ADVERTISEMENT

ExxonMobile Proxy Vote

Achowalogan said:
Just finished my ExxonMobile annual meeting vote - against Kenneth C Frazier for board of directors. I know my vote won't make a difference in the end, but it was the correct vote.

If you are a shareholder, vote wisely....
Click to expand...
So which gangster did you vote for?
 
  • Like
Reactions: odshowtime
Achowalogan said:
Just finished my ExxonMobile annual meeting vote - against Kenneth C Frazier for board of directors. I know my vote won't make a difference in the end, but it was the correct vote.

If you are a shareholder, vote wisely....
Click to expand...

I would vote for. When he became CEO of Merck the stock was 26 and last week it was in the 80s.

XOM is down the last 10 years.
 
Last edited:
Pardlion said:
The number of dicks running the company before he became CEO was 0.
Click to expand...


Did you know Gilmartin? He was in charge during Vioxx.

Let me know when you invest in a company losing money because the CEO is a good guy.
 
NittPicker said:
First a drug company and now an oil company. Seems like Frazier likes to align himself with corporations which have reputations for screwing the public.
Click to expand...

How do oil companies "screw the public?" Or are you referring in particular to XOM? If it's about selling fuel which, when burned, contributes to global warming, why not blame the corporations that sell vehicles that burn the fuel? Why not blame yourself for driving a car, heating/cooling your home, or using something made of plastic?
 
  • Like
Reactions: psu1969a, 91Joe95 and The Spin Meister
KnightWhoSaysNit said:
How do oil companies "screw the public?" Or are you referring in particular to XOM? If it's about selling fuel which, when burned, contributes to global warming, why not blame the corporations that sell vehicles that burn the fuel? Why not blame yourself for driving a car, heating/cooling your home, or using something made of plastic?
Click to expand...

I said they have those reputations. Ask the average person and they'll agree. Don't mischaracterize my post as something more than what it is. If you want to debate global warming, plastics, etc., you'll need to do it elsewhere.
 
NittPicker said:
I said they have those reputations. Ask the average person and they'll agree. Don't mischaracterize my post as something more than what it is. If you want to debate global warming, plastics, etc., you'll need to do it elsewhere.
Click to expand...

I really did not know that the average person thinks they are getting screwed by the oil companies. In what way? You made this statement about "the average person," but my suspicion is that it really pertains to your own personal view, and that for some reason you want to spread this sort of thinking without any foundation.

I don't want to debate anything. I simply want to know what you meant by "getting screwed."
 
stormingnorm said:
FWIW:

Aside from being one of the most contemptible "executives" in the history of Corporate America (those stories would fill a library).
At the top of the list, of course, is the entire VIOXX scandal ("crime" would be a more apt descriptor)… which, of course, was Kenny's baby.

:
But just on the $$$$ side:

When Frazier took over as CEO of Merck - Jan 1, 2011 - the share price of MRK was $36 and change.

Today, the share price of Merck is $73 and change.

For those who are bad at math:

That is an annualized return of 9% per year (just about to the penny)

That, even though Kenny had the advantage of taking over when the price of Merck was significantly depressed due to - in large part - the VIOXX scandal :) .… and Kenny's handling of it :eek:



So - how was that performance by Kenny?

During that exact same time frame, the S&P 500 rose from 1292 to 2905......

Which comes out to a 10.5% annualized return.


So, under Kenny, MRK didn't even match the S&P 500


Among its peer group?

At best, a mixed bag for Kenny... Eli Lilly, for one, has blown past Merck like they were standing still. Johnson and Johnson has been pretty similar, and Merck slightly outperformed Pfizer.



Bottom Line?

Kenny "Beetlejuice" Frazier's tenure shows that even if you are led by the lowest-of-the-low, one of the most contemptible scumbags in the history of Corporate America.....
It still doesn't guarantee financial success :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

And the S&P Select Pharmaceuticals Index is up about 12.5% over the same time period with component Merck dragging it down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 91Joe95, Achowalogan and stormingnorm
KnightWhoSaysNit said:
I really did not know that the average person thinks they are getting screwed by the oil companies. In what way? You made this statement about "the average person," but my suspicion is that it really pertains to your own personal view, and that for some reason you want to spread this sort of thinking without any foundation.

I don't want to debate anything. I simply want to know what you meant by "getting screwed."
Click to expand...

Sure you want to debate. I don't. Sorry. I stand by my post.
 
stormingnorm said:
FWIW:

Aside from being one of the most contemptible "executives" in the history of Corporate America (those stories would fill a library).
At the top of the list, of course, is the entire VIOXX scandal ("crime" would be a more apt descriptor)… which, of course, was Kenny's baby.

:
But just on the $$$$ side:

When Frazier took over as CEO of Merck - Jan 1, 2011 - the share price of MRK was $36 and change.

Today, the share price of Merck is $73 and change.

For those who are bad at math:

That is an annualized return of 9% per year (just about to the penny)

That, even though Kenny had the advantage of taking over when the price of Merck was significantly depressed due to - in large part - the VIOXX scandal :) .… and Kenny's handling of it :eek:



So - how was that performance by Kenny?

During that exact same time frame, the S&P 500 rose from 1292 to 2905......

Which comes out to a 10.5% annualized return.


So, under Kenny, MRK didn't even match the S&P 500


Among its peer group?

At best, a mixed bag for Kenny... Eli Lilly, for one, has blown past Merck like they were standing still. Johnson and Johnson has been pretty similar, and Merck slightly outperformed Pfizer.



Bottom Line?

Kenny "Beetlejuice" Frazier's tenure shows that even if you are led by the lowest-of-the-low, one of the most contemptible scumbags in the history of Corporate America.....
It still doesn't guarantee financial success :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Last week it was over 80. They also pay a 2% dividend + medco spin off which adds another 10-15%

Exxon on The other hand had lost value the last 10 years.
 
NittPicker said:
Sure you want to debate. I don't. Sorry. I stand by my post.
Click to expand...

Even though one can only guess what you mean by "screwed." If this is about price/economics, then you must believe that the oil industry is behaving in some way unlawfully.

You've decided to convict the industry and the people that work in it without any evidence, nor will you even clearly state the charge. You would fit well within the PSU BOT.
 
KnightWhoSaysNit said:
Even though one can only guess what you mean by "screwed." If this is about price/economics, then you must believe that the oil industry is behaving in some way unlawfully.

You've decided to convict the industry and the people that work in it without any evidence, nor will you even clearly state the charge. You would fit well within the PSU BOT.
Click to expand...
They don't act unlawfully since they pay off pols in campaign contributions to allow their lobbyists to write the laws. All legally. Legal gangsters.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: odshowtime
poker1 said:
They don't act unlawfully since they pay off pols in campaign contributions to allow their lobbyists to write the laws. All legally. Legal gangsters.
Click to expand...

That is true of most corporations. It's actually responsible behavior, as to do otherwise (i.e., not to do everything possible to maximize profit within the law, including influencing law) would effectively be to defraud the owners (shareholders).

The "gangsters" are the elected officials when they do not serve the best interest of their constituents. Period.

The role of a lobbyist is also to act in the interest of their constituents (shareholders or stakeholders of some kind). One should recognize that what's good for a corporation is not necessarily bad for the public. It depends on the issue.

I'm a believer in the free market system, but also believe that it must be regulated, and regulated by elected officials that truly serve the public interest. Therein, IMHO, is the shortfall. It is not with the corporations, which are merely financial entities created to grow wealth -- for both workers and owners.

If Nittpicker's post and (rather shallow) responses are any indication, I get the sense that there is a lot of misguided angst. It is a failure of our education system and the disintegration of factual media that contributes to naive beliefs. Indeed, the political polarization of our media has served to hide the facts and preserve ignorance. It happens when information is presented without balance. It doesn't help when people create families before becoming educated themselves.

Since retiring a few years ago I have had the time for discussion on lots of matters. I've come across only one person who believed the public was getting screwed by the oil companies. His only example came from the 1970s, and I believe his facts are incomplete, leading to the wrong conclusions. This is usually the problem -- incomplete delivery of the facts, or a personal decision to disregard the facts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 91Joe95 and The Spin Meister
KnightWhoSaysNit said:
That is true of most corporations. It's actually responsible behavior, as to do otherwise (i.e., not to do everything possible to maximize profit within the law, including influencing law) would effectively be to defraud the owners (shareholders).

The "gangsters" are the elected officials when they do not serve the best interest of their constituents. Period.

The role of a lobbyist is also to act in the interest of their constituents (shareholders or stakeholders of some kind). One should recognize that what's good for a corporation is not necessarily bad for the public. It depends on the issue.

I'm a believer in the free market system, but also believe that it must be regulated, and regulated by elected officials that truly serve the public interest. Therein, IMHO, is the shortfall. It is not with the corporations, which are merely financial entities created to grow wealth -- for both workers and owners.

If Nittpicker's post and (rather shallow) responses are any indication, I get the sense that there is a lot of misguided angst. It is a failure of our education system and the disintegration of factual media that contributes to naive beliefs. Indeed, the political polarization of our media has served to hide the facts and preserve ignorance. It happens when information is presented without balance. It doesn't help when people create families before becoming educated themselves.

Since retiring a few years ago I have had the time for discussion on lots of matters. I've come across only one person who believed the public was getting screwed by the oil companies. His only example came from the 1970s, and I believe his facts are incomplete, leading to the wrong conclusions. This is usually the problem -- incomplete delivery of the facts, or a personal decision to disregard the facts.
Click to expand...
I'm all for free markets as well though I don't know what that has to do with the matter at hand as oil is more like an oligopoly controlled by a few vast enterprises and the OPEC cartel which controls 82% of the oil. (Of course they nevertheless serve a necessary public service.)
But legalized bribery is not likely to serve the public interest. And thanks for the lecture in sophistry. The poor misunderstood oil companies sure appreciate your PR defense against all the ignorant people (who you paradoxically say don't think they are being screwed). Enjoy your oil company pension.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Eph97
poker1 said:
I'm all for free markets as well though I don't know what that has to do with the matter at hand as oil is more like an oligopoly controlled by a few vast enterprises and the OPEC cartel which controls 82% of the oil. (Of course they nevertheless serve a necessary public service.)
But legalized bribery is not likely to serve the public interest. And thanks for the lecture in sophistry. The poor misunderstood oil companies sure appreciate your PR defense against all the ignorant people (who you paradoxically say don't think they are being screwed). Enjoy your oil company pension.
Click to expand...


You've singled out the oil industry. Why? Do oil companies lobby differently than those in other industries? I still haven't heard exactly how people are getting "screwed" by the oil industry in ways that they aren't getting screwed by other industries.

As a former employee I certainly did not have it easy. The industry has been historically cyclic. People get laid off during downturns, or sustain pressure that forces them to move on. It is not what you might think. Over the years my wife and I paid a steep personal price. There were risks associated with operating in underdeveloped countries, and we lost to those risks.

This week I met a former UPS middle manager who retired to the golf course at age 47, nearly two decades ago. Why not denigrate the delivery industry? We could be paying less to get a package delivered. I doubt if making deliveries carries with it the same risks as making fuel or chemicals.

What about government? You know, the guys that make and enforce the rules.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GregInPitt
KnightWhoSaysNit said:
You've singled out the oil industry. Why? Do oil companies lobby differently than those in other industries? I still haven't heard exactly how people are getting "screwed" by the oil industry in ways that they aren't getting screwed by other industries.

As a former employee I certainly did not have it easy. The industry has been historically cyclic. People get laid off during downturns, or sustain pressure that forces them to move on. It is not what you might think. Over the years my wife and I paid a steep personal price. There were risks associated with operating in underdeveloped countries, and we lost to those risks.

This week I met a former UPS middle manager who retired to the golf course at age 47, nearly two decades ago. Why not denigrate the delivery industry? We could be paying less to get a package delivered. I doubt if making deliveries carries with it the same risks as making fuel or chemicals.

What about government? You know, the guys that make and enforce the rules.
Click to expand...
I did not use the term "screwed". Nor do I differentiate the oil industry from other megacorporations. You created these straw men. They have the money and all too often money rules in the form of legalized bribery and lobbying. The government is to blame to the degree to which they are ineffective in their oversight, largely as the result of the pols being bought off, as well as the pernicious recognition of corporations as "people" and money as "speech" by the courts. The enforcers can only try to enforce the rules, the lawmakers and courts make them, and they are outgunned by the enforcees.
But we've come a long way from the origin of this thread, I will knock it off.
 
poker1 said:
I did not use the term "screwed". Nor do I differentiate the oil industry from other megacorporations. You created these straw men. They have the money and all too often money rules in the form of legalized bribery and lobbying. The government is to blame to the degree to which they are ineffective in their oversight, largely as the result of the pols being bought off, as well as the pernicious recognition of corporations as "people" and money as "speech" by the courts. The enforcers can only try to enforce the rules, the lawmakers and courts make them, and they are outgunned by the enforcees.
But we've come a long way from the origin of this thread, I will knock it off.
Click to expand...

Sorry. It was Nittpicker that started the "screwed" language, but you responded to my question about the oil industry and made no distinction. The alleged screwing of the public is completely inconsistent with every policy and everything that I saw throughout my career, from top to bottom. But then I must admit that my office wasn't in Washington.
 
For the record, integrated oil companies profit is something under 10% of revenue.
And, for the record, profit, along with operating cash flow, is the thing that enables companies to make investments, which includes people.
You can not be employed, without an employer. Someone some of us have forgotten.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GregInPitt
poker1 said:
I did not use the term "screwed". Nor do I differentiate the oil industry from other megacorporations. You created these straw men. They have the money and all too often money rules in the form of legalized bribery and lobbying. The government is to blame to the degree to which they are ineffective in their oversight, largely as the result of the pols being bought off, as well as the pernicious recognition of corporations as "people" and money as "speech" by the courts. The enforcers can only try to enforce the rules, the lawmakers and courts make them, and they are outgunned by the enforcees.
But we've come a long way from the origin of this thread, I will knock it off.
Click to expand...


"legalized bribery and lobbying" ..... Wow, sounds more like that is a fit for politicians as well as businessmen. (i.e. business-people).

The government is more at fault for not overseeing themselves then they are for not overseeing businesses. If this country had waited for the government and politicians to effectively advance society we would all be chopping wood to stay warm in the winters.

Yes there are some near monopolies, but that is an area where government oversight has actually worked by stopping some take overs during the industrial revolution, and within the current technical revolution.

There will always be a few bad apples that tend to put the responsible businessmen in a bad light. But the free market economy has proven to be light years ahead of other forms of government and economic models, and the standard of living in the USA is proof of that.

I never worked for an oil company, but had a number of college friends that went on to do so, and they had nice careers that took them all over the world. But I do have stock in Exxon............ which has proven to be one of the very best run companies in the world during my life time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

FlyinLion1

San Francisco Communist Kamala Harris Hates, Despises White People!!!!!!!!!!

Replies
4
Views
308
Current Events Board
Hotshoe
Hotshoe
J

CBS reporter says Penn State underrated in AP rankings

Replies
63
Views
3K
Penn State Football
KCLion
K
M

Wow, one more reasonable democrat steps up

Replies
0
Views
165
Current Events Board
m.knox
M
LafayetteBear

These Deplorables go well beyond "weird."

Replies
26
Views
680
Current Events Board
Obliviax
Obliviax
MarkPSU

I will not be watching this made for tv hit piece

Replies
84
Views
2K
Current Events Board
roswelllion
R
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back