View Full Version : American Energy Partners Business Practices (Aubrey McClendon)



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

metro
01-30-2013, 09:18 AM
Obviously we knew Aubrey's days were numbered as CEO, but what if he pulls a Tom Ward, go buys another up-and-coming O&G company, moves it to OKC, and grows it ala Sandridge, although hopefully with better fiscal policy. Think of the impact it could have on OKC including the much revered "mystery tower". Just a thought.

LakeEffect
01-30-2013, 09:46 AM
If he really wants to run things his way, he'd need to have the capital or private additional capital to keep it from going public. He has many other personal investments and companies, so he's bound to try and grow some of them.

BoulderSooner
01-30-2013, 09:49 AM
i would be shocked if AKM doesn't get back in the game so to speak ..

ou48A
01-30-2013, 10:38 AM
It would not be hard for AKM to start buying and selling lessees or even drill them as a junior partner.
There are companies who do exactly this^ and only employ a hand full of employees.
For a billionaire this would only take a minimal amount of money to start.

onthestrip
01-30-2013, 11:04 AM
At this point in his life Im not sure Aubrey would be too keen on being a junior partner or going to work on small time leasing and drilling activities. I can picture him thinking hes a little bigger than that.

ou48A
01-30-2013, 11:32 AM
At this point in his life Im not sure Aubrey would be too keen on being a junior partner or going to work on small time leasing and drilling activities. I can picture him thinking hes a little bigger than that.
Why?
CHK was a junior partner on some projects.
Even the largest corporation in the world XOM is a junior partner on some projects.

This is about making money and not about feelings. AKM knows he needs to be making money so he can make more money so he can make even more money, then he can make the big money. He knows this and he know he has time in his life to do this.

Rover
01-30-2013, 11:36 AM
Seems like there is plenty of acreage of near expiring leases that Aubrey could put together a nice portfolio for a start-up or to buy an existing company to agressively grow. The low gas prices won't last forever and he knows it. Reserves are relatively cheap.

Notice his non-compete is only 6 months. It would take that long to form or negotiate a company. I just can't see AM eating bon-bons and going to Thunder games every night. He is a A+++++ personality.

ou48A
01-30-2013, 11:40 AM
At this point in his life Im not sure Aubrey would be too keen on being a junior partner or going to work on small time leasing and drilling activities. I can picture him thinking hes a little bigger than that.

There are companies who trade on the NYSE who act as near 100% junior partners with their drilling activities and own the rights to leases. Check out NOG.

ou48A
01-30-2013, 11:44 AM
Seems like there is plenty of acreage of near expiring leases that Aubrey could put together a nice portfolio for a start-up or to buy an existing company to agressively grow. The low gas prices won't last forever and he knows it. Reserves are relatively cheap.

Notice his non-compete is only 6 months. It would take that long to form or negotiate a company. I just can't see AM eating bon-bons and going to Thunder games every night. He is a A+++++ personality.

+ He would have the advantage of hopefully of learing that he should not become too over extended.
There are good opportunities for a man of his skills.
I wish him well and future prosperity.

metro
01-30-2013, 11:46 AM
Seems like there is plenty of acreage of near expiring leases that Aubrey could put together a nice portfolio for a start-up or to buy an existing company to agressively grow. The low gas prices won't last forever and he knows it. Reserves are relatively cheap.

Notice his non-compete is only 6 months. It would take that long to form or negotiate a company. I just can't see AM eating bon-bons and going to Thunder games every night. He is a A+++++ personality.

Yep, if you're an entrepreneur, it's in your blood to go out and make the kill so to speak, the thrill of the hunt is what keeps guys like this going.

Rover
01-30-2013, 03:05 PM
Cramer says he will be back in the game.

Cramer Quick Take: Don't Buy Chesapeake on Takeover Rumors - TheStreet (http://www.thestreet.com/story/11827136/1/cramer-quick-take-dont-buy-chesapeake-on-takeover-rumors.html?puc=CNNMONEY&cm_ven=CNNMONEY)

zookeeper
01-30-2013, 03:57 PM
I don't think I would trust him. What he does next may not even be up to him as he's still under federal criminal investigation by the Department of Justice.

DowntownMan
01-30-2013, 04:47 PM
I wonder if Aubrey starts a new company...will he keep it private and not go public that way he doesnt have to answer to shareholders?

Teo9969
01-30-2013, 08:24 PM
I wonder if Aubrey starts a new company...will he keep it private and not go public that way he doesnt have to answer to shareholders?

I'm not saying he couldn't, but he'd be heavily heavily scrutinized if he went public with a new company. He would likely not get any benefit of the doubt. I would think at this stage of the game that he's connected enough that he could build quite a large company without getting shareholders involved.

bombermwc
01-31-2013, 06:39 AM
He's 53, and has a crapton of money. At this ponint, he could happily retire and never work again if he wanted. Since he's decided to get into the whole world of developement lately, i'd be more likely to see him leading a real estate firm for his special projects than anything. No, it won't rake in the cash like his other ventures, but his days of a waterfall of money coming in are over.

However, he has plenty in terms of stock assets as well. He's not going to be running around in an old Chevy pickup folks, so don't start shedding tears. The way he's treated his employees over the years, it's sort of a just desert that he got tossed. All his project-based employment structure was a crock. He thought nothing of laying off (and did) several hundred people at a time because that project was done. What a horrible way to run things.

Just the facts
01-31-2013, 06:49 AM
If he gets into real-estate development I hope he is better at it then the people who were working for him are. If he needs someone to help provide a vision I would like to apply.

Rover
01-31-2013, 07:41 AM
Aubrey's vision in real estate was about building a community around the campus which would offer a lifestyle to attract the best and brightest to the company. He wanted all the employees at all levels to be able to work and live in proximity to the company. I don't believe real estate development is his real love, and it probably moves too slowly for his interest. O&G is big, moves fast and offers huge upsides. Real estate in OKC not so much in comparison.

Teo9969
01-31-2013, 11:18 AM
He's 53, and has a crapton of money. At this ponint, he could happily retire and never work again if he wanted. Since he's decided to get into the whole world of developement lately, i'd be more likely to see him leading a real estate firm for his special projects than anything. No, it won't rake in the cash like his other ventures, but his days of a waterfall of money coming in are over.

However, he has plenty in terms of stock assets as well. He's not going to be running around in an old Chevy pickup folks, so don't start shedding tears. The way he's treated his employees over the years, it's sort of a just desert that he got tossed. All his project-based employment structure was a crock. He thought nothing of laying off (and did) several hundred people at a time because that project was done. What a horrible way to run things.

His days of making a waterfall of money are only over if he's done trying. 53 is not very old for a CEO like AKM. He could build another billion-dollar company before he's 65.

catch22
01-31-2013, 11:22 AM
His days of making a waterfall of money are only over if he's done trying. 53 is not very old for a CEO like AKM. He could build another billion-dollar company before he's 65.

Heck, Larry Nichols is 70 and is just now starting to hand over the keys at Devon. AKM has plenty of time to get another business started, and with his personality, it could be more to save face and make CHK look stupid for firing him. Remember he does have quite the ego.

PhiAlpha
01-31-2013, 04:29 PM
He's 53, and has a crapton of money. At this ponint, he could happily retire and never work again if he wanted. Since he's decided to get into the whole world of developement lately, i'd be more likely to see him leading a real estate firm for his special projects than anything. No, it won't rake in the cash like his other ventures, but his days of a waterfall of money coming in are over.

However, he has plenty in terms of stock assets as well. He's not going to be running around in an old Chevy pickup folks, so don't start shedding tears. The way he's treated his employees over the years, it's sort of a just desert that he got tossed. All his project-based employment structure was a crock. He thought nothing of laying off (and did) several hundred people at a time because that project was done. What a horrible way to run things.

I think you are going way too far on this. If you're talking about something like hiring a bunch of contract landmen to run a leasing or title project and then endind the contract when the project is finished, you are being way over critical. That is standard practice in the oil and gas industry. You hire a bunch of contract workers when you need a bunch of people for a project but do not need them full time. At my company we have hundreds of contract landmen working on projects all the time, but there is a mutual understanding that they may get a call any day to pull the plug and stop all work immediately. That is the life of a contract oil and gas industry employee, it sucks, but they all know the risks. If they don't, they are kidding themselves. Contract employees are just that and when the contract is up, they are unemployed.

As far as full time employees of CHK, the vast majority of friends and family I know over there loved working for AKM. While not the best business manager and very demanding at times, they all say he provided the best working environment, salary, and benefits that they've ever experienced. In fact, I've heard that part of the philosophical differences between AKM and the board that led to him stepping down were related to how much they wanted to reduce the work force. the board wants to cutback on the staff and AKM did not. So you can blast him all day for poor business practices (especially with natural gas prices being so low) because those criticisms are definitely warranted, but its tough to knock how he treated his employees.

zookeeper
01-31-2013, 08:40 PM
I think you are going way too far on this. If you're talking about something like hiring a bunch of contract landmen to run a leasing or title project and then endind the contract when the project is finished, you are being way over critical. That is standard practice in the oil and gas industry. You hire a bunch of contract workers when you need a bunch of people for a project but do not need them full time. At my company we have hundreds of contract landmen working on projects all the time, but there is a mutual understanding that they may get a call any day to pull the plug and stop all work immediately. That is the life of a contract oil and gas industry employee, it sucks, but they all know the risks. If they don't, they are kidding themselves. Contract employees are just that and when the contract is up, they are unemployed.

As far as full time employees of CHK, the vast majority of friends and family I know over there loved working for AKM. While not the best business manager and very demanding at times, they all say he provided the best working environment, salary, and benefits that they've ever experienced. In fact, I've heard that part of the philosophical differences between AKM and the board that led to him stepping down were related to how much they wanted to reduce the work force. the board wants to cutback on the staff and AKM did not. So you can blast him all day for poor business practices (especially with natural gas prices being so low) because those criticisms are definitely warranted, but its tough to knock how he treated his employees.

Do you read the newspapers or watch TV? This has to do with stuff that's got the company under SEC investigation and Aubrey McClendon is personally being investigated for criminal violations, including some potentially very serious crimes, and it has nothing to do with the company wanting to lay off more people than McClendon believes they should.

Also, it's really very easy to treat your employees well when you're doing it as CEO of a public company with shareholder's money. It can make you very popular, but in the long run was it best for those employees? You can't separate the bad business practices from the way he treated the employees, one fed the other. My guess is in 6 months or so many of those same employees would probably argue they would have been better off had he been more responsible.

PhiAlpha
01-31-2013, 10:34 PM
Do you read the newspapers or watch TV? This has to do with stuff that's got the company under SEC investigation and Aubrey McClendon is personally being investigated for criminal violations, including some potentially very serious crimes, and it has nothing to do with the company wanting to lay off more people than McClendon believes they should.

Also, it's really very easy to treat your employees well when you're doing it as CEO of a public company with shareholder's money. It can make you very popular, but in the long run was it best for those employees? You can't separate the bad business practices from the way he treated the employees, one fed the other. My guess is in 6 months or so many of those same employees would probably argue they would have been better off had he been more responsible.

Yes, I'm aware of all of that and I'm very aware of what has been going on there for the last few years from a variety of sources inside the company. If it was just everything you mentioned, he would've been gone 7 months ago when the board was shuffled. AKM didn't want to inact many of the changes the new board suggested and that was the last straw for both parties. Nothing much is going to come of all the crap reported in the media, you can think what you want but don't believe everything you read or see on TV. It turned into a smear campaign then a criminal investigation. AKM's undoing had far more to do with the drop in natural gas prices, betting the company on one comodity, high debt, and the 2008 margin call then anything reported by Reuters. If natural gas hadn't dropped below $7, CHK and AKM wouldn't be plagued by most of the issues facing them today.

In the scheme of things, most of the improvements on campus were a fraction of the cost of the company's drilling budget and comparatively don't cost that much to maintain. Again, the reason for CHK's issues are low commodity prices, not the upkeep of 2 restaurants and a gym. Many of employees that you say would've been better off had he been more responsible probably wouldn't have been employed in the first place if CHK was being run more responsibly. Devon has near the same asset base and less than half the employees as do many other companies. At least many of them had the benefit of employment for 5-10 years or howeve long they were there.

bombermwc
02-01-2013, 06:34 AM
PhiAlpha - Actually, i'm talking about HQ people. He just laid off 125 people in downtown OKC ovenight with no notice to them. The folks that are on-campus fall under the same category. They are known for using people in their "probation" period and tossing them out...basically treating them as temps. I've also been told by people that work there, that they really abuse you and your time as well....expecting you to do 1.5 or 2 people's worth of work on a daily basis, and not be compensated for it. If they simply wouldn't fire people so often, they might get somewhere in that manpower shortage....unless they're just trying to screw people over. I've had friends and family both work there in various areas. Given the stores I've heard, the all-awesome world of CHK seems to be a myth.

Rover
02-01-2013, 07:09 AM
I am sure this is why Fortune/CNN Money every year names them one of the top 100 companies to work for (#18 last year).

I think that sometimes many here in OK are unaware/ignorant of the effort it takes to succeed at top companies in most highly competitive companies. Most are not 40 hr per week jobs. You can't have all the perks and go home at 5. And security only comes after proven results and always subject to business levels. Many industries fluctuate heavily by projects and work levels.

When you get that $150,000 a yr job that is no pressure, full of perks, fun, and secure as long as you want it.....stay there, because there aren't that many. Lol

Just the facts
02-01-2013, 07:51 AM
Sadly, this is what happens when you become beholden to private equity firms and fund management companies. They only care about two things, money and how they can get more of it. In a world of nano-second trading Wall Street increasing couldn’t care less about 6 month plans, let alone 5, 10, or 20 year plans. The money literally has to be made this second. Up to 70% of all trading is now high frequency trading. Your employee sees on-site daycare while the private equity guy sees $10 that could have been his, and guess who gets to decide now – that’s right – the private equity guy and guess which option he is increasingly choosing.

Think I am wrong, walk into any company in America and in the lobby you will likely see a monitor with the company's stock price on display which serves as a reminder why you 'really' came to work that day.

HangryHippo
02-01-2013, 07:57 AM
JTF, I think there's more than a little hyperbole in your point, but I'm increasingly inclined to agree with the basic premise. It's all becoming about the immediate dollar. What a shame.

Rover
02-01-2013, 08:11 PM
Making money IS the objective of business and capitalism. But, treating your people right is a great way to do that. It is not one OR the other. Providing a high quality environment draws talented people who make you money.

Aubrey has mad mistakes, but providing a good environment to work n was not one of them ... Even if there is pressure to perform.

Urbanized
02-02-2013, 11:45 AM
Uh...to those who think he is done...Aubrey started Chesapeake with Tom Ward a little over twenty years ago with a mere $50,000 and turned it into a Fortune 500 during that time. Now various reports put his personal net worth at more than a billion dollars, personal wealth crises notwithstanding. He can likely afford to personally fund a startup or acquire an existing firm for hundreds of millions of dollars if he so chooses.

But he won't have to, because don't kid yourself; investors will be LINING UP to be a part of his next venture, despite the recent controversies. In 2011, Forbes named him to their "20-20 Club," indicating he was one of only EIGHT CEOs who had been with their company 20 years or more AND returned at least 20% to investors over that period. Aubrey made a LOT of people OTHER than Aubrey a LOT of money.

He's a serial entrepreneur, a wildcatter, a risk-taker, and guys like that don't just slink off quietly, especially when they have a ton of money and a ton of people willing to spend money with them.

Besides, the perfect example of how quickly he could pull things together again is no further away than his former partner. Ward bought Sandridge (née Riata) within months of leaving CHK in 2006. IIRC, the company had one or two hundred employees if that. They went public in 2007 and now are supposed to have around 2K employees. It wouldn't take long for Aubrey to do something similar if he chooses to. And he almost certainly will choose to. Guys like him don't retire at 53.

Thundercitizen
02-02-2013, 12:25 PM
Uh...to those who think he is done...Aubrey started Chesapeake with Tom Ward a little over twenty years ago with a mere $50,000 and turned it into a Fortune 500 during that time. Now various reports put his personal net worth at more than a billion dollars, personal wealth crises notwithstanding. He can likely afford to personally fund a startup or acquire an existing firm for hundreds of millions of dollars if he so chooses.

But he won't have to, because don't kid yourself; investors will be LINING UP to be a part of his next venture, despite the recent controversies. In 2011, Forbes named him to their "20-20 Club," indicating he was one of only EIGHT CEOs who had been with their company 20 years or more AND returned at least 20% to investors over that period. Aubrey made a LOT of people OTHER than Aubrey a LOT of money.

He's a serial entrepreneur, a wildcatter, a risk-taker, and guys like that don't just slink off quietly, especially when they have a ton of money and a ton of people willing to spend money with them.

Besides, the perfect example of how quickly he could pull things together again is no further away than his former partner. Ward bought Sandridge (née Riata) within months of leaving CHK in 2006. IIRC, the company had one or two hundred employees if that. They went public in 2007 and now are supposed to have around 2K employees. It wouldn't take long for Aubrey to do something similar if he chooses to. And he almost certainly will choose to. Guys like him don't retire at 53. A very concise, well-stated case for Aubrey's return to the industry's limelight.

bombermwc
02-05-2013, 07:02 AM
Funny thing Rover, i dont feel like the goal of my job should be for me to get more money into the hands of the investors. I don't feel like i should be married more to the job than my family. I know this sounds off the fall and all, but i feel like a normal 8-5 job should be the range of any employee that wants it, and that once you go home, the job should stay there.

FYI - most of those jobs i'm talking about are far from 150K a year too. We're talking <50...the workhorse force of any company, and also the most abused.

The company I work for converted from privately held, to equity firm several years ago. That's the day we turned from being employee-centric, to investor-centric as well. Screws to the employee in favor of another dime in their pocket. And screws to all of us who do our job to the best of our ability simply because that's what you're supposed to do. And shame on us for expecting to be treated fairly for that effort.

CHK is another example of how that works. It's not some magical amazing place to work. Don't let PR rankings fool you. It's a job like any other that eats you for lunch. Name any other energy company in OKC and you'll find happier (and longer tenured) employees there. Heck, Midwest Regional Hospital advertises those "top 5% hospitals" thing all the time, but you dont think anyone here buy it do you?

CitySlickR
02-05-2013, 07:32 AM
I am all for that wildcatter AKM but in his next venture(s) he should not go public so he can run it like he has tried to run the public CHK. Hopefully he has enough family money to do just that. Go AKM ! His trickle down has been good for OKC.

Rover
02-05-2013, 07:44 AM
So, if you are so unhappy, quit your job and go start your own company. Put your philosophy into practice. Take the same risk. More power to you.

Just the facts
02-05-2013, 07:47 AM
A little off topic but Michael Dell is taking Dell private again. Maybe he is tired of investors running his company as well.

BoulderSooner
02-05-2013, 08:36 AM
A little off topic but Michael Dell is taking Dell private again. Maybe he is tired of investors running his company as well.

he is a tiny part of taking it private

Just the facts
02-05-2013, 08:51 AM
he is a tiny part of taking it private

He is putting more money than anyone as part of the deal, about $3 billion of his own money.

Now back to AM. I doubt he ever runs a public company again. Why answer to a bunch of greedy pencil pushers if you don't have to?

HangryHippo
02-05-2013, 08:55 AM
So, if you are so unhappy, quit your job and go start your own company. Put your philosophy into practice. Take the same risk. More power to you.

Yeah, because that would be so easy to do for a lot of people that just want to be treated fairly by their employer in lieu of starting the next Fortune 500 company. And damn you bomber for wanting to be treated fairly!

PhiAlpha
02-05-2013, 10:48 AM
Funny thing Rover, i dont feel like the goal of my job should be for me to get more money into the hands of the investors. I don't feel like i should be married more to the job than my family. I know this sounds off the fall and all, but i feel like a normal 8-5 job should be the range of any employee that wants it, and that once you go home, the job should stay there.

FYI - most of those jobs i'm talking about are far from 150K a year too. We're talking <50...the workhorse force of any company, and also the most abused.

The company I work for converted from privately held, to equity firm several years ago. That's the day we turned from being employee-centric, to investor-centric as well. Screws to the employee in favor of another dime in their pocket. And screws to all of us who do our job to the best of our ability simply because that's what you're supposed to do. And shame on us for expecting to be treated fairly for that effort.

CHK is another example of how that works. It's not some magical amazing place to work. Don't let PR rankings fool you. It's a job like any other that eats you for lunch. Name any other energy company in OKC and you'llw find happier (and longer tenured) employees there. Heck, Midwest Regional Hospital advertises those "top 5% hospitals" thing all the time, but you dont think anyone here buy it do you?

Funny thing Rover, i dont feel like the goal of my job should be for me to get more money into the hands of the investors. I don't feel like i should be married more to the job than my family. I know this sounds off the fall and all, but i feel like a normal 8-5 job should be the range of any employee that wants it, and that once you go home, the job should stay there.*




FYI - most of those jobs i'm talking about are far from 150K a year too. We're talking <50...the workhorse force of any company, and also the most abused.




The company I work for converted from privately held, to equity firm several years ago. That's the day we turned from being employee-centric, to investor-centric as well. Screws to the employee in favor of another dime in their pocket. And screws to all of us who do our job to the best of our ability simply because that's what you're supposed to do. And shame on us for expecting to be treated fairly for that effort.




CHK is another example of how that works. It's not some magical amazing place to work. Don't let PR rankings fool you. It's a job like any other that eats you for lunch. Name any other energy company in OKC and you'll find happier (and longer tenured) employees there. Heck, Midwest Regional Hospital advertises those "top 5% hospitals" thing all the time, but you dont think anyone here buy it do you?

Again my friends and family, probably 10-20 people, have worked their for 5-10 years which is a long time in the energy industry, and they all say that CHK is the best place they've ever worked as far as work environment. the majority of them work 8-5 and do not feel over worked at all. I am more overworked at my company than they are, but I'm young and enjoy it so I dont mind. As companies grow, sometimes promotions and other things get political and that is the biggest complaint I've heard out of everyone. That and in some cases, especially with current NG prices, too many employees, not enough work to go around. I don't know from what departments or fields your contacts work in but with a 13,000 employee company, I'm sure opinions vary drastically from person to person and between departments. Having said that, your sentiments do not seem to be shared by the majority of those who work there.

dankrutka
02-05-2013, 06:15 PM
Yeah, because that would be so easy to do for a lot of people that just want to be treated fairly by their employer in lieu of starting the next Fortune 500 company. And damn you bomber for wanting to be treated fairly!

Seroiusly. What a ridiculous notion. Not everyone grows up in a meg-rich family. It's easy to take chances when failing means still being rich.

Rover
02-05-2013, 08:00 PM
13000 people have had high quality high paying jobs with great benefits because of AM and still people on here are still angry. Amazing. Guess certain people just hate enterprise and capitalism.

dankrutka
02-05-2013, 10:52 PM
13000 people have had high quality high paying jobs with great benefits because of AM and still people on here are still angry. Amazing. Guess certain people just hate enterprise and capitalism.

Rover - the defender of rich people if anyone ever says they're not perfect! You're doing noble work, Rover! God speed.

Rover
02-06-2013, 07:05 AM
Just not a hater of rich....or poor. I like enterprise that builds businesses that give good people very good jobs. I do believe in capitalism and do not begrudge return on investments. I do think it takes hard work to succeed. I do think you don't get the best jobs by working only 9-5.

Of all the things that were/are a problem at Chesapeake, I don't believe their treatment of their employees was a negative. To read on here about the anger some people have over companies expecting their employees to work hard and be highly productive is surprising. Great jobs rarely are cushy.

There will be cutbacks at Chesapeake. There will be layoffs. The alternative would be sale or bankruptcy. What benefits the employees most?

BTW, investors in Chesapeake over the past few years lost a huge part of their investment as stock lost value, they didn't harvest wealth off the back of the employees. They took risk and lost while 13000 have enjoyed some of the best jobs in the industry.

Just the facts
02-06-2013, 08:02 AM
Investors losing money? Cry me a river. The investment community has been ripping off this country for far too long. They exist because they get pre-tax dollars to invest and/or only pay a 15% tax on their gains - and get to write off their losses. Freaking freeloaders. I'll bet they hate government spending too, unless of course they are investing their tax free money in a company that contracts with the government or gets a subsidy from them.

Bellaboo
02-06-2013, 08:07 AM
Investors losing money? Cry me a river. The investment community has been ripping off this country for far too long. They exist because they get pre-tax dollars to invest and/or only pay a 15% tax on their gains - and get to write of their losses. Freaking freeloaders. I'll bet they hate government spending too, unless of course they are investing their tax free money in a company that contracts with the government or gets a subsidy from them.

Wrong, investors are risk takers. No risk, very little reward, besides, that 15% they pay on return is better than no pay at all.
There is no 'freeloading' when you put it on the line.

Just the facts
02-06-2013, 08:22 AM
Never mind - we are straying away from AM.

Rover
02-07-2013, 07:34 AM
Investors losing money? Cry me a river. The investment community has been ripping off this country for far too long. They exist because they get pre-tax dollars to invest and/or only pay a 15% tax on their gains - and get to write off their losses. Freaking freeloaders. I'll bet they hate government spending too, unless of course they are investing their tax free money in a company that contracts with the government or gets a subsidy from them.

As to understanding the economy or business or capitalistic principals, you have lost any little credibility you had. If you have any investable capital, I assume you'd be okay when it is lost or winds up worth half of what it was. Profit or safety is a concept you don't value, it appears.

For people who want a growing, thriving community, the anti business sentiment of some is quite amazing and totally naive.

bombermwc
02-07-2013, 08:45 AM
I believe what we would like to see, is a world where the employee is treating fairly and not screwed over to give an investor more money. Whether that's CHK or any other company.

An investor takes risk, but it's minimal. If they start seeing their income drop on an investment, they skip town and leave the employees to pick up the pieces. If they are doing well, they want more. So saying they are at "risk", nah. When you throw a million dollars in, but have 2 billion at home, that's not risk. That's a penny slot. And who's back do you think those millions were made on?

Perspective.

HangryHippo
02-07-2013, 08:55 AM
As to understanding the economy or business or capitalistic principals, you have lost any little credibility you had. If you have any investable capital, I assume you'd be okay when it is lost or winds up worth half of what it was. Profit or safety is a concept you don't value, it appears.

For people who want a growing, thriving community, the anti business sentiment of some is quite amazing and totally naive.

You need some perspective. Posters here are anti-business merely because we don't want to see some investor with millions or billions to burn leave us high and dry at the first whiff of smaller returns or we don't to be at the whim of an employer that plays money games but doesn't want to suffer the consequences when they lose? Please. Not all of us are driven by the lust of higher and higher profits.

Just the facts
02-07-2013, 09:18 AM
You have defined the limits of the debate pretty well Rover. Unless I are for the gang rape of corporate America by the investment community then I am not a capitalist. Van Jones and Saul Alinksky couldn't have defined Capitalism better themselves.

Alas if capitalism now means getting as much money as you can at all human and environmental cost maybe I am not a capitalist after all.

metro
02-07-2013, 10:11 AM
As to understanding the economy or business or capitalistic principals, you have lost any little credibility you had. If you have any investable capital, I assume you'd be okay when it is lost or winds up worth half of what it was. Profit or safety is a concept you don't value, it appears.

For people who want a growing, thriving community, the anti business sentiment of some is quite amazing and totally naive.

Well said.

Lafferty Daniel
02-07-2013, 11:45 AM
Wow. Some of you sure throw in completely off topic points so that you can try and "win" the argument. This debate started with someone saying CHK employees are treated unfairly. And this is such a ridiculous statement. What's unfair about being an employee at CHK? The good pay? The fact that CHK will match up to 15% of your 401K? The free gym, basketball courts, etc.? The free tickets to Thunder games, concerts, etc? Working in Class A office space? The free shares of stock you get every six months? All of the corporate events/celebrations they put on for free? And I'm sure there are dozens and dozens of other perks I don't know about or can't think of right now. You have to be lying to yourself if you think working in an office with 10 people and getting none of the above mentioned perks is better than working at CHK.

Sorry, but I have no sympathy for someone saying they are "overworked". Why are they overworked? Because they might have to work 45 hours a week rather than the standard 40? Boo hoo. That's life. That's called the real world. You want to get somewhere in life, you have to work hard. You have to put in a little extra time at the office every now and then.

The only thing that should be criticized at CHK is the fact that SOMETIMES promotions are political rather than who actually deserves it. But I'm sure that is the case for many companies around the world, not just at CHK.

Just the facts
02-07-2013, 11:54 AM
Wow. Some of you sure throw in completely off topic points so that you can try and "win" the argument. This debate started with someone saying CHK employees are treated unfairly. And this is such a ridiculous statement. What's unfair about being an employee at CHK? The good pay? The fact that CHK will match up to 15% of your 401K? The free gym, basketball courts, etc.? The free tickets to Thunder games, concerts, etc? Working in Class A office space? The free shares of stock you get every six months? All of the corporate events/celebrations they put on for free? And I'm sure there are dozens and dozens of other perks I don't know about or can't think of right now. You have to be lying to yourself if you think working in an office with 10 people and getting none of the above mentioned perks is better than working at CHK.

This is the whole subject of the debate. AM did not covet every nickle he could get his hands on. He shared his wealth with many of his employees and the community at large - sometimes to a fault. What is his reward from the investment community for being so open with the corporate treasury? Answer, the door. Queue defense of the investment community in 3...2...1.

Hopefully next time he won't have to run a public company so he can operate it as he sees fit.

Rover
02-07-2013, 12:43 PM
You have defined the limits of the debate pretty well Rover. Unless I are for the gang rape of corporate America by the investment community then I am not a capitalist. Van Jones and Saul Alinksky couldn't have defined Capitalism better themselves.

Alas if capitalism now means getting as much money as you can at all human and environmental cost maybe I am not a capitalist after all.

I think you have no concept of capitalism, just hysterics, gross generalization and "power to the people" isms. You act like trying to bring Chesapeake back from the brink is greed. You think the growth and what it has contributed to OKC is nothing. You seem to hate all successful people and despise profit as a motive.

Chesapeake has made MANY people in this city wealthy by buying up low value property at exaggerated prices. They have employed 1000s of people for many years paying great wages and giving them many amenities which they appreciated. They made landowners wealthy by paying big $ to royalty owners, many of whom were barely making it landowners. They created construction jobs, transportation jobs, restaurant jobs, and on, and on and on. In the meantime, their stock has continuously gone down while investors lost billions of $. The growth came due to leverage and now it is time to pay the piper.

If it is AM you are jealous of, so be it. But through his "greed" he has significantly helped this city and thousands of people. So, tell me about your significant contributions to the betterment of this community and its people. How many do you employ directly or indirectly?

OKCTalker
02-07-2013, 01:17 PM
Hijack.

Just the facts
02-07-2013, 01:17 PM
Rover - once again, you have either misread something I wrote or confused me with someone else. Now, 'power to the humans' and all that jazz.

http://www.okctalk.com/other-urban-development/33166-aubrey-mcclendon-what-if-3.html#post616193

HangryHippo
02-07-2013, 01:45 PM
Wow. Some of you sure throw in completely off topic points so that you can try and "win" the argument. This debate started with someone saying CHK employees are treated unfairly. And this is such a ridiculous statement. What's unfair about being an employee at CHK? The good pay? The fact that CHK will match up to 15% of your 401K? The free gym, basketball courts, etc.? The free tickets to Thunder games, concerts, etc? Working in Class A office space? The free shares of stock you get every six months? All of the corporate events/celebrations they put on for free? And I'm sure there are dozens and dozens of other perks I don't know about or can't think of right now. You have to be lying to yourself if you think working in an office with 10 people and getting none of the above mentioned perks is better than working at CHK.

Sorry, but I have no sympathy for someone saying they are "overworked". Why are they overworked? Because they might have to work 45 hours a week rather than the standard 40? Boo hoo. That's life. That's called the real world. You want to get somewhere in life, you have to work hard. You have to put in a little extra time at the office every now and then.

The only thing that should be criticized at CHK is the fact that SOMETIMES promotions are political rather than who actually deserves it. But I'm sure that is the case for many companies around the world, not just at CHK.

Wow, yes, this whole thing is about an extra 5 hours a work week. You're absolutely right.

RadicalModerate
02-07-2013, 03:16 PM
Having just--well, in reality, about three hours ago--made a minor detour off of Western, on the way to pay my mortgage payment, I would suggest that Aubrey might want to get on down to his slice of MonopolyHotelBurg and check the status of Construction Standards before O.S.H.A. (etc. incl. EPA) is--or aren't--all up his bee-hind....

On the other hand, I have been wrong before.

(i've never seen such meaningless clutter . . .
cranes: cool . . . roadways: suck . . . workers: lounging . . . wooden props under poured concrete passing as scaffolds?: you be the judge. of course it is a long bicycle ride from Jacksonville, FLA, so . . . =)

[trival sidebar: in the oil business, "tour" is pronounced "tower"]

Lafferty Daniel
02-07-2013, 04:16 PM
This is the whole subject of the debate. AM did not covet every nickle he could get his hands on. He shared his wealth with many of his employees and the community at large - sometimes to a fault. What is his reward from the investment community for being so open with the corporate treasury? Answer, the door. Queue defense of the investment community in 3...2...1.

Hopefully next time he won't have to run a public company so he can operate it as he sees fit.

This is not the whole subject of the debate. The reason he was shown the door was not because of employee benefits. It was his own personal greed that was a big part of it (having CHK buy his own personal map collection for $12 million, etc.)

I guess I should have singled out Bomber when making my post. I was responding to his "AKM has treated his employees poorly" comment. That wasn't the direct quote. I paraphrased.

Lafferty Daniel
02-07-2013, 04:17 PM
Wow, yes, this whole thing is about an extra 5 hours a work week. You're absolutely right.

Excellent contribution.

Snowman
02-07-2013, 04:57 PM
This is not the whole subject of the debate. The reason he was shown the door was not because of employee benefits. It was his own personal greed that was a big part of it (having CHK buy his own personal map collection for $12 million, etc.)

I guess I should have singled out Bomber when making my post. I was responding to his "AKM has treated his employees poorly" comment. That wasn't the direct quote. I paraphrased.

I expect it had more to do with the gamble he made which lead to the margin call on him, that hurt their shares value, or not positioning the company better for the nosedive in natural gas price. The maps and other grievances were just something they had a better chance with sticking to him.

zookeeper
02-07-2013, 06:21 PM
I expect it had more to do with the gamble he made which lead to the margin call on him, that hurt their shares value, or not positioning the company better for the nosedive in natural gas price. The maps and other grievances were just something they had a better chance with sticking to him.

No, it didn't even have anything to do with the price of gas. That's what McClendon wants you to think of course. It was sweetheart deals made with so many that they're apparently having a hard time sorting out all the shell games to cover up his personal profit from the use of his public company. Reuters and others did major digging and uncovered what turned into everything many suspected. He's now still under criminal investigation personally, they really don't want to talk about that around here, and the company itself still has many legal battles to fight.

Those who come here and defend McClendon blow me away. I mentioned that it's easy to treat your employees well when you're doing it with OPM (other people's money) and that response is what started people claiming him as their hero and saying he didn't have to do all he did for his employees. My point and I've seen others make the same argument is that using OPM he was in a position to solidify a lot of devotion with great benefits and all that. But in the end it was not the responsible thing to do and the army of employees loaded with goodies was part of the problem, not really something to be commended. People around here are too easy on this guy who if he hadn't been stopped when he was could really have sunk Oklahoma City. As it is maybe it's salvageable, but it's in spite of McClendon.