- 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: Exxon Suspending 401K 6% Match in October
Posted on 8/5/20 at 8:56 pm to Ghost of Colby
Posted on 8/5/20 at 8:56 pm to Ghost of Colby
And?
BTW, the vast majority of shares are owned by institutions.
BTW, the vast majority of shares are owned by institutions.
0
Posted on 8/5/20 at 8:58 pm to Matt225
quote:
Cutting workers benefits before cutting dividends.
Let's be honest, most Exxon employees (oil majors in general) have most of their networth in company stock anyway. It's dumb as hell, but it's unfortunately very common.
Cutting the dividend would hurt employees more than suspending the match in those cases.
This post was edited on 8/5/20 at 9:09 pm
Posted on 8/5/20 at 9:00 pm to castorinho
quote:
market reacted positively to BP cutting theirs.
Investors need to realize that cutting the dividend is good for the long term health of the company.
Now obviously if you're in retirement and invest for the income, then yeah a cut doesn't help you.
Everyone and their brother knew BP would cut.
Market reacted very poorly to Shell's cut because it was frankly a shock to most.
Posted on 8/5/20 at 9:01 pm to lsusa
quote:Because we're not socialists and understand how capitalism works.
How could anybody down vote this???
quote:The workers are free to leave whenever they want. A loss is not a 'modest profit'. Those MFers can be you if you become a stockholder.
The MFers made insane profits. Tough times hit, and instead of just making modest profits and showing loyalty to the workers they say f—- off.
quote:Because companies survive by not being a charity. Are you really this dense?
How can anyone who actually works for a living be ok with this?
Posted on 8/5/20 at 9:01 pm to slackster
Cutting the match is seen as a good thing as a shareholder. Just liking cutting workforce. Less expenses means means more profit.
Posted on 8/5/20 at 9:02 pm to slackster
quote:Don't forgot about the lucrative stock options available to those who are making all of the decisions.
Let's be honest, most Exxon (oil majors in general) have most of their networth in company stock anyway.
Posted on 8/5/20 at 9:04 pm to Bayou_Tiger_225
That is how every public company is structured.
Posted on 8/5/20 at 9:07 pm to Janky
quote:I know that
That is how every public company is structured.
but clearly a couple people in this thread didn't. Posted on 8/5/20 at 9:10 pm to Janky
quote:
Cutting the match is seen as a good thing as a shareholder. Just liking cutting workforce. Less expenses means means more profit.
Yeah agreed. This decision is probably a net positive for the majority of Exxon employees. That was my point.
Posted on 8/5/20 at 9:15 pm to Bayou_Tiger_225
quote:
It remains to be seen if their investment in renewable energy will pay off, but in the short term a dividend cut combined with massive losses doesn't look good.
I think the point is that borrowing money to pay dividends isn’t responsible. If a company had enough cash on hand to sustain the payout during a negative quarter, then great. But the concern is that some of these oil majors are going to cripple themselves in the long run.
Posted on 8/5/20 at 9:15 pm to lostinbr
quote:
They just reported a billion dollar loss in Q2.
How many times have they profited 20+ times that in a quarter?? More often than you think.
Posted on 8/5/20 at 9:16 pm to lostinbr
quote:
I still don’t understand what rules are being broken here?
That's why I said skirting and not breaking.
Posted on 8/5/20 at 9:17 pm to fightin tigers
quote:
That's why I said skirting and not breaking.
Ok, what rules are being “skirted”?
Posted on 8/5/20 at 9:19 pm to lostinbr
Create a list of people you want to layoff.
Suddenly make them underperformers.
Fired for underperforming.
No layoffs announced.
Suddenly make them underperformers.
Fired for underperforming.
No layoffs announced.
Posted on 8/5/20 at 9:19 pm to Trout Bandit
Where do you think that money is going?
Come on. Play along with me
Come on. Play along with me
Posted on 8/5/20 at 9:23 pm to fightin tigers
Anyone who has worked at a large company in the fat times knows there are plenty of underperformers who are only there because times are good.
Posted on 8/5/20 at 9:23 pm to Matt225
Wow, buckle up.
Posted on 8/5/20 at 9:24 pm to Janky
quote:
Management’s number one priority is to enhance shareholder value
As it should be.
Posted on 8/5/20 at 9:29 pm to fightin tigers
quote:
Create a list of people you want to layoff.
Suddenly make them underperformers.
Fired for underperforming.
No layoffs announced.
I get all of that. I just don’t know what rule says they have to announce layoffs.
In fact, I would argue that most companies try not to formally announce layoffs.
The exception being WARN Act requirements, which probably don’t apply here.
This post was edited on 8/5/20 at 9:30 pm
Posted on 8/5/20 at 9:31 pm to lostinbr
Termination vs Layoff has more consequences than just a PR announcement
Page 4 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News