Exxon retirement

[just.me]

Exxon Chairman's $400 Million ParachuteExxon Made Record Profits in 2005
Lee Raymond's retirement package -- worth nearly $400 million -- is one of the largest in history. (ABC News)



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.

 

[kwillia]

I wonder if Larry has anything to say about this...

 

[Toxick]

I wonder if Larry has anything to say about this...

Check here and find out.

 

[vraiblonde]

If you guys hate Exxon so much, why don't you buy a different brand of gas?

Oh...wait...because Exxon's gas isn't any higher than anyone else's gas - they're just being Wal-Marted with bad publicity.

 

[desertrat]

He made them a lot of money. I'd say he earned it.

 

[vraiblonde]

It's almost more than five times what the CEO of Chevron made.

So what is Chevron doing with all its profits? Because their gas isn't any cheaper than Exxon's, yet Chevron executives aren't making the kind of bonuses that Exxon executives are.

 

[Toxick]

He made them a lot of money. I'd say he earned it.

He sure did.

He made $1.90 per gallon of gas seem like a good deal!

 

[Toxick]

So what is Chevron doing with all its profits?

Passing it on to the consumer no doubt.

 

[vraiblonde]

Passing it on to the consumer no doubt.

How is that possible when their gas isn't any cheaper than Exxon's?

 

[kwillia]

How is that possible when their gas isn't any cheaper than Exxon's?

Actually... it looks like they have some EXPENSIVE LITIGATION issues eating into their profits.

 

[vraiblonde]

Actually... it looks like they have some EXPENSIVE LITIGATION issues eating into their profits.

So who would we rather have getting oil profits - an actual employee of the company, or some bloodsucking lawyer? :shrug:

 

[Toxick]

How is that possible when their gas isn't any cheaper than Exxon's?

Oh.. I fergot my little sticker.

 

[Bruzilla]

If you guys hate Exxon so much, why don't you buy a different brand of gas?

Oh...wait...because Exxon's gas isn't any higher than anyone else's gas - they're just being Wal-Marted with bad publicity.

Oh... wait...because Exxon's gas isn't any cheaper than anyone else's gas.

Doesn't that strike you as odd Vrai. Is there one other item that you can buy at so many different name brand and generic places that's so nearly identical in price? A loaf of Wonder bread costs $2.39. A loaf of store brand bread is .99; a pair of Nikes made in Korea cost $150, but a pair of Starter sneakers that are just as good sell for $14.99. A pound of Land O' Lakes butter costs $3.49, a pound of store butter costs $2.49. A gallon of Sealtest milk costs $3.99, while a gallon of store milk costs $2.49. A Polo brand polo shirt cost $79, while a no-name shirt costs $9.99. a chain made of 14K gold sells for $399 at a high-end jewellry store, and $199 at a discount jewellry store store. And on and on.

So... isn't a bit odd that Exxon's price is pretty much the same as every other dealers's price? One would think that gas stations with large convenience stores would be able to sell gas for well less than what a gas station alone could sell it for. Every other type of store in the consumer world uses "loss leaders" except for gas stations. They don't even offer premiums (glasses, baseball posters, etc.) anymore, and a car wash is an extra $7.00 or so. So why is it that every other commercial entrprise has found it necessary to offer consumers a high and low price point selection, even on fixed-price commodities, but gas stations do not? Could it be it's because they don't need to? Could it be because they know they have their consumer base by the balls, and they have no need to generate an incentive? Could it be that there really is no competition in the gasoline market place... unless you call lowering your price by a penny or two, which equates to about a .3% percent "savings", offering a low-price alternative.

If for some reason you had to go buy running shoes and you had just two choices, would you pay $150 for the Nikes, or .3% less or $149.45 for a pair of Starters? My guess is you would pay the extra .55 for the name brand since the prices are nearly the same. Yet, for some strange reason, what works so well for the gasoline sellers doesn't seem to work for anyone else. Could it be because the gasoline sellers are capitalizing on the fact that there is no Starter gasoline that can be bought for .70/gallon? Because if there were such a thing, you wouldn't be seeing Exxon and other oil companies making higher profits than anyone in history.

 

[vraiblonde]

Doesn't that strike you as odd Vrai.

What should strike YOU as odd, Bruzilla, is that Exxon is getting all this bad publicity BY ITSELF, even though it charges the same gas prices as every other oil company in the US.

So... isn't a bit odd that Exxon's price is pretty much the same as every other dealers's price? One would think that gas stations with large convenience stores would be able to sell gas for well less than what a gas station alone could sell it for. Every other type of store in the consumer world uses "loss leaders" except for gas stations. They don't even offer premiums (glasses, baseball posters, etc.) anymore, and a car wash is an extra $7.00 or so. So why is it that every other commercial entrprise has found it necessary to offer consumers a high and low price point selection, even on fixed-price commodities, but gas stations do not? Could it be it's because they don't need to? Could it be because they know they have their consumer base by the balls, and they have no need to generate an incentive? Could it be that there really is no competition in the gasoline market place... unless you call lowering your price by a penny or two, which equates to about a .3% percent "savings", offering a low-price alternative.

What the hell are you talking about??? Gas stations don't make any money - that's why they all put IN the convenience stores and Subways and auto repairs.

Duh.

Your last sentence is the only thing in that rant that even remotely made sense:

Could it be that there really is no competition in the gasoline market place... unless you call lowering your price by a penny or two, which equates to about a .3% percent "savings", offering a low-price alternative.

There is no competition in the gasoline market. They lower their price by a penny, but who the hell goes out of their way to buy gas somewhere to save 2 cents a gallon??? (Besides my father-in-law, that is )

So if there's a point in there, please restate it in plain English. Whatever you may have been trying to get across blew right over my head.

 

[vraiblonde]

And it appears to me that you are confusing a gas station with an oil company. They are two different things.

Yes, there is such a thing as an Exxon gas station. But those stations are not owned by Exxon - they are franchises, just like a 7-11.

 

[Toxick]

So if there's a point in there, please restate it in plain English. Whatever you may have been trying to get across blew right over my head.

I'll try, even though nobody is going to give a tiny rat's ass.





"Big oil" is either a monopoly or the next best thing.

There is ZIPPY competition.

One of the great things about Capitalism - which everyone supports - is the introduction of competition in the marketplace which, in turn, causes the producers to win profits by offering things cheaper better & faster for the consumer.


With Oil, however, there is NO competition. It is all the same exact stuff for the same exact price. There is NO alternative, and there is no incentive for the oil companies (all of them - not just XMO ) to give us a cheaper product.

The reason they have such bountious profits is NOT because they are the best, cheapest, coolest or nicest - it is simply due to the fact that they have a death-grip on the their consumers' testicles.


Figuratively speaking.

 

[vraiblonde]

"Big oil" is either a monopoly or the next best thing.

A single company can be a monopoly ("mono" from the Greek meaning "one"). Multiple companies cannot be a monopoly, especially if they are competitors.

What does "Big Oil" mean, anyway? Who makes up this organization?

 

[Toxick]

A single company can be a monopoly ("mono" from the Greek meaning "one"). Multiple companies cannot be a monopoly, especially if they are competitors.

Competitors

I guess that explains the bitter rivalry between oil companies, as each tries to undercut the other ones in a underhanded schemes to garner the market.


Not being retarded, I'm aware they cannot be an official "monopoly" as such - which is why I qualified it with "the next best thing".

You asked for an English translation of the previous post, I gave you one. To simplify further: "They are collectively behaving as a monopoly. Their profits have little to do with traditional capitalism, and everything to do with captive consumers".

What does "Big Oil" mean, anyway? Who makes up this organization?

The aforementioned monopolistic behavior is why these companies are often referred to as a unit: "Big Oil".

I thought that was kind of self-evident.

 

[BuddyLee]

He made them a lot of money. I'd say he earned it.

No man can honestly 'earn' a million dollars. ~Somebody famous~

 

[FromTexas]

They can't undercut each other much. Not because they are big oil but because their prices are decided by the commodities market... not them. How many times can we say this? So, no, its not a monopoly but they can't price compete too heavily (which actually is not only because of the pricing factor but also because of regulation... remember when Sheetz and Wawa got screwed around here for pricing too low last year because Burch or whoever complained about them unfairly competiting by utilizing their wholesale nature and not taking a true profit -- the state told them to quit that). What they do make out on is large scale efficiencies, being the ones to pump the oil, being the ones to refine the oil, and being the ones to distribute it. The more pieces they can get involved in, the more they can control costs outside of the pricing.