source plz. That is not accurateOriginally Posted by Jaimecbr900
source plz. That is not accurate
www.nyse.comsource plz. That is not accurate
www.exxonmobile.com
here's a starting point do your own research. His statment IS accurate
Sorry for the late reply, but I am correct from what I've read. You'll owe me some reps after this.....source plz. That is not accurate
__________________________________________________ __
Investors Seek Meeting with ExxonMobil Execs over Climate Policy
Source: GreenBiz.com
HARTFORD, Conn., and BOSTON, Mass., May 22, 2006 - Seventeen leading U.S. pension fund and other institutional investors controlling $658 billion in assets are pushing for a face-to-face meeting with independent members of the ExxonMobil board of directors as a result of growing financial world concerns that ExxonMobil is "a company that fails to acknowledge the potential for climate change to have a profound impact on global energy markets, and which lags far behind its competitors in developing a strategy to plan for and manage these impacts."
Pension fund trustees from seven states, New York City, and eight other major institutional investors with over 110 million ExxonMobil shares worth an estimated $6.75 billion made the request for the meeting this week. All those seeking the action from Exxon Mobil are members of the Investor Network on Climate Risk. The group of 17 consists of six state treasurers (Connecticut, California, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Maine, Vermont), the California State Controller, the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS), the New York State Comptroller, New York City Comptroller, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, General Board of Pension and Health Benefits of the United Methodist Church, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Tri-State Coalition for Responsible Investment, Walden Asset Management, The Nathan Cummings Foundation, and the Sheet Metal Workers Pension Fund.
This is from another source: http://www.commondreams.org/news2001/0525-02.htm
WASHINGTON - May 25 - Campaign ExxonMobil and US PIRG praised the New York City pension funds for their decisions to support environmental proposals put forward by shareholders calling on ExxonMobil to improve its consideration of environmental issues. The pension funds include the New York City Employee Retirement System, the New York City Teachers Retirement System, the New York City Police Pension Fund and the New York City Fire Department Pension Fund. The Pension funds have $80 billion under management and collectively own roughly 13,500,000 shares in ExxonMobil, or $1.1 billion worth of stock.
These are just two quick examples of LARGE pension/retirment fund(s) that are MAJOR investors in Exxon/Mobil alone. They do this because Exxon is a consistent performer and thereby offers retirees a good dividend return on their retirement fund investment.
Now, if Hillary TAKES all those "profits" away from the company......WHO do you think will NOT receive dividends???
pwned!Sorry for the late reply, but I am correct from what I've read. You'll owe me some reps after this.....
__________________________________________________ __
Investors Seek Meeting with ExxonMobil Execs over Climate Policy
Source: GreenBiz.com
HARTFORD, Conn., and BOSTON, Mass., May 22, 2006 - Seventeen leading U.S. pension fund and other institutional investors controlling $658 billion in assets are pushing for a face-to-face meeting with independent members of the ExxonMobil board of directors as a result of growing financial world concerns that ExxonMobil is "a company that fails to acknowledge the potential for climate change to have a profound impact on global energy markets, and which lags far behind its competitors in developing a strategy to plan for and manage these impacts."
Pension fund trustees from seven states, New York City, and eight other major institutional investors with over 110 million ExxonMobil shares worth an estimated $6.75 billion made the request for the meeting this week. All those seeking the action from Exxon Mobil are members of the Investor Network on Climate Risk. The group of 17 consists of six state treasurers (Connecticut, California, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Maine, Vermont), the California State Controller, the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS), the New York State Comptroller, New York City Comptroller, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, General Board of Pension and Health Benefits of the United Methodist Church, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Tri-State Coalition for Responsible Investment, Walden Asset Management, The Nathan Cummings Foundation, and the Sheet Metal Workers Pension Fund.
This is from another source: http://www.commondreams.org/news2001/0525-02.htm
WASHINGTON - May 25 - Campaign ExxonMobil and US PIRG praised the New York City pension funds for their decisions to support environmental proposals put forward by shareholders calling on ExxonMobil to improve its consideration of environmental issues. The pension funds include the New York City Employee Retirement System, the New York City Teachers Retirement System, the New York City Police Pension Fund and the New York City Fire Department Pension Fund. The Pension funds have $80 billion under management and collectively own roughly 13,500,000 shares in ExxonMobil, or $1.1 billion worth of stock.
These are just two quick examples of LARGE pension/retirment fund(s) that are MAJOR investors in Exxon/Mobil alone. They do this because Exxon is a consistent performer and thereby offers retirees a good dividend return on their retirement fund investment.
Now, if Hillary TAKES all those "profits" away from the company......WHO do you think will NOT receive dividends???
.....Actually, that's like that joke someone posted a few days ago in here.
Hillary and her driver are going down an old country highway when a old cow steps out in front of their car and they hit it.
The driver gets out and walks up to the nearest farm house to tell the farmer they'd hit his cow and killed it.
He doesn't come back for a long time. Finally when he does, he has his shirt all out, lipstick on all over his face, and smoking a fine Cuban cigar.
Hillary asks, "so, what took you so long....what happened?".
The driver said, "well....I just knocked on the door and when I told the farmer what happened he gave me a fine cigar to smoke, his wife started kissing me, and his twin daughters took me out back and we had wild kinky sex.."
Hillary says, "well, that's odd. What did you say to him?"
The driver replies, "I just told him that I was Hillary Clinton's driver and I'd just killed the old Heffer.....everything else after that happened so fast....."
.......i posted that joke a few days ago!!!!!
first off hillary clinton is the antichrist (her and tom from myspace) second if they got such crazy profits gas needs to go down those greedy bastards! +1 if you agree
YEAH I LIKE TO PARTY!
profits are high, but the margins are not. ex: cost(exploration,paying the OPEC nation, shipping, etc.)-selling price(profits)=profit margin. just be glad the "evil" oil companies don't mark up oil like restaurants do food, then we'd have something to bitch about
You're right about Hillary, but wrong about gas prices.
You know what's keeping gas prices so high? Lack of real competition.
All the greenpeace folks that are constantly fighting to save one owl or two nests are the ones to really blame for high prices. They constantly oppose and win against oil companies digging for more oil domestically. OPEC doesn't have that problem. If you get in their way of digging for oil in that part of the world, they'll lynch your butt. Here, in our beautifully screwed up world of PC, we have to have panels and committees and think tanks and prayer vigils BEFORE an oil company is allowed to even check to see if there's oil. There are areas where there is KNOWN oil fields that CAN'T be tapped because of the tree huggers. They'd rather pay $3/gal than to disturb a sleeping owl.
You put some REAL competition against OPEC and they have no choice but to lower their prices or they won't move their oil. WE are the biggest, next to China, demanders of oil from the Middle East. Imagine what would happen if we suddenly demanded only HALF of the millions of barrels we get now. There's no other country that demands as much oil imports as we and China do. They're not going to stop producing the oil. So the only thing that can happen is to lower the price to be able to compete. VOILA! Problem solved.
Tree huggers have a HUGE lobby in Washington that has a lot of pull. Environmentalists have a lot of Senators by the short hairs because they helped to get him/her elected, so of course they always vote for the tree huggers.
What we really need is someone to step up and tell the tree huggers toand do what the market is demanding it do. There's nothing wrong with alternative fuel sources, hybrid technology, or fuel efficiency. Just as there's nothing wrong with using the resources we have AVAILABLE either. The funny thing is that we have all these tree huggers wanting to wait to tap oil and in 50 yrs when they're all dead and burried the next generation is probably gonna say, "screw that, I'm gonna tap that oil well...." Kinda like using plastic over your furniture and then taking it off when company comes over......THEY are the only ones that get to truly enjoy the furniture.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
(lol)