American Energy Partners Business Practices (Aubrey McClendon)

[Just the facts]

So, HOW a company's leadership acts and it ethics are no matter as long as people you favor are benefitted? That is your sense of ethics? Plundering small investors who invested in good faith and their assets being directed for personal use is okay with you if the loot is spent in OKC? That's an odd sense of how business and society should work.

Who are you talking about doing the plundering, the CEO or the uber-rich hedge fund managers? Do you ever wonder where a rich investor actually gets the money from?

[Rover]

Who are you talking about doing the plundering, the CEO or the uber-rich hedge fund managers? Do you ever wonder where a rich investor actually gets the money from?

I know you don't think this way, but most rich investors get there by making smart investments in well run companies. They supply needed capital and liquidity in the capital markets. They fuel growth that puts millions of people to work. It is basic. Many rich investors got there by studying capital markets, management, markets, economics, world trade patterns, law, etc.

[metro]

Who are you talking about doing the plundering, the CEO or the uber-rich hedge fund managers? Do you ever wonder where a rich investor actually gets the money from?

when did you become a liberal? You're posts have taken a 180 as of late.

[Just the facts]

when did you become a liberal? You're posts have taken a 180 as of late.

LOL - I am not a liberal by any stretch of the imagination. I am a student of the Austrian School of Economics. The problem is Wall Street has become a "most favored industry" be decree from Washington DC. Why should Wall Street get preferential treatment when their practitioners produce nothing? I say let Wall Street compete in the market place for dollars like every other industry. Americans shouldn’t be coerced into handing over billions of dollars every week so Wall Street hedge fund managers can rape and pillage local companies just so they can make a quick profit. Greed IS NOT capitalism.

Now I am very happy to say that more and more people are figuring this out, and many of them have the resources to do something about it. Just this week the founder of Barnes and Noble said the activist investors have destroyed his company so he is looking to take it private again. The same thing is happening with Best Buy and as mentioned before - Dell. I say good. Put people back in charge that have a long-term vision for growth and sustainability instead of people who trade stocks in nano-seconds.

Three's a Trend: Best Buy, Barnes & Noble, Dell Founders Look to Take Companies Private - DailyFinance

It isn't easy running a public company. You need to please investors every three months. You have to be transparent about your operations. Analysts pry into every detail of your operation during quarterly earnings calls

Privatization makes long-term planning easier. There's no longer the need to manage the company so it hits a certain sales or profit number every quarter. A company is freer to take chances -- and that's very important as Dell, Best Buy, and Barnes & Noble try to stage turnarounds.

[Rover]

I love these death bed conversions by these founders who after years of reaping the benefit of the capital market and making millions, if not billions, now
"see the light" and want to go private. The question is, would they ever have grown without the benefit of the liquid capital markets provided by our financial system? In most cases, NO. Capital provided by institutions aggregating the investment interests of many individuals provide capital in the amounts necessary for significant growth.

Broad brush assertions about investors and institutions and labeling them all as greed mongers shows a very shallow understanding of economics. Greed is greed. There are greedy individuals, greedy officers of institutions, greedy politicians, greedy neighbors, greedy kids.

By the way, when Dell goes "private", it just means that individual shareholders who suffered by the bad decisions managing Dell (almost to the point of bankruptcy) will now be taken out in favor of Dell and his financial allies, including Microsoft and a group of institutional investors and banks. So much for "private". They will take undervalued assets away from the shareholders and capitalize on it for their "private" gains. I am not sure this is the model for great capitalism.

[Dubya61]

By the way, when Dell goes "private", it just means that individual shareholders who suffered by the bad decisions managing Dell (almost to the point of bankruptcy) will now be taken out in favor of Dell and his financial allies, including Microsoft and a group of institutional investors and banks. So much for "private". They will take undervalued assets away from the shareholders and capitalize on it for their "private" gains. I am not sure this is the model for great capitalism.

I don't think that ANYBODY every inferred that investing was risk-free. I honestly don't know why business institutions with a capable strong leader would choose to go public in the first place. The lure of easy money is there, but surely these people know that with every share of stock sold, you're losing some ownership of the company. I think that the new restrictions placed on public companies lately (to protect lazy and ignorant investors, to be sure) has soured many public companies on their decision.

[Rover]

They go public usually to raise the large amount of capital it takes to fulfill their growth ambitions, or to cash out. By issuing common stock they don't have to pay interest on debt or pay dividends if they choose not to. Going public satisfies real and honest ambitions and is a valuable tool in capitalism. It lets lots of small investors share in economic growth.

[Dubya61]

I understand exactly what you're saying, but when you need capital and make a decision to not pay interest, you're selling ownership (in shares) of your company. Go to that well often enough, and you've sold control of your company as well. Do that and then mismanage your publicly-traded company in any fashion, you suddenly realize that you're the minority share owner.

[Rover]

Yes. If your ambitions exceed your means, you need partners or a willing lender. If they invest or loan based on promises made or implied, or simply with the expectation of management performing legally, ethically, etc., and it is proven they aren't acting so or in good faith, then the breach has to be remedied.

[Just the facts]

The problem arises when your willing accomplicaces sell their shares to someone who isn't willing to wait. Maybe a good law would be if you buy during an IPO you have to hold the stock 5 years and then it can only be resold a total of 3 times. After the 3rd time the only person you can sell to is the company itself. That way investors are in the game because they believe in the product or service, not to make a fast $1.

[Dubya61]

I like that. Would it be currently legal for a company to place such restrictions on their stock?

[Just the facts]

I like that. Would it be currently legal for a company to place such restrictions on their stock?

I did when I ran a small company. We had a shareholders agreement that had to be signed before stock could be issued and we had a poison pill clause in the corporate bylaws that gave the company and exisiting stock holders first option to purchase any stock that went up for sale. To ensure a fair price was offered if I agreed to buy all of your stock from you then you had the choice to sell to me or buy all of my stock for the same price per share. That way no one could low-ball and any deal was fair to everyone. Of course, we were a private company so I didn't have to care what the other shareholder thought. If they didn't like it they could buy me out and since I had 32 million shares I wish they would have .

[BoulderSooner]

The problem arises when your willing accomplicaces sell their shares to someone who isn't willing to wait. Maybe a good law would be if you buy during an IPO you have to hold the stock 5 years and then it can only be resold a total of 3 times. After the 3rd time the only person you can sell to is the company itself. That way investors are in the game because they believe in the product or service, not to make a fast $1.

you are now pretty quick to want to restrict rights

[Just the facts]

you are now pretty quick to want to restrict rights

Well, when you see something is having a negative effect what should you do, just keep doing it? Maybe a tax on trades would be a good start. It would raise a lot of money real fast and curb the "make a buck in a nano-second" traders.

[BoulderSooner]

Well, when you see something is having a negative effect what should you do, just keep doing it? Maybe a tax on trades would be a good start. It would raise a lot of money real fast and curb the "make a buck in a nano-second" traders.

you act like company's get no benefit from the capital markets ... they all have a choice to go public or not .. the free market is very good for companies most of the time ... and if a company really wants to keep "control" they can do what google did and have super shares that have more voting control .. New Share Class Gives Google Founders Tighter Control - NYTimes.com

[Just the facts]

you act like company's get no benefit from the capital markets ... they all have a choice to go public or not .. the free market is very good for companies most of the time ... and if a company really wants to keep "control" they can do what google did and have super shares that have more voting control .. New Share Class Gives Google Founders Tighter Control - NYTimes.com

A company only benefits from the IPO so the benefit is pretty short lived. As more companies are going private I think it is clear indication that the short term gain isn't worth the long term hassel. Do you wonder why Google implemented the super shares? Answer, because they knew their company had to stay innovative and if they had to spend all their time concerned about their stock price they wouldn't be able to do that - see Apple. What is the biggest concern at Apple right now. It isn't what new product they are coming out with - it is their declining stock price and what they are going to do about it.

[Dubya61]

you are now pretty quick to want to restrict rights

I assume you mean this restricts certain activities of the stockholder through a purchase covenant. Such a covenant does nothing to restrict anybody's civil rights. You weren't talking about civil rights, eh?

[BoulderSooner]

A company only benefits from the IPO so the benefit is pretty short lived. As more companies are going private I think it is clear indication that the short term gain isn't worth the long term hassel. Do you wonder why Google implemented the super shares? Answer, because they knew their company had to stay innovative and if they had to spend all their time concerned about their stock price they wouldn't be able to do that - see Apple. What is the biggest concern at Apple right now. It isn't what new product they are coming out with - it is their declining stock price and what they are going to do about it.

M and A goes in cycles and always has .. there is not a long term trend

[onthestrip]

This was argued about a few pages back I believe. Probably safe to say Aubrey doesn't have loads of cash lying around.

Aubrey McClendon falls off Forbes billionaire list

[Praedura]

Curious as to what Aubrey is up to?

Oklahoma City real estate market braces for Chesapeake property sales | News OK

A newly-formed McClendon company, Arcadia Capital LLC recently took out a $200,000 building permit
for the sixth floor of the Harvey Parkway Building, 301 NW 63rd, which Chesapeake owned until January.

Filings with the Oklahoma Secretary of State show Arcadia Capital and McClendon Energy Operating LLC
were formed by the law firm of McClendon's longtime friend and attorney, Shannon Self, in the weeks
before and after he announced his upcoming April 1 departure.

Of course, the bulk of the article is about Chesapeake's real estate holdings -- acquisitions, and now, selling off.

I do like this part:

Kurt Foreman, executive vice president of economic development at the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber,
believes Chesapeake's surplus office properties won't be empty for long.

“I don't think it will create a glut on the market,” Foreman said. “We heard the same concerns when Devon
announced its tower. There are few pockets of space downtown now based on what we're seeing.

We have a high number of companies from out of state wanting to come into Oklahoma City
and we have a challenge finding large amounts of existing space for them.”

That's an encouraging statement.

[Pete]

Aubrey still owns tons of land in Arcadia / East Edmond and of course has an interest in many of the Chesapeake wells, so there is a lot to manage even without him taking on anything new.

But it's interesting he's taking a full floor in the Harvey Parkway building. That's about 16,000 square feet of office space that could house a great number of employees.

[simbaokc]

Since everyone in Oklahoma City looks at the glass as half empty, beating up Aubrey at every chance and being critical of all things CHK and Aubrey, I think the glass is half full and we owe Aubrey and CHK for the resurgent foundation they have built in OKC. Not long ago, those half empty thinkers were talking about how Aubrey was crazy by not hedging 2013 gas prices...so he steps down and the new sheriff in town hedges the gas...now look what the analyst are saying as they downgrade the stock..."Analyst Tim Rezvan said in a research note to clients that Chesapeake’s current 2013 gas hedges “dampen exposure to resurgent natural gas prices.” He added that shares are “more than fully valued” at the current price.

Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2013/03/19/chesapeake-energy-shares-fall-on-downgrade-from-stern-agee/#ixzz2O1crmko2"

Oh Snap, was Aubrey right???!!!! Go fish!

[metro]

Bold statement saying Everyone in OKC is pessimist, I'd bet those odds and say not even half are.

[OKCTalker]

Thoughtful people tend to be of two minds on Aubrey McClendon: He is a bright, charismatic, visionary builder of a company and industry, and has played a large role in other significant developments (Thunder, rowing, 63rd/Western real estate development). His is legendary for his philanthropy.

But he can be faulted for his poor stewardship of CHK shareholder money, for grossly overpaying for oil & gas leases and real estate around the corporate campus, for tearing down a substantial amount of that real estate, and for failing to profitably build/build out/lease what was built (Classen Curve, Triangle, NH Plaza). He may also be guilty of price-fixing and conspiracy - the Michigan attorney general and USDOJ will determine that.

And his next chapter is about to begin.

[Pete]

Tom Ward wrote a letter to the Oklahoman in support of what Aubrey has done for OKC:

Consider the community support that Aubrey engineered during his time at Chesapeake. In 2012, Chesapeake donated $32 million to charitable organizations and projects throughout its operating areas nationwide, supporting community development, health, education and social services. In Oklahoma alone, that number totaled $24 million. Companywide United Way contributions were $6.3 million in 2012, with $5.5 million raised for the United Way’s Central Oklahoma chapter alone, by far the largest single contribution to the $22.2 million campaign.

McClendon?s vision has positive impact | News OK