Posts
Many Americans are struggling to make ends meet because of $75 and $100 trips to the gas station.
Executives at oil companies are getting rich because of those same trips. And what do those CEOs have to say for themselves?
"It's not our fault" -- or something along those lines.
Big Oil CEOs are pulling down record pay even as their companies tacitly concede they didn't do anything extra to earn it. When anyone asks why gasoline costs $4.50 a gallon, they cite factors beyond their control, such as speculators or global demand.
That doesn't stop these CEOs from cashing in. Their pay hinges largely on two things: profit and stock price. It's no surprise that an oil company's profit would rise with the price of oil, as would its stock price. The CEO doesn't have to be a genius. A pulse will suffice.
"They are getting a gift for being in the right place and being lucky," said Mark Van Clieaf of MVC Associates International, a consulting company that advises boards on pay for performance.
And don't buy the pleas of innocence. These CEOs negotiated pay packages that compensate them with millions of dollars during normal years -- and during times like now, stock awards propel their pay into the stratosphere.
Chief executives at big oil companies such as ExxonMobil (XOM, news, msgs), Chevron (CVX, news, msgs) and ConocoPhillips (COP, news, msgs) earned from $15 million to $21.7 million last year, well above the $9.9 million median for CEOs at S&P 500 ($INX) companies, according to The Corporate Library. Plus, these energy company CEOs are now sitting on hundreds of millions of dollars worth of incentive stock and options grants.
They drink your milkshake
ExxonMobil chief Rex Tillerson made $21.7 million last year, according to Equilar, an executive compensation research firm.More from MSN Money
Why did Tillerson make so much more than the average CEO last year? By the company's own admission, you can't attribute it to his management skills. Instead, Tillerson realized an enormous amount of wealth because much of his pay was linked to short-term metrics such as increases in ExxonMobil's stock price and net income, factors driven primarily by the price of oil.
After all, when it comes to the price of oil or gasoline at the pump, Tillerson or ExxonMobil have little control, said J. Stephen Simon, a company senior vice president and board member, when he testified in May before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
"It's not our profitability in this business that's driving the higher price that consumers pay. It's the raw materials that we have to purchase on the open market to produce those products for our customers," said Simon, blaming scarcity and geopolitical uncertainty.
ExxonMobil said executive pay isn't all linked to short-term metrics, though. Last year, for example, 60% of Tillerson's compensation consisted of restricted stock that wouldn't vest for 10 years or until retirement, whichever period was longer.
Video on MSN Money
An oil-price reality checkIt's popular to blame big oil-price gains on conspiracies, but the truth is that fundamentals are to blame, MSN Money's Jim Jubak says. Production is lagging, and that weak oil supply is driving up prices.
The company also links some portion of executive pay to strategy development and to improvements to safety, health and environmental impact. But it didn't say how much.
At Chevron, chief David O'Reilly made $15.7 million last year, according to Equilar, including $3.6 million in bonus pay. O'Reilly had $26.3 million worth of unvested stock grants at the end of the year.
Like Tillerson, much of O'Reilly's salary is linked to short-term metrics that include earnings and the movement of the stock price.
Chevron Vice Chairman Peter Robertson, in essence, conceded O'Reilly's bonus pay had little or nothing to do with his management skills. That's because, he said, Chevron isn't to blame for the soaring cost of crude in the world markets. Yet it's those same high crude prices that helped Chevron perform so well last year, leading to executive bonuses.
Chevron said O'Reilly got no increase in base pay last year and that it links executive pay to company performance relative to peers. However, the company makes it difficult to judge how challenging this hurdle is because it does not reveal how much the company has to outperform peers for Chevron executives to get bonuses.
Robertson drew laughs during the Judiciary Committee hearing when he said he couldn't remember whether he made more than $4 million. "You know, if I made over $4 million a year, I probably wouldn't remember either," Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., responded.
ConocoPhillips CEO James Mulva made $15 million last year, including a $3.4 million bonus. He also had at least $234 million worth of unvested performance stock, thanks to an increase in the company's stock price to $90 a share from $68 during 2007.
Like Chevron and Exxon Mobil, ConocoPhillips readily concedes Mulva benefited from rising oil prices. His pay is tied to shareholder return, return on capital and income per barrel of oil, factors that are affected by the price of oil.
Profiteering concerns
Part of the problem is that U.S. oil companies aren't investing enough in the millions of acres of "untapped" lease holdings they have in the U.S., said Benjamin Cardin, D-Md., one of the senators who questioned energy company execs in the Judiciary Committee hearing in May. He also thinks they fail to put enough money into developing renewable-energy resources. Spending more in both of these areas could increase the security of the country's energy supplies or bring down the cost of energy in the long run, he said.Cardin believes legislation may be needed to impose a "windfall" tax if oil companies fail to invest more in the U.S. and in renewable energy.
"They like the status quo," he said. "They are very happy with this. If energy prices go up even more, they are going to make even more money. I do think there is a legitimate concern about top management profiteering from the economic vulnerabilities of our country."
Exploration investments often take many years to pay off, said consultant Van Clieaf, whereas the executives' pay packages are typically tied to relatively short, three-year averages. "There is a disconnect," he said.
To fix the problem, he said, more compensation should be linked to long-term factors such as the average growth in proven reserves over three to five years, measures of how much is spent on exploration and whether it pans out, or consistent increases in the percentage of profits from renewable-energy sources.
Another part of the problem is that the rewards oil execs are enjoying now were set up years ago, when few people thought oil prices would go up so much.
"I don't think anybody ran a sensitively analysis and asked what would happen if oil went to $100 or $150 a barrel," Cardin said. "If they had, they would have said, 'Oh, shoot, that executive is going to get that much?'"
The energy companies all told the Judiciary Committee that they are doing their part.
Chevron's Robertson said his company's capital budget for new energy projects this year is $23 billion, triple what the company spent in 2004. "We're an investing machine," he said. He also said Chevron is a leading producer of geothermal energy.
ConocoPhillips' Lowe said his company has reinvested 106% of its income on average over the past six years to increase oil and gas supplies, expand refining capacity, and develop renewable fuels.
ExxonMobil's Simon said the company had invested $355 billion in new energy projects over the past five years, "which is more than we earned during this same period." But it's still not a huge number compared with its $1.7 trillion in revenues during that period.
Chevron does appear to be reinvesting in development at a decent rate. But in the cases of ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil, I'm not buying it. The latter two are giving most of their newfound wealth back to shareholders rather than deploying it to find new reserves.
That's good for shareholders, including the well-heeled CEOs. But it doesn't do much to bring down energy prices by increasing production levels.
At the time of publication, Michael Brush did not own or control shares of any company mentioned in this column.
No comments:
Post a Comment