- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Financial firms lead shareholder rebellion against ExxonMobil climate change policies
Posted on 6/1/17 at 7:06 am to CollegeFBRules
Posted on 6/1/17 at 7:06 am to CollegeFBRules
quote:
an economy beyond oil.
Maybe someone can come up with other uses for hydrocarbons besides transportation fuel.
Plastic, lubricants, fabric, soap, fertilizer, just spitballing here.
1
Posted on 6/1/17 at 7:15 am to reverendotis
quote:
Maybe someone can come up with other uses for hydrocarbons besides transportation fuel.
Plastic, lubricants, fabric, soap, fertilizer, just spitballing here.
Exactly. Fossil fuels have been the best thing that has happened for human health and the environment. The Earth has "greened" and life improved over the last 70 years or so, not in spite of fossil fuels, but because of fossil fuels.
Posted on 6/1/17 at 7:17 am to CollegeFBRules
quote:That honestly is such a distant horizon issue that it would not be a justifiable shareholder move.
barring some change in fundamental operation for an economy beyond oil
Trust me though, in addition to fiduciary duty, Blackrock is about as far from an altruistic entity as there is on WallSt. If anything of the sort appears to be going down, it's because Larry Fink and Co are holding large and (in the face of fracking) financially unstable clean energy assets.
Still a jeopardizing position, but one much more survivable at least in terms of Black Rock investors.
Posted on 6/1/17 at 7:27 am to CollegeFBRules
I don't like activist investors.
Posted on 6/1/17 at 7:32 am to Janky
quote:
I don't like activist investors
What the frick is an activist investor?
A majority group of share holders are asking for an answer to the company that they own.
Why is that a problem?
This post was edited on 6/1/17 at 7:33 am
Posted on 6/1/17 at 7:37 am to mahdragonz
They are trying to influence how management runs the company.
Posted on 6/1/17 at 7:39 am to Janky
quote:
They are trying to influence how management runs the company.
Um...I don't think you understand how businesses work.
The shareholders are the bosses of management.
They work for the shareholders.
Posted on 6/1/17 at 7:49 am to mahdragonz
Uhh, I know exactly how it works and they were hired to run the company as they see fit to maximize shareholder value. If the shareholders don't like it they can have the board fire them.
Posted on 6/1/17 at 7:57 am to Janky
quote:
They are trying to influence how management runs the company.
Already addressed.
This post was edited on 6/1/17 at 7:58 am
Posted on 6/1/17 at 7:59 am to Janky
quote:
They are trying to influence how management runs the company.
Dude they own the majority of the company.
Posted on 6/1/17 at 8:00 am to Janky
quote:
I don't like activist investors.
Vanguard is an "activist" investor? What is that?
This post was edited on 6/1/17 at 8:01 am
Posted on 6/1/17 at 8:02 am to Janky
quote:
Uhh, I know exactly how it works and they were hired to run the company as they see fit to maximize shareholder value. If the shareholders don't like it they can have the board fire them.
There is no rule that management must maximize shareholder value. The shareholders make the calls.
Posted on 6/1/17 at 8:08 am to Tchefuncte Tiger
quote:
Already addressed.
Duly noted.
The single biggest job of a CEO of a publically held company is to maximize shareholder value.
Also, management does not answer to shareholders, they answer to the board.
I am out.
This post was edited on 6/1/17 at 8:11 am
Posted on 6/1/17 at 8:16 am to CollegeFBRules
The reason the large shareholders are for this is simple.
ALL regulations favors large established corporations and serves to thin out the smaller players and bar entry to new ones, every single fricking time.
Large corps use onerous regulation as a protection and pass the cost to the consumer.
Think about a few of the following
Can you produce a car at home and sell it anymore?
How about your own sweet carbonated beverage?
If you wish to produce electricity and sell it are you allowed?
Can you even raise a cow and butcher it to sell the meat?
The answer to all of them and most any other is a resounding no due to protectionist regulations disguised as health and safety that does little other than protect huge business interest.
These folks know they will pass the cost to you and it effectively prevents new players from joining the market.
ALL regulations favors large established corporations and serves to thin out the smaller players and bar entry to new ones, every single fricking time.
Large corps use onerous regulation as a protection and pass the cost to the consumer.
Think about a few of the following
Can you produce a car at home and sell it anymore?
How about your own sweet carbonated beverage?
If you wish to produce electricity and sell it are you allowed?
Can you even raise a cow and butcher it to sell the meat?
The answer to all of them and most any other is a resounding no due to protectionist regulations disguised as health and safety that does little other than protect huge business interest.
These folks know they will pass the cost to you and it effectively prevents new players from joining the market.
Posted on 6/1/17 at 9:02 am to CollegeFBRules
quote:
Curious about the opinions of the board on this. When major investment firms start joining with state pension funds to influence major corporations to take action on climate change, you're not discussing fringe studies conducted by lab rats, you are dealing with real world implications of the science of climate change having an impact on the economy.
Does this trend disturb you guys in any way?
considering it isn't based on science nor facts, it should disturb everyone. Just because a group believes something doesn't make it true.
Posted on 6/1/17 at 9:06 am to mahdragonz
quote:
The science indicates climate change is happening and investors want to know how Exxon will address that risk.
Lol at 'the science'
Posted on 6/1/17 at 9:08 am to Dale51
quote:
Big business buying into it does not validate a bullshite hoax like "climate change". Snake oil salesmen.
True believer, them scientist and uppity businessmen aint got nothin on you man.
Posted on 6/1/17 at 10:12 am to cahoots
quote:Not sure if serious, but since it's been asked twice here:
an "activist" investor? What is that?
An activist investor/shareholder is one using an equity stake in a corporation to put public pressure on its management, often to take the company in a different direction than management deems prudent.
This post was edited on 6/1/17 at 10:13 am
Posted on 6/1/17 at 12:34 pm to CollegeFBRules
quote:
the Exxon vote showed that climate concerns were gaining ground in the business world.
Lol.
They aren't concerned about climate. They are concerned about increasing regs to reduce competition in the name of climate concerns to drive up oil prices and corner the market
Posted on 6/1/17 at 1:11 pm to deltaland
quote:
They aren't concerned about climate. They are concerned about increasing regs to reduce competition in the name of climate concerns to drive up oil prices and corner the market
Again, this wasn't a vote for what the Exxon board of directors wanted, this was a vote forced on the company by investment firms on behalf of shareholders.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News