Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, [10] ] |
| Subject: Re: One Billion Dollars!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! | |
|
Author: jw |
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 19:51:25 03/07/07 Wed In reply to: Oropan 's message, "One Billion Dollars!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" on 16:20:56 03/05/07 Mon You conveniently left out lee raymond's retirement package worth about 400 million dollars, for the great job he had done in destroying the earth and overcharging for his deadly product. I confused the 1 billion dollar package with that of a ceo business crook from one of the HMO's who'se contribution to humanity was to deny americans health coverage that the government can provide at much lower prices, because no one in government gets 1 billion dollar retirement packeges. Perhaps the oil companies are raising the price of oil now in the understanding that within a decade governments will be forced to limit oil consumption, greatly reducing the profits of oil companies, so they may as well grab what ever they can now. Wealthiest CEOs resist climate-change action News Features By Mitchell Anderson Publish Date: February 15, 2007 Ex-environment minister David Anderson says some CEOs see carbon regulations as a threat to profits. IISD/ENB photo. Does it seem strange that some oil companies appear fairly willing to address the massive implications of global warming while others have been fighting it tooth and nail? David Anderson was wondering the same thing when he was Canada’s Environment Minister between 1999 and 2004. About half of the oil companies he dealt with were very resistant to reducing carbon emissions or even to admitting that global warming was real. And the other half? According to Anderson, “the other half were very friendly. Shell, BP, Syncrude, Suncor, all those companies were quite willing to put in restrictions [to curb climate change].” And why not? Ballooning oil prices meant soaring profits, so they could easily afford the costs of mitigating carbon emissions. “God, they were making money like it was going out of style,” Anderson said. “You just wouldn’t believe the money that’s being made. They could quite afford the trivial amount, which was about 38 cents a barrel as the calculation for climate-change measures, to make them carbon-neutral. Christ, they were getting up to $75 a barrel… Everything over $20 a barrel is profit.” So why does the former minister think companies like ExxonMobil weren’t willing to move on this? Anderson offered some interesting speculations. “One of the issues that I think is really important is the impact of the quarterly statement. No one likes to have their quarterly statement doing anything but going up and up because that affects share price. Share price affects bonuses and pay of executives. The head of Exxon gets paid $70 million per year. A lot of money would be affected by what you might call tremors in the market that might come from climate-change measures…” Stock options have become a very popular way for North American companies to motivate senior executives to pump up the share price. The idea is simple: rather than paying managers a straight salary, companies give them options to buy company stock at a set price. If these executives can increase the share price, they can cash in those options and reap staggering profits. “The use of stock options has skyrocketed over the last 20 years,” said Kin Lo, associate professor of accounting at the UBC Sauder School of Business. However, making senior management fixated on share price rather than on business fundamentals can also affect corporate ethics. “I believe the prevalence [of stock options] contributes to some of the malfeasance that you have seen, the big blowups with Enron and WorldCom,” Lo said. In the case of oil companies it also creates a gravy train that most senior executives would want to keep going at all costs. Soaring global oil prices have meant that oil companies are tallyng record profits and sending share prices into the stratosphere— regardless of company performance. For instance, ExxonMobil’s share price has almost doubled since 2004, and its profits for 2006 were a record US$39.5 billion, making it the world’s top publicly owned oil company. This is making some senior oil executives very rich, whether they are doing a good job or not. According to a recent study from the Washington-based Institute for Policy Studies, in 2005 the average CEO compensation for the top 15 U.S.-based oil companies was a whopping $32.7 million per year—more than four hundred times what the average oil industry worker is paid annually. Compare that with the average pay of CEOs for all large U.S. firms, at $11.6 million. And then there is the paycheque of former ExxonMobil CEO Lee Raymond. In 2005, Raymond’s base salary was $4 million—not bad, to be sure, but the real money came from soaring share prices. That year, Raymond made an additional $65 million in the form of stock options and other benefits, fully 93 percent of his compensation. With a payday like that, who wants to rock the boat by dealing with climate change? Compare that with the compensation paid to executives with the world’s number two and three publicly owned oil companies: BP and Royal Dutch Shell PLC, both based in Europe. BP CEO Lord John Browne made $5.6 million in 2005—not so shabby either, but a mere eight percent of what Exxon’s CEO was paid. Shell CEO Jeroen van der Veer made just $4.1 million, one-sixteenth what Raymond was paid. Interestingly, there are also some striking differences in the way these companies dealt with climate change. BP now officially stands for “beyond petroleum” in some of the company’s advertising campaigns, not British Petroleum. Shell’s van der Veer has stated publicly that global warming makes him “really very worried for the planet”. Both companies signed on to a letter to U.K. Prime Minster Tony Blair calling for urgent government regulation on climate change and are investing heavily in alternative- energy technologies. In contrast, Exxon has been dubbed by Greenpeace “the world’s number-one climate criminal”, stating that it has “done more than any other company to stop the world from tackling climate change”. Exxon was recently accused by the Union of Concerned Scientists of funding a Big Tobacco–style PR campaign—to the tune of $16 million over the past 10 years— to misinform the public on climate science. Anderson speculated that the overreliance on stock options puts many North American oil company executives in a compromised position. “Deep down, most of these people knew the game had to end eventually and we had to take climate-change measures. Deep down, what they were really saying was, ‘I know that I’m not doing the right thing but I am going to pass that on to my successor to handle the problem. I’m going to get out of here with my bonuses intact and I am going to get out of here a wealthy man.’ ” That last point might be particularly poignant in the case of ExxonMobil. When Raymond retired at the end of 2005, he was awarded one of the most lucrative retirement packages in corporate history, totalling almost $400 million, including stock options, pension, use of a corporate jet, and even $210,800 in country-club fees and other perks. This includes the $69 million in cash and stock options he made that year. The Georgia Straight contacted ExxonMobil, and a spokesman denied that compensation schemes of senior executives like Raymond could affect how the company has responded to climate change. “The largest portion of his compensation is restricted stock, and those restrictions are five and 10 years, and those restrictions maintain on stock even after he retires…He can’t sell it until the restriction matures, and some of those restrictions go out to the year 2015,” said Mark Boudreaux, media relations manager for ExxonMobil Corp. Raymond will be 77 in 2015. It seems strange that he will not be able to collect for all his years of work at ExxonMobil until he is two years past the life expectancy of the average male in the U.S. Perhaps it is not as simple as that. According to UBC’s Lo, “what someone can do is to arrange an ‘equity monetization’, which allows him, in essence, to ‘short’ the [restricted] stock with an investment banker. It’s the same as selling the restricted stock at that date. Later on, when the restriction comes off, you can net out the two positions…There are plenty of investment bankers that would be willing to do that for a fee.” If there are specific barriers prohibiting Raymond from “short- selling” his restricted stock, Exxon is not telling their shareholders about them. Looking at the 2005 proxy statements (legal filings) of ExxonMobil to the U.S. government, it appeared to Lo that “there is nothing to prevent Lee Raymond…to arrange for a separate side deal to get around the restrictions.” Interestingly, Raymond also sits on the advisory board of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), which recently offered scientists $10,000 plus expenses to undermine or dispute the findings of the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Exxon partially funds the American Enterprise Institute. Could something as trivial as the personal finances of already obscenely wealthy individuals have caused some powerful oil companies to resist dealing with the most pressing issue of our times? Stranger things have happened. >You really do make up the stuff you post!!!!!! > >Estimated Annual Retirement Benefit: $8,187,200* > >*Calculated by The Corporate Library for the AFL-CIO >Executive PayWatch > > > >Exxon Mobil CEO Lee R. Raymond’s retirement in January >2006 coincided with record profits for Exxon Mobil. On >retirement, Raymond was entitled to receive an >estimated annual retirement benefit of over $8 >million.[1] He choose instead to take a lump sum >payment of $98 million.[2] Raymond will also get an >administrative assistant, company-provided life >insurance, a car, driver, and airplane use for two >years.[3] > > > >Like many CEOs, Raymond’s pension is calculated based >on his highest average salary and bonus over a >three-year period. Between 2002 and 2005, Raymond’s >annual bonus more than doubled from $2.1 million to >$4.9 million.[4] According to Exxon Mobil, long-term >returns on capital, growth in earnings per share and >operating results are key considerations in >determining the CEO’s salary and bonus.[5] > >Also: >Michael Moore >owns Halliburton! >New book debunks claims of celebrity activists > >------------------------------------------------------- >------------------------- >Posted: November 1, 2005 >10:23 p.m. Eastern > > >© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com > >Michael Moore > >"I don't own a single share of stock!" filmmaker >Michael Moore proudly proclaimed. > >He's right. He doesn't own a single share. He owns >tens of thousands of shares – including nearly 2,000 >shares of Boeing, nearly 1,000 of Sonoco, more than >4,000 of Best Foods, more than 3,000 of Eli Lilly, >more than 8,000 of Bank One and more than 2,000 of >Halliburton, the company most vilified by Moore in >"Fahrenheit 9/11." > > > > > >If you want to see Moore's own signed Schedule D >declaring his capital gains and losses where his stock >ownership is listed, it's emblazoned on the cover of >Peter Schweizer's new book, "Do As I Say (Not As I >Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy." > >And it's just one of the startling revelations by >Schweizer, famous for his previous works, "Reagan's >War" and "The Bushes." > >Other examples: > > >House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who proclaims her >support for unions, yet the luxury resort, the >vineyard and the restaurants she partly owns are >strictly non-union. While she advocates tough new laws >enforcing environmental regulations on the private >sector, the exclusive country club she partly owns >failed to comply with existing environmental >regulations for the past eight years – including a >failure to protect endangered species. > >Noam Chomsky has made a reputation for calling America >a police state and branding the Pentagon "the most >hideous institution on earth," yet his entire academic >career, writes Schweizer, has been subsidized by the >U.S. military. > >Barbra Streisand is another proponent of >environmentalism, yet she drives an SUV, lives in a >mansion and has a $22,000 annual water bill. In the >past, she has driven to appointments in Beverly Hills >in a motor home because of her aversion to using >public bathrooms. > >Ralph Nader plays the role of the citizen avenger – >the populist uninterested in wealth and materialism, >pretending to live in a modest apartment. In fact, he >lives in fancy homes registered in the names of his >siblings. >This is not just a book of "gotcha" journalism, >explains Schweizer. He says the dozens and dozens of >examples of "liberal hypocrisy" he cites in his book >"are of central importance in evaluating the validity >and usefulness of liberal ideas." > >"Using IRS records, court depositions, news reports, >financial disclosures and their own statements, I >sought to answer a particular question: Do these >liberal leaders and activists practice what they >preach?" he writes. "What I found was a stunning >record of open and shameless hypocrisy. Those who >champion the cause of organized labor had developed >various methods to avoid paying union wages or shunned >unions altogether. > >"Those who believe that the rich need to pay more in >taxes proved especially adept at avoiding taxes >themselves. Critics of capitalism and corporate >enterprise frequently invested in the very companies >they denounced. Those who espouse strict environmental >regulations worked vigorously to sidestep them when it >came to their own businesses and properties. Those who >advocate steep inheritance taxes to promote fairer >income distribution hid their investments in trusts or >exotic overseas locales to reduce their own tax >liability. Those who are strong proponents of >affirmative action rarely practiced it themselves, and >some had abysmal records when it came to hiring >minorities. Those who proclaim themselves champions of >civil liberties when it comes to criminal or terrorist >cases went to extraordinary lengths to curtail the >civil liberties of others when they felt threatened or >just inconvenienced. Advocates of gun control had no >problem making sure that an arsenal of weapons was >available to protect them from dangerous criminals." > > > > > >> How can the dems cut more from the war funding than >>bush has already cut, it's not like the war was ever >>funded! >> >> All rich should pay for the war, including exxon >>business crook lee raymond who stole a billion dollars >>from the american people last year, about a hundred >>times what micheal moore made off his movie, and >>micheal moore agrees with me. Goerge soros probably >>also agrees with me, he funds a radio network that >>calls for tax increased for the filthy rich, he at >>least recognizes his gains were ill-gotten. >> >>>So why aren't they cutting >>>funding????????????????????????? >>>BTW, I do agree we should tax the Hell out of rich >>>movie stars and big money crooks like George Soros >and >>>other assorted rich guys like Micheal Moore. I'd >>>suggest 99.9% tax for them. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> Congress can only cut funding for the war, they >>can >>>>not directly stop it, only bush can do that. Bush >>and >>>>the previous republican congress never funded the >>war, >>>>they were too busy giving tax breaks to the filthy >>>>rich so we are losing the war on terror. Bush sends >>>>our troops into combat without equipment and >>training, >>>>as canon fodder, and wants to blame the democrats >for >>>>his failure, that doesn't fly. Most americans >>>>supported the war until it became clear that bush >and >>>>the republicans have no intention winning this war, >>it >>>>is now time to stop sending our troops to die for >>>>halliburton and exxon. >>>> >>>>>You and all the 'other' people elected these >>>>>guys.....now you are telling me they lied to you. >>>>>LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >! >>! >>>! >>>>! >>>>>!!!! >>>>>Maybe they are too busy working on the >>>deficit?.....or >>>>>at least adding that $10,000,000,000.00 as add ons. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>she starts most posts with lol so she cannot be >>>>>>missed. THe majority of the people are against the >>>>wAR >>>>>>if you ever bothered to read anything other than >>>>right >>>>>>wing stuff or listening to right wing tv or radio >. >>>>GO >>>>>>to polling place its bipartisian and see what >>people >>>>>>have to say about bush the war , the rep etc. >might >>>>>>start you on a different track other than lol .Its >>>>>>obvious to thinking people that congressis not >>doing >>>>>>the peoples bidding . [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| Subject | Author | Date |
| You can't spell the word "WEALTHIEST" without the letters "ATHEIST", the language is telling us something! n/t | jw | 19:53:20 03/07/07 Wed |
| Are all the "WEALTHIEST" "ATHEISTS"????? | Oropan | 08:55:31 03/08/07 Thu |