Exxon facing Rockefeller and shareholder revolt!!

I just saw this and wanted to share.

Things are getting rocky for Exxon as they refuse to wake up and do something about global warming.

Link!

A shareholder revolt at ExxonMobil led by the billionaire Rockefeller family has won the support of four significant British institutional investors who will call on Monday for a shakeup in the governance of the world's biggest oil company.

Guardian.co.uk has learned that F&C Asset Management, Morley Fund Management, the Co-Operative Insurance Society and the West Midlands Pension Fund are throwing their weight behind a resolution demanding that ExxonMobil appoints an independent chairman to stimulate debate on the company's board.

Exxon is facing a rebellion from its investors over its hardline approach to global warming. The firm has refused to follow rival oil companies in committing large-scale capital investment to environmentally friendly technology such as wind and solar power.

The Rockefeller dynasty, whose ancestor John D Rockefeller founded the original oil business at the core of ExxonMobil, have sponsored four shareholder resolutions demanding changes at Exxon. One of these calls on Exxon's chief executive Rex Tillerson, to relinquish his role as chairman in favour of an outsider to bring in an alternative point of view.

If the rebellion continues to gather pace, Exxon could suffer an embarrassing defeat at its annual meeting in Dallas later this month. At last year's meeting, 40% of investors' votes were cast in favour of a similar call for an independent chairman and the Rockefellers' involvement this time has raised the profile of the battle.

In the US, three advisory firms – RiskMetrics, Glass Lewis and Proxy Governance – have urged fund managers to support the Rockefellers' resolution. The result of the vote is not binding on Exxon but the company has said that its board will reconsider any of its policies challenged by successful shareholder resolutions

Oh EXXOOON the market is calling for you to change. Time to lead, follow or get voted out.

WOO HOO!!

GO ROCKEFELLERS and FRIENDS!!! I guess all money barons aren't bad. Of course the only reason they are pushing this is for bottom line profits but it still feels good.

Happy Monday!

•  BIG smile for us=BIG frown for Bush & other Oilys

  by VT ConQuest on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:10:07 AM PDT

•  TIps?

  by Chaoslillith on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:10:39 AM PDT

  •  Hey Chaos

    where you been? My mail is in the profile at my other home.

    by LaEscapee on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:34:21 AM PDT

•  I suppose the pressure

  will be much greater now after the reporting CNN has been doing.  I listened to their special last night and found it hard hitting, possibly short on facts, but with enough fear-mongering to get people off their asses. I think we are finally seeing what the future holds and it ain't pretty.  

  by tobendaro on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:13:36 AM PDT

  •  I am just enjoying the thought of the

    big suits trembling as they wait for the next call from the very influential shareholders.

    The fact that they want to vote the CEO out is quite tantalizing heheh.

    by Chaoslillith on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:16:09 AM PDT

  •  Well it's nice when the fear mongering works

    for us and not against us for once.

    by Chaoslillith on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:16:45 AM PDT

•  I Got A Questions I Can't Wrap By Mind Around

  I get why Exxon loves oil. I get the profit angle. I get they are in a capital intensive market so there isn't much competition. I get at many levels they are all colluding to keep oil prices high. I get all of that and then some.

  What I don't understand is why at the same time they are NOT investing in other energy alternatives. Is it that they see there is no profit? I can't believe that is true.

  I mean a ton of people hate Microsoft, but they still invest and develop products in other areas.

  If I was a huge Exxon shareholder I'd be pissed as well. Somebody (one or multiple firms) are going to invest in R&D and create another energy alternative that is both effective and profitable.

  And when that day occurs, which I don't think is far into the future, Exxon et al is going to be shit out of luck.

  It is an example, of like the horse and buggy folks and/or trains, that never saw what was coming. I am betting that 50 years from now MBAs are going to be reading/studying case studies mocking Exxon.

  But that is just my two seconds ....

  by webranding on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:18:37 AM PDT

  •  I think Exxon execs are making so

    much money now that they do not care about the future.

    Remember, some people, somewhere, still deny climate change, and evolution...maybe they are all Exxon execs?

    by Chaoslillith on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:22:02 AM PDT

    •  I Expected That To Be One Response

      and you might be right. But in the near term (maybe a decade plus) the majority of Americans (individuals and companies) are not going to be changing how they use oil/gas in any major way. But a number of progressives individuals and companies will if options exist.

      Then you factor in markets like Japan and the EU and you are starting to talk tens if not hundreds of billions in the not to distant future.

      But even as major markets like the EU, United States, and Japan move to new, non-oil based energy developing nations in Africa, China, and India just by sheer growth alone should pick up the oil slack created by us.

      I mean right .... or didn't I study enough in my econ classes?

      by webranding on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:28:18 AM PDT

  •  The problem is their mission statement.

    Exxon sees itself as an oil company, not as an energy company.

    Exxon Mobil Corporation is committed to being the world's premier petroleum and petrochemical company.

    To move into alternative energy sources would invalidate their corporate guiding principles.

    by sbdenmon on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:28:48 AM PDT

  •  This is exactly the reason

    What I don't understand is why at the same time they are NOT investing in other energy alternatives. Is it that they see there is no profit? I can't believe that is true.

    As a matter of fact, it is true that at least a part of the cause for the slow change to other kinds of fuel is profit.  Take wind energy, for example.  Most of the windmills generating this energy are located way out in the middle of nowhere, partly because that is where they get the most wind, partly because nobody wants them "in my back yard."  There are huge costs associated with transporting that energy from out in the middle of nowhere to where it would be used by consumers.  At present, without subsidy, it is hard to make a profit on wind energy.  Believe me, if the oil companies thought they could make a healthy profit on alternative energy, they would be doing that in a second.  Money is everything to a company like Exxon.  They will do whatever they think will make them money.  At present, when they have a dollar to invest, they get the most return on investment in oil, so that is where they are going to put that dollar.  If they could get a bigger return on that dollar by investing in some other fuel, they would do it.  It's really that simple.

    This Exxon story is particularly interesting.  In the end, corporations are only responsible (1) to their shareholders -- the owners of the company; and (2) to the government -- but only to act within the boundaries of the law.  Corparations, by their nature, are not answerable to you, to me, or to society as a whole. Most of the time, shareholders only demand the highest profits possible, so everything a corporation does is geared toward that.  If the shareholders of Exxon demand that the company forego immediate profits in favor of investment in alternative energy, well, that WOULD be a huge story.  

    by coffeetalk on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:29:21 AM PDT

    •  I Don't Disagree, Should Have Stressed This More

      If I was a huge Exxon shareholder I'd be pissed as well. Somebody (one or multiple firms) are going to invest in R&D and create another energy alternative that is both effective and profitable.

      Right now the non-oil options are not as "great" as many would like us to think. Basically the cost to produce a kilowatt of power with oil/coal is cheaper than with solar or wind. It is as simple as that.

      And as a consumer I will admit that I might not go to an alternative energy, if I had the option, if my cheaper options was oil/coal.

      But at some point that is going to change. And when the tipping point starts to leans toward another energy resource, well I am not sure I'd want to stay a major shareholder of Exxon for a whole lot longer.

      by webranding on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:34:52 AM PDT

  •  My family and I hold Exxon shares

    Not many around 1400 shares total among 5 of us but believe me - we are pissed.  What I'm waiting for is some regulation to come in eliminating the ability to "proxy" votes and to require at least 67% of outstanding shares be cast/voted towards certain things (Executive pay/bonus), long term R&D, etc.  

    Only by making shareholders take some responsibility for the companies they invest in will we make the companies take some responsibility in the world they operate in.  Now executives are only looking short term to drive their bonuses and exit payouts - shareholders planning to retire someday would force longer term planning if they had the ability and responsibility to actually participate in such votes.

    by hedgerml on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:40:47 AM PDT

•  NOW THIS brings me to tears.

  Maybe we will wake up and save our planet and our species.
  Oh please God!!!

  by empathy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:22:40 AM PDT

  •  You're hoping ExxonMobil will

    save our planet and species? Fugetaboutit.

    I suspect even as the Rockefellers are pushing for the change in attitude, they're buying up parcels of land in places around the world where they're being told by a bushel of experts, climate change will have the least effect - and fortifying it accordingly.

    These people aren't thinking of you and you're species, they're thinking of their own.

    What's the point of passing along all those gazillions of billions of dollars if there's no international playgrounds left for their heirs to spend it in?

    by Pescadero Bill on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:17:44 AM PDT

    •  No, I am not counting on

      Exxon Mobil to save the planet.  But if there is this kind of effective pressure finally being applied to one of the most recalcitrant entities on the planet, maybe there is hope.  Because if even that huge ship of...vileness is being forced to turn around, maybe there is hope.

      by empathy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:43:25 AM PDT

•  If you think...

  The Rockefellers are even remotely interested in the "good of the people" you are sorely mistaken...There is always some underlying personal ambition when it involves a Rockefeller, ALWAYS.

  by NoCryingInPoltics on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:32:43 AM PDT

  •  The Rockefeller family member I know

    ... is passionately devoted to solar energy. Her concern is the well-being of the planet and of humanity. She is a very sincere, caring person. I know, I have felt it.

    Making a killing while civilization crashes is not a good long-term business strategy. It is entirely possible that "the Rockefellers" understand this.

    by DBunn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:03:26 AM PDT

    •  Yeah?

      And when the climate crashes will she willingly stay out here and fry/freeze with the rest of us, or will she scurry on down the the Rochefeller's Run (couldn't resist) that the family was having built without her knowing?

      by Pescadero Bill on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:34:11 AM PDT

      •  When/if the climate crashes

        ... it will be bad for the rich as well as for the rest of us. Some rich people know that, just like some of us don't know it.

        by DBunn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:23:36 AM PDT

  •  not necessarily true

    There is a whole movement of boomer-age heirs of gazillionaires turning their wealth toward good causes. The Haymarket Fund in Boston, which funds truly progressive work, includes many. John Robbins, heir to the Baskin-Robbins ice cream fortune, writes good books damning the meat & dairy industry and advocating vegan diets. I don't know these Rockefeller descendants, but without knowing more, I wouldn't question their sincerity.

    Of course it's also true that continuing down the oil-oil-only-and-always-oil route isn't a long-term success strategy.

    by rugbymom on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:12:57 AM PDT

•  ehh

  There's only so much oil on the planet, and pretty soon it's going to either be gone or cost so much to get out that it won't be worthwhile.  If a company like Exxon dies a slow death because it was too dumb to see more than a couple of years in the future, I'm fine with it.  It would serve them right.

  General theme of the world right now (business, politics, etc.) - change or get left behind.

  by Ickey shuffle on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:37:43 AM PDT

•  Billions and Billions of Windfall Profits....

  How does this news matter to me?  Will Exxon stop despoiling the environment?  Will they use more of those fantastic profits to explore alternative energy sources?

  Most likely, Exxon will continue to fund bogus "research" that "casts doubt" on Global Warming.  Research that Sean Hannity puts on his show every chance he can.

  I see Exxon as the Big Oil Problem.  I want to see action that helps our country.....not merely rearranging the chairs at the Corporate Table.

  by Trial Lawyer Richard on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:38:29 AM PDT

•  Exxon shareholders holding their execs' feet to

  the fire is the only way that this particular company will change.  It may not 'help the planet' in any grand sense but anything that makes an oil company acknowledge reality is a good thing.

  While we can't expect Exxon to become a leader in alternate energy overnight, if at all, the fact that the Rockefellers and other large shareholders are looking to the future is interesting.  Even if that interest is motivated in part by preservation of their investment, it's a step in the right direction.

  by gardenkitty on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:31:21 AM PDT

•  The Invisible Hand is strangling you

  Granted, it's been strangling us for several thousand years, but now it's beginning to turn against its erstwhile masters.

  Go ahead, Exxon: I could put up with a green energy infrastructure controlled by the likes of you ... it's the green part that matters to me.

  by Visceral on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:34:15 AM PDT