTS something that improves the quality of life for their fellow human beings, they should be financially rewarded comensurate with the number of people they help and the amount they help them. That's the beauty of the free market economy and capitalism. The consumers vote with their $$$.

The problem in the large corporations, is that they have a few people controlling huge sums of money and can just say, "well, I did a great job, give me $___insert huge number here___

Especially ones like gas, where consumers must have the product. You can't say...well, I just won't buy the product any more.

rubberneck
04-17-2006, 14:30
This is news only because the MSM wants to stir up the unwashed masses against "big oil".

I know the MSM has it out for big oil but when fromer NYSE chariman Richard Grasso got a wopping retirement package it got more air time than this has thus far. As did Jack Welch's retirement package. The only difference is that neither were brought before Congress to testify about alledged price gouging less than 5 months before their retirement. I think it has more to do with out of control corporate goverance than it does about big oil.

Want to get some of that $400m money play? Buy stock in oil companies.

I do and still think this is over the line.

I'd say the majority of the stock holders think it was $400m well spent.

If I am not mistaken this was not voted on by the shareholders. Instead it was given to Raymond by the board of directors. If they felt that package was rmoney well spent then why didn't they submit it at the annual meeting and let all stockholders, both big and small, weigh in on it? IF they had Exxon wouldn't have the PR nightmare that they now have on their hands. It is doubtful that it would have passed such a vote. I own Exxon indirectly (mutual fund) and would not have voted for it. Keep in mind he was "compensated" for the company's performance every year during his tenure as CEO in the form of bonuses and stock options worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

Guy
04-17-2006, 14:35
Disagree. Perhaps he did a "good" job. Why $400M? Why not $100M? It's still more than anyone man can spend in a lifetime (unless he starts buying jets).Why $1K? Why not $100?

Just the way it is...

Stay safe.

aricbcool
04-17-2006, 19:50
The last time I got gas in North Carolina about 20% of the $2.50 per gallon was TAX!

That's the first thing I think of any time a politician spouts off about fuel prices being too high. If the pols want to do something about fuel prices, they need to start with the fuel tax.

As far as the bonus goes, I can't say I'd like to have my corporation paying a guy that much, but to have the government intervene amounts to socialism. And frankly, I'm happy enough with capitalism to take the bitter with the better.

Regards,
Aric

vsvo
04-18-2006, 09:48
Article (http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060411/AUTO01/604110394&template=printart)

Chrysler blasts Big Oil

Auto executive turns up heat in growing feud

Josee Valcourt and Christine Tierney / The Detroit News
April 11, 2006

Taking an unusually public swipe at another industry, Chrysler's chief spokesman slammed major oil companies Monday, accusing them of greed and indifference to the environment.

The blunt remarks by Jason Vines, vice president of communications for DaimlerChrysler AG's Chrysler Group, are likely to fuel tensions between Big Oil and the auto industry that have been rising along with gas prices.

"Big Oil would rather fill the pockets of its executives and shareholders, rather than spend sufficient amounts to reduce the price of fuel, letting consumers, during tough economic times, pick up the tab," Vines wrote on a company blog, www.thefirehouse.biz, used to communicate with journalists and financial analysts.

In an extraordinary rebuke across industry lines, Vines said the oil companies were lining up scapegoats for frustrated consumers while filling their coffers.

"Despite a documented history of blowing their exorbitant profits on outlandish executive salaries and stock buybacks, and hoarding their bounty by avoiding technologies, policies and legislation that would protect the population and environment and lower fuel costs, Big Oil insists on transferring all of that responsibility on the auto companies," Vines said, referring in part to a print advertisement by oil giant ExxonMobil that criticized the auto industry's record.

In the ad, ExxonMobil said the U.S. economy had become vastly more fuel-efficient since the first oil shock, "so why is the average fuel economy of American cars unchanged in two decades?"

The ad, which first appeared late last year, infuriated Detroit's auto executives. With the exception of Chrysler, U.S. automakers are losing money in their home market while oil companies are raking in record profits.

The sharp rise in gas prices has put a major dent in demand for some of the auto industry's most profitable vehicles, chiefly sport utility vehicles. After slumping last year, sales of the Ford Explorer, Chevrolet TrailBlazer, Jeep Grand Cherokee and Dodge Durango are down again this year.

The auto and oil industries have sparred over many issues over the years, such as who should pay for anti-pollution regulations. But they usually tend to fight behind the scenes.

"Now that the auto industry is taking a huge hit with gas prices and higher heating oil prices, you see a more aggressive response coming from auto executives saying we've got to fight back," said Mario Morrow, a media and political consultant who has his own firm, Mario Morrow and Associates, in Detroit.

General Motors Corp. and Ford Motor Co. officials declined to comment on the ad, although executives said they were aware of it.

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, a trade group based in Washington, D.C., that represents leading automakers, said it was not coordinating a response to the ExxonMobil ad but defended the auto industry's steady improvements in fuel economy.

Spokesman Eron Shosteck said the auto industry is producing more than 1 million vehicles this year that have gas-electric drivetrains or can run on alternative fuels -- yet the oil industry has been slow to provide stations that offer alternative fuels.

There are 180,000 gas stations in the United States but only 500 ethanol stations, and most of those are in the upper Midwest.

"What we'd like to do is to work constructively with the oil companies to expand that fueling infrastructure," Shosteck said.

The alliance includes Detroit's automakers as well as foreign-based manufacturers such as Toyota Motor Corp., Volkswagen AG and BMW.

Chrysler has gone out in front on this issue, Morrow said, but he expects other automakers to join in -- "I believe you'll see a consortium of forces coming out to beat up on the oil industry."

The counterattack may be effective, he said, because regular consumers have suffered from high home heating and gas prices. "So the consumer might be saying, 'There's someone out there finally fighting for the little guy.'"

ExxonMobil spokeswoman Prem Nair said the company stood by its advertisement and many of Vines' remarks did not warrant a response.

She pointed out the company has partnerships with several auto companies, including DaimlerChrysler, to develop lubricants, in part to improve fuel economy.

Karen Matusic, a spokeswoman for the American Petroleum Institute in Washington, declined to comment.

Vines took responsibility for his remarks, saying he was acting as the spokesman for Chrysler but that CEO Tom LaSorda had not seen the comments before their posting on the site. However, Chrysler officials had carefully vetted the text, according to people at the company.

Executives at other automakers privately expressed support for Vines. Several had approached ExxonMobil about the ad.

Early reactions to the blog echoed Vines' sentiments.

"I wish I could meet him and shake his hand," one poster, identified as Al, wrote on the auto industry news site www.leftlanenews.com. "I agree with everything he says, and I admire the way he said it, directly to the point!"

Environmental activists accustomed to battling both industries were bemused by the feud.

"I'm happy to watch," said Daniel Becker, director of the Sierra Club's global warming program.

"Each industry is right -- that the other is to blame for a big part of the problem. The auto industry continues to make gas-guzzling vehicles with antiquated technology rather than using modern, fuel-efficient technology," Becker said.

"At the same time, the oil industry is perfectly happy to have people addicted to their product."

When it comes to developing new technology, "Each of them wants to play 'After you, Alfonse' with the other," Becker said.

Ford spokesman Oscar Suris had no comment. At GM, Chris Preuss said: "We're aware of the ad; we've seen it but didn't have a response from an official standpoint."

Prodded by the popularity of environmentally friendly hybrids introduced by the Japanese, Detroit's automakers have stepped up efforts to produce hybrids and vehicles that run on cleaner fuels.

"The auto industry is doing its job by building cleaner, leaner, more efficient vehicles and embracing alternatives to gasoline," Vines said in the blog.

"While we make these important and responsible strides Big Oil is swimming in profits, content to let the nation's drivers drown in rising prices, every time they fill up."

SF18C
04-18-2006, 10:54
Chrysler's chief spokesman slammed major oil companies

"Despite a documented history of blowing their exorbitant profits on outlandish executive salaries and stock buybacks, and hoarding their bounty by avoiding technologies, policies and legislation that would protect the population and environment and lower fuel costs, Big Oil insists on transferring all of that responsibility on the auto companies," Vines said

He must have had some type of memory loss. I thought the US gov't had to bail out Chrysler in the '80 so they would not go bankrupt, due to building junk no one wanted to buy.

Oh and during the bail out they lobbied hard for repealing the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, price controls on oil and gasoline, & the laws that force employees to join unions (okay I agree with the last one!!) And all the gov't got was a cheap lease on some P.O.S. Aries K cars!

Pete
04-18-2006, 14:05
He must have had some type of memory loss. I thought the US gov't had to bail out Chrysler in the '80 so they would not go bankrupt, due to building junk no one wanted to buy.......


That POS Power Wagon family of Chrysler/Dodge vehicles. Man, you can probably still find those POSs around big army bases.

vsvo
04-18-2006, 14:44
And all the gov't got was a cheap lease on some P.O.S. Aries K cars!
K car, blast from the past! I remember sitting in elementary school math class. The teacher went off on a tangent and started raving about how innovative the car was, how you could open the hood and the engine bay was clearly marked (e.g., the dipstick was yellow, etc.) and it was so easy to change the oil. Why he was telling this to a room full of kids, I don't know.

In college I dated a girl who had a K car hand-me-down from her family. Yikes, I thought the crappy Chevette I drove in high school was the automotive nadir!