Dividends versus 400 Million Dollar Retirement Package.

[Boojatta]

What was the legal minimum that Exxon could have given to its retiring chairman Lee Raymond?

Why didn't Exxon begin by giving that legal minimum to Lee Raymond?

Exxon could have then written down the number $400 million, subtracted the legal minimum retirement package, and divided the result by the number of shares outstanding.

Each shareholder could have chosen, for his or her share of that money, how much to take as a special dividend and how much, if any, to give to Lee Raymond.

Of course, a dividend amount of less than a cent would not be paid to a shareholder, but would be held in trust for the shareholder.

[unblock]

1. um, the legal minimum was $400MM.

the question is more, "why did they sign such an outrageous contract in the first place?"

[DainBramaged]

2. They are all in collusion with each other

Lets say the amount for a special dividend is $350,000,000. How many shares are outstanding?

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:KhGyu4UxH3cJ:www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Newsroom/Publications/shareholder_publications/c_annual_99/23.pdf+Outstanding+shares+of+Exxon-Mobil&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&lr=lang_en

According to my search (Outstanding shares of Exxon-Mobil) Exxon issued ONE BILLION (1,000,000,000) shares after purchasing/converting all mobil shares by 1999

so if my calculator works, each share holder gets 35 cents, less the costs of administrating the special dividend.

I'd rather see them lower the price of gas by 35 cents a gallon for one day nationwide.

[Boojatta]

3. Who are "they" in "They are all in collusion with each other"?

If people want to give their own money to Lee Raymond as a gift, then no law can stop them. My question is: why not let each shareholder make his or her own decision?

[DainBramaged]

5. How about letting the shareholders go fuck themselves

It's ALWAYS about the shareholders, which is why companies like Costco succeed because they make decisions for the long term viability of the corporation and it's greatest asset, it's employees. Excess profits are excess profits, and when a few control the most necessary commodity next to water, you bet your ass it's collusion (and obscene) to give a bloated elitist nearly half a billion dollars for siting in a chair and watching market forces work.

If the shareholders don't like it, sell off the shares and go bust up a small domestic corporation employing Americans and outsource their jobs just for the fun of it.

[Boojatta]

6. Do purchasers of products care where the products are made?

It's ALWAYS about the shareholders, which is why companies like Costco succeed because they make decisions for the long term viability of the corporation and it's greatest asset, it's employees.

Do you believe that shareholders of a randomly chosen company have more influence on it than the shareholders of Costco have on Costco?

If the shareholders don't like it, sell off the shares...

If they are able to sell the shares, then won't the buyers either already be shareholders or become shareholders when they buy?

...and go bust up a small domestic corporation employing Americans and outsource their jobs just for the fun of it.

Why don't you say that if shareholders don't like outsourcing then they should sell off their shares?

[Boojatta]

7. Are you assuming that there are a billion Exxon shareholders?

so if my calculator works, each share holder gets 35 cents, less the costs of administrating the special dividend.

[eppur_se_muova]

4. Don't need no dividends...gonna get me a hunnert dollars CASH fer gas! nt