Exxon Chairman Gets $400 Million Retirement

[Cheung Mo]

Ahh, the glories of capitalism!


http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1841989&page=1 :angry:

[Sacha]

Well, I hope he enjoys his retirement and does something productive with his time...

[redstar2000]

I'm going to kick this one over to Opposing Ideologies...I want to hear our resident cappies "explain" this one. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[theraven]

well exxon must be doing very well...or else their trying to attrack a really good new guy :)

[Oh-Dae-Su]

so the guy has 400 million dollars and i dont, guess what, it's called LIFE!! deal with it

[red team]

Guess it's called arbitrary rewards, privilege and power. This will be dealth with inevitably as people psychologically cannot accept this unless they are psychologically made to accept this through threats and intimidation.

[VonClausewitz]

Lucky him, I just translated that into English money, and well, it's still quite the impressive sum - £227,518,062.52. Something for his children to enjoy I expect, unless he's very cruel and decides to spend it all on himself.

Since there's no point whining about what has happened, let me steal the thread - what would you people do with that much money ?

I'd buy a peerage, a big house, a rolls royce, and prove to the world that a bastard son of a car-mechanic can better himself, capitalism or not :)

[Tungsten]

redstar2000

I'm going to kick this one over to Opposing Ideologies...I want to hear our resident cappies "explain" this one. :lol:
What exactly is it you want us to "explain"?
red team

This will be dealth with inevitably as people psychologically cannot accept this unless they are psychologically made to accept this through threats and intimidation.
Why, who has this guy theatened and intimidated?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Oh-Dae-[email protected] 16 2006, 11:03 PM
so the guy has 400 million dollars and i dont, guess what, it's called LIFE!! deal with it
We intend to.

But you won't like it at all. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Last year, Exxon made the biggest profit of any company ever, $36 billion

Context.... What's lacking here is context. "Profits" here is only defined as "net income" which does NOT take into account any fixed costs OR costs outside of revenue generating. So guess what... all those repairs that will have to be made because of Katrina? Not taken into account in the $36 billion reported.

The MUCH more accurate metric for profits is called Return on Investment and it essentially takes into account every dollar that is invested in the company and tells you how much return you got off of it. So, for your lawn mower business, it's not just how much you spent this year on maintenance and fuel for your lawn mowers, but how much you invested in your lawn mowers to begin with (minus depreciation) transportation costs, billing costs, accounting costs etc etc etc.

Last year (as stated) Exxon-Mobil generated $36.13 billion of net income which is the largest dollar amount (again as stated) ever made by an energy company. However, in order to generate that income it had to INVEST $208.335 billion in assets. That gives us a Return on Investment (ROI) of a WHOPPING 17.3%.

Now, for frame of reference, the benchmark ROI number investors use to choose to buy a particular stock is 20%, so Exxon-Mobil actually UNDER performed to industry standards.

The problem here is that the press glommed onto a sensationalistic number that doesn't take into account how much investment it took to generate that income.



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.

OK... so let's take that $400 million and see what would happen if this guy provided his services for free.

So... we take $208.335 billion and add in the $400 million and we get $208.735 billion. Obviously our net income doesn't change so that is still $36.133 billion. Our new ROI is (surprise, surprise) 17.3%. Not enough decimal places? Old ROI, 17.34%, new ROI, 17.31%.

So his outrageous compensation package really didn't touch their bottom line, THEREFORE, it also really would not have changed gas prices at all either.

All of these numbers are easily obtained by checking a company's SEC filings. This one is at:

www.sec.gov/Archives/edga...in19672_19 (http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edga...in19672_19)

[red team]

This will be dealth with inevitably as people psychologically cannot accept this unless they are psychologically made to accept this through threats and intimidation.

Why, who has this guy theatened and intimidated?


Irrelevant.

Due to the fact that he was appointed into an unaccountable position of power within the company he was able to arbitrarily reward himself a huge sum of money which means he is rewarded a disproportionate amount of purchasing power corresponding to the amount (and value) of work that he performed. This may not be relevant to the people looting the wealth generated from labour and innovation, but it is entirely relevant to the ones being looted who are the ones who actually perform the labour and think up those innovations. People who've only known rewards corresponding to labour performed their entirely lives, that is workers, are not willing to accept disproportionate rewards in purchasing power no matter what anybody's excuse is. The only reason why this situation persists is because the Capitalist class have a monopoly on the armed security forces of the state. We intend to reverse this situation.

[VonClausewitz]

The only reason why this situation persists is because you have a monopoly on the armed security forces of the state. We intend to reverse this situation.

Perhaps in the seventeenth century. This situation persists because the 'people' don't give two shits about it for the most part, most are busy living their lives, instead of moaning about how others live theirs. If you're lot had more of a following, and more voice, then what you said might not seem so silly.

I also think that the question is very relevant, if you can't back up your own accusations, don't make them. Just because there happens to be an army in America, doesn't mean you can blame control of it for everything.

[red team]

How people live their lives depends on what and how much they can purchase and how much they are rewarded with the means of purchasing. Money, being not a measure of anything is relative in its worth. The fact that someone else has a lot more money means the meager amounts anybody else has is worth a lot less. Wonder why wealthy neighborhoods have a higher price for everything including the prices in the local stores even though from a material perspective they are not any different from poor neighborhoods? Because somebody else have a lot more money means I would be able to buy a lot less with the meager amounts that I have. This just makes sense according to economic self interests. Suppliers of material goods and services are more willing to exchange their products for a higher price at locations of wealth concentrations than to exchange for a lower price in a poor neighborhood. This means me along with being able to buy a lot less because of relatively low worth in relation to multi-millionaires and billionaires, I will have less stores and other businesses willing to locate in my area of low income workers and unemployed people. Simply stated, the working class can simply be left to rot because we are economically insignificant. The higher the concentration of wealth, the more insignificant the low income working class becomes.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Capitalist Lawyer
Now, for frame of reference, the benchmark ROI number investors use to choose to buy a particular stock is 20%, so Exxon-Mobil actually UNDER performed to industry standards.

Which of Moses's tablets was that "20% rule" written on? :lol:

And if, as you suggest, Exxon "under-performed", then how is it that this "incompetent" is worth $400 million just to get him out of the CEO's seat? Shouldn't he, by capitalist "standards", be thrown out on the street without his shoes? :lol:

The premise is that -- in a mystical sense -- corporate executives "create" vast wealth and are therefore "worth" vast rewards. :blink:

If you can swallow that one, then the Easter Bunny is easy! :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[VonClausewitz]

The premise is that -- in a mystical sense -- corporate executives "create" vast wealth and are therefore "worth" vast rewards

I always thought that that was a fairly sensible premise ? If you can manage the company from above into making vast ammounts of money, surely a decent percentage of that is yours ? since well, there is only so many people that can do that job, and competition I think would be high ?

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

one person wins, a million people lose.

Were lucky capitalism is the "best" economic system, or there might be people starving in the world, oh wait :blink: .

[KickMcCann]

What's $400 million really worth when the entire world hates you? Could I almost feel sorry for this guy???? Ney, I hope he gets a big chunk of filet mignon or lobster tail lodged in the fat gullet of his, slowly watching the world fade away into darkness as the server making $8 an hour pretends not to notice. :lol:

[overlord]

It is a bit obscene - especially considering over a hundred million is going to the governement.

Now, what would I buy with that? I'll skip the peerage, wait for a stock market crash, and then start buying companies for half their intrinsic worth. In a year i'm a billionaire! I really don't need a yacht, but I would definitely buy Versailles, or some equally humungous Bavarian palace with 10,000 hectares around it. I employ an army of workers to keep out the rif-raf and every day I go hunting/archery tournaments and hold huge drunken illuminati parties.

That's when I start buying cars. I want every make of Lamborghini, Ferrari produced since 1980 plus. Oh yes, I LOVE the new Zonda... I think I'll take 12. Plus enough Mc'larens to make his majesty the Sultan of Brunei jealous. I'll build my own ridiculously elaborate race/stunt track, organise the building of similar such race tracks in all corners of the globe, steal the F1 monopoly from Bernie and make a few billion more!

[Tungsten]

red team

Irrelevant.
Then you have neither an argument or a right to deprive him of it.

The only reason why this situation persists is because the Capitalist class have a monopoly on the armed security forces of the state. We intend to reverse this situation.
Presumably, so you can then arbitarily threaten and intimidate anyone you like, regardless of whether or not they've threatened or intimidated anyone themselves. What a fantasic way to ensure justice. I'm sure no one would dream of abusing such a system.

[kjt1981]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 06:43 AM
Since there's no point whining about what has happened, let me steal the thread - what would you people do with that much money ?

id give everyone in the World £0.03 each :D

[red team]

Presumably, so you can then arbitarily threaten and intimidate anyone you like, regardless of whether or not they've threatened or intimidated anyone themselves. What a fantasic way to ensure justice. I'm sure no one would dream of abusing such a system.


Justice is relative. Morality is irrelevant. Material security is paramount. Mob rule is democracy. Abuse is impossible without monopoly. If you've threatened the material security of the mob then you have something to worry about.

[redstar2000]

Where that "retirement bonus" came from...


New Gasoline Study Shows Profits, Not Crude Oil Prices Or Ethanol, Are Driving Pump Price Spike

Santa Monica, CA -- The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights released a new study today of rising gasoline prices in California that found corporate markups and profiteering are responsible for spring price spikes, not rising crude costs or the national switchover to higher-cost ethanol, as the oil industry claims.

Increases in the "spot" market price of crude oil -- which is the highest price a major oil company would pay for crude oil -- accounted for only 12 cents per gallon. California's percentage sales tax increased fuel prices by another four cents per gallon. More than 40 cents of the 60-cent increase in gasoline prices over 3 1/2 months is attributable to increased refinery and marketing profit margins for the oil companies;

Neither the MTBE phaseout nor the substitution of ethanol is a serious part of the increase. If the MTBE phaseout or ethanol blending specifically increased costs for oil companies in California, other states in the West using conventional unblended gasoline should be much less affected. Yet Washington State, which uses only conventional gasoline and has similar refinery capacity and crude oil sources, mirrored California's increase;

The profit increase of 42 cents, on top of record profits last year, means California gasoline will cost consumers approximately $546 million more in April 2006 than in April of last year.

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/energy/pr/?postId=6133

Small children and pro-capitalists reported shocked! :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Which of Moses's tablets was that "20% rule" written on?


None of them. My final class last year was a financial analysis class and that's where I got the 20% rule from. If you have a problem with it... take it up with the professor.



And if, as you suggest, Exxon "under-performed", then how is it that this "incompetent" is worth $400 million just to get him out of the CEO's seat?


You'll have to ask the board and the stockholders. Apparently they felt he was worth it.



I also did a quick analysis of how this retirement package would affect gasoline prices.

Exxon Mobil had SALES of $359 Billion last year. If he gets no retirement package at all and pass those savings onto the consumer, the price of gas would have decreased a whopping 0.1%. So instead of a rough average of $2.50 per gallon we'd have had prices of $2.4975.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by San Francisco Chronicle
Get used to $3 gas, say experts
Price rise due to nuclear situation in Iran, closed refineries and industry's high profits

After a brief absence, $3 gasoline is back. And it may stay awhile.

How high will prices climb? Denton Cinquegrana with the Oil Price Information Service, predicts $3.25 gasoline in California by mid-May.

Figures tracked by the California Energy Commission show that profit margins for the state's refineries have soared 53.7 percent since late February, when gasoline prices started their current run-up.

At the same time, the price refiners pay for crude oil has increased 13.6 percent.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c...BUGGKICDBB1.DTL (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/04/21/BUGGKICDBB1.DTL)

The joys of oligopoly!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Capitalist Lawyer]

17.3% ROI.
$0.0025 per gallon.

[bunk]

The price has spiked because of fears over Iran and conflict in Nigeria and damage of oil infastructure. Take away this premium and prices would still be high compared to years ago. This could be because we are now on a downward turn. OIl production may have reached it's peak last year or the year before that. Unfortunately for people who want to highlight peak oil, global tensions have been blamed for all the price rises and obscured a very steady rise in the cost of oil.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Josh
Unfortunately for people who want to highlight peak oil...

Anything "unfortunate" for those nutballs is a good thing in my opinion. All they really want to do is "celebrate" the end of technological civilization and the mass death of most of the human population.

Dumbasses!

The rising price of oil is due to oligopolic price gouging and speculation...pure and simple. "Demand" and "international tensions" don't have a damn thing to do with it.

The energy monopolies seem intent on playing the same role in this century as the railroads played in the 19th century.

When revolution arrives, hang those bastards first! :angry:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[bunk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 07:08 PM











Anything "unfortunate" for those nutballs is a good thing in my opinion. All they really want to do is "celebrate" the end of technological civilization and the mass death of most of the human population.

I admit that some peak oil people do appear like that, but again let's not generalise. Most want to find a sustainable energy switch that is better for the environment and people than fossil fuels. If you look further than some of those crazy survivalists that tarnish everyone else then you will find sites and groups whose whole mission is to raise awarness of peak oil and avert a possible crash.
http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/


The rising price of oil is due to oligopolic price gouging and speculation...pure and simple. "Demand" and "international tensions" don't have a damn thing to do with it.

Hasn't oil price always been based on speculation. Saudi Arabian oil reserve estimates must have kept prices down. Now they seem to be admitting that they actually don't have as much as they told the world+ The oil corporations must like the prices of oil but in my opinion they haven't chosen all of this, (driving even Bush to make a speech trying to wean americans of their oil addiction)

International tensions don't have anything to do with it? I think direct attacks on oil pipelines cutting 20% of the output in Nigeria have something to do with oil prices?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Josh
I think direct attacks on oil pipelines cutting 20% of the output in Nigeria have something to do with oil prices?

"Cutting 20% of the output"?

Now how would you know that? Have you been carefully monitoring tanker ships leaving Nigeria, making sure that the cargo manifest and the contents are the same, keeping careful track of this year's numbers against last year's numbers?

No, you read a press release issued by an oil company that has a self-evident interest in emphasizing "shortages" in order to raise prices!

In fact, that describes all of our so-called "knowledge" about how much oil is being pumped, how much remains in the ground, how much is being consumed, etc., etc., etc.

Press releases from people who have every reason for LYING!

I wouldn't believe those bloodsucking vampires if they told me it was raining outside without checking for myself!

Why should anyone else?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[bunk]

No, most of the initial news of the attacks comes from MEND the group commiting the attacks. So, in your opinion either the oil companies are exagerrating the infastructure offline or MEND is a fabrication of the oil companies?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 02:09 AM
No, most of the initial news of the attacks comes from MEND the group commiting the attacks. So, in your opinion either the oil companies are exagerrating the infastructure offline or MEND is a fabrication of the oil companies?
In my opinion there is no practical way to verify what anyone connected with the energy industry is telling us!

Yes, MEND can say they made this attack or that attack...big deal!

The oil companies can say that MEND caused "this damage" or "that damage"...so what!

In Dallas-Fort Worth, the utility company there can say that the reason the power went off is that the weather was too hot and too many people were running their air conditioners.

Why shouldn't they lie when it's to their advantage to do so?

Why should we believe anything said by the powerful?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Capitalist Lawyer]

The rising price of oil is due to oligopolic price gouging and speculation...pure and simple.


Only if one is too simple minded to understand supply and demand, and also wishes to lay blame at someone's feet and therefore demonize them.




"Demand" and "international tensions" don't have a damn thing to do with it.


Like I said... only if one doesn't understand supply and demand.

[hassan monwar al-moudjahid]

the whole thing is just sickening

[redstar2000]

My God, how the money rolls in!


Originally posted by St. Petersburg Times
CEO pay eclipses ridiculous

Rumor has it that chief executive officers still put their pants on one leg at a time. But that sounds positively quaint now that CEOs at larger U.S. corporations on average earn $430 for every $1 earned by the average U.S. worker.

Twenty-six years ago, CEOs received an average of $10 for every $1 earned by a U.S. worker.

http://www.sptimes.com/2006/04/24/Columns/...pses_ridi.shtml (http://www.sptimes.com/2006/04/24/Columns/CEO_pay_eclipses_ridi.shtml)

Doesn't that make you cappies feel all "warm and fuzzy"? :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[red team]

I'm sure they'll feel "warm" but I'm not sure about fuzzy when their mansions goes up in flames with them trapped inside.

You know those mansions are such firetraps with those hundreds of feet of bad wiring. ;)

Any electricians in the house? :lol:

[theraven]

Originally posted by red [email protected] 25 2006, 05:47 AM
I'm sure they'll feel "warm" but I'm not sure about fuzzy when their mansions goes up in flames with them trapped inside.

You know those mansions are such firetraps with those hundreds of feet of bad wiring. ;)

Any electricians in the house? :lol:
what do you mean?