ubuy2w

10 Highest Paid CEOs for 2008: Unbelievable

And just for the record I think he did one heck of a job for the shareholders over the last ten years better than most my entire point is he got paid very well for what he did .

10 Highest Paid CEOs for 2008: Unbelievable

I absolutely agree with you on it is the boards fault that Aubrey gets overcompensated however you are extremely naive if you think that boards have anything thing to do with shareholder democracy. Aubrey hand picked every board member and do you have any idea how much it costs to launch a proxy fight if you are interested in changing the board . If institutional shareholders started acting like owners things might change but to date nothing. The little sweet heart deal that Aubrey made with the company and his map collection would turn your stomach as well, perhaps next he will be asking the company to take some of that high priced Maui real estate he is trying to unload.


On May 05 03:12 PM Mmarrkk wrote:

> Here's where I stand: if they are truly "overcompensated", then the
> shareholders would hold the BOD's responsible. The BOD's are voted
> on by the shareholders and elected by a majority. Now, am I not correct
> in saying that a majority of shareholders VOTED FOR the BOD? So,
> that would say that the BOD has the approval of a majority of the
> shareholders. SO, if what they did is SOOOOOO bad, I would envision
> the BOD getting voted out next election. But that isn't going to
> happen because a MAJORITY OF SHAREHOLDERS AGREE WITH THEIR ACTIONS!
> And this is a majority rule situation. Heck, I can't stand the actions
> being taken by Obama, but he was elected by a majority.

10 Highest Paid CEOs for 2008: Unbelievable

You are so out to lunch Aubrey was extremely well compensated for the long term growth he generated at CHK, through previous options and bonuses granted by the board Aubrey attained life time membership in the billionaires club. Because of a combination of greed and hubris he lost those billions I will never buy shares in a company that so egregiously compensates mgmt. on a heads I win tails you lose model as CHK has done


On May 05 08:59 AM Mmarrkk wrote:

> You are so out to lunch. McClendon brokered deals for CHK that netted
> over $10 billion at a peak in the market. These deals sealed the
> prosperity for CHK stockholders for years to come. You, and many
> others, have one big problem: you look at stock price over months
> or a year. The way to judge a company and a CEO is not to look at
> the stock price over the last 12 months. That's typical MBA grad
> school crap! Look at it over the next five years. Has the companies
> assets been set up to succeed? In CHK's case, they are a dominate
> player in the U.S. natural gas industry, they hold huge acreage positions
> in all of the big growth plays, and given Aubrey's unbelievable deals
> in 2008, they have 3 companies that will be paying much of the capital
> for drilling over the next 1-2 years.
>
> Why has CHK's stock price fallen? Quite simply, look at a chart of
> natural gas prices. Do you see ANYTHING there?? Like a drop from
> $13 to #3?? Hello! Anyone in there? Of course the stock price of
> a natural gas company is going to go down when the price of their
> product crashes like that. When nat gas was $13, CHK was selling
> at $70. Now that nat gas is at $3, simple math would tell you CHK
> could be as low as $16-17. Well its higher than that. The CEO of
> CHK doesn't control the price of the commodity.
>
> Quit looking at stock performance over 3 months or 12 months. Start
> thinking long term and then start looking at the fundamentals of
> a company. Look at CHK's acreage under lease, their proven and unproven
> resources, their positions in 3 of the hottest natural resource plays
> going, their technical advantages to identify these plays well in
> advance of others, their ability to take acreage they purchased at
> $500/acre and then turn for over $20,000 per acre, while still retaining
> over 50% of the interests, and to get the buyer to carry their drilling
> costs for a year or so. Come on, didn't they teach you anything in
> grad school other than how to read a stock chart and a financial
> statement?