American Energy Partners Business Practices (Aubrey McClendon)

[HangryHippo]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

A little off topic but Michael Dell is taking Dell private again. Maybe he is tired of investors running his company as well.

[BoulderSooner]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Never mind - we are straying away from AM.

[Rover]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.