The plan Engine No. 1 is proposing to radically reduce investments will result in many more layoffs. Read up before you vote.
20 replies (most recent on top)
Harvard doesn’t care about how current employees and retirees will be impacted. Maybe (big maybe) shareholders will benefit. Guarantee employees and retirees get the short end of the stick if the engine no 1 vultures get what they want.
Even Harvard Business sees Eng. No 1 as a good thing from a financial perspective.
(https://hbr.org/2021/01/can-a-tiny-hedge-fund-push-exxonmobile-towards-sustainability)
===
So, what chance does Engine No. 1 have to succeed with its campaign? We think it has a good chance for three reasons. We have already discussed the first — the [Exxon's] continued abysmal financial performance with no reason to believe it will improve under its current leadership and strategy. It is important to note that Engine No. 1’s campaign is not based on ExxonMobil’s irresponsible approach to climate change; it is based on the financial consequences of this approach. That’s a message that the broader shareholder community can easily get behind.
The second is that Engine No. 1 is making four sensible and reasonable recommendations: (1) refresh the board; (2) impose greater long-term capital allocation discipline; (3) implement a strategic plan for sustainable value creation in a changing world; and (4) realign management incentives. Spedding would likely agree with (2) and (3): “In an energy transition, a low-cost strategy with capital discipline will be more beneficial for shareholders than chasing growth. Matching its volume ambitions to a Paris-accord demand profile would be a step in the right direction,” he wrote in the Carbon Tracker report. The executive compensation system must then be changed to provide the right incentives for a different and better strategy.
Engine No 1 are just corporate raiders. Of course they would fire people and not think twice about it. Pull your head out of the sand.
You're right, @uzp+19VJfxAf those aren't good things. But the next steps in renewables can be better than their starting points. It takes time and support to get there.
according to @edk, the following is "GoOd FoR tH3 WuRLD:"
- Earth-Rape for rare earth metals required by the so-called "earth friendly" energy sector.
- Brown-outs resulting not only in unsanitary/unsafe conditions at home, but also results in the Inability to start your car let alone the inability to travel more than a few hundred miles (if you're lucky enough to have a full charge).
- Large scale, energy brownouts that come only when you need the power most (hottest days, coldest days)
- Skyrocketing energy costs.
- Massive footprints required for solar panels
- Skyline Pollution of otherwise untouched nature by ugly-a– wind turbines.
- Death-by-turbine blade to birds.
But it's GoOd FoR tHe WoRlD. DERP
From: @rjb+19VJfxAf
The stock price is not the driving issue, just an added benefit (once it gets back to $70ish, I'm out anyway). The real issue is "sustainability" of business model. If the world is clearly moving to cleaner energy, which by the way is GOOD for the world, then why wouldn't EM leverage it's current "dinosaur" portfolio as a cash cow to fund and actually LEAD the transition? In the long term successful companies DRIVE the evolution of technology so they continue to prosper. This won't necessarily lead to less jobs, but it will lead to different jobs - so train up accordingly! That is what I mean by playing to win...
- Unless your an executive, which I doubt you are since you’re on this forum, the company awards minuscule amounts of RSU’s for even top quint performance. We’re talking like ~60-80 shares that don’t vest for 3/7 year schedules. Now, I very much doubt that xom stock will cross 100 again, but if it does, at most we’re talking a 6000 bonus. 12000 if you get to year 7 and made RSU status the year before. This is trivial $ for most ExxonMobil employees on a hyper inflated salary.
- You have no projects to work on in the near term anyway unless your part of the nepotistic Guyana team or Permian. I very much doubt low carbon will do anything of substance, xom has been scaling to 10kbd algae for 10+ years and already cut CCS from plan in recent years only to be brought back in a 3B over five year PR stunt to save face with investment community in the face of industry headwind. It’s going to get worse for GP. It’s going to get worse for US ops, XTO and all support functions as we offload assets and the rise of the BTC progresses.
- It’s my sincere hope you can be adaptable, learn a new industry, leverage skill sets to make a positive change in the world. Agree world needs petro products, but times are changing - the boons of past may be distant. XOM is only well positioned in Guyana, a crown jewel with a sweetheart deal to be sure, but the stink of the rest of the portfolio (kearl, xto gas) weigh this giant down. I’m not saying xom should change its core business overnight, but at least have the foresight to see where the consumer sentiment is headed enough to take proactive steps that you don’t end in a worse position 20 yrs from now (when I need my pension). But xom has never cared about the customer, just the bottom line and it’s struggled at that.
My advice, head on a swivel. Stay sharp, interview for opportunities. Don’t live and defend someone who doesn’t love you back. Watch your back. WFH a little longer (until we’ve reached critical vacc mass). Know you’ll never make as much money outside if you were better than mediocre at Exxon, but that’s ok because you’ve got your soul back. Otherwise, sit down, shut *p, and take your pay like a good little boy.
This is literally ExxonMobil PR posting a thread and comments. Woods is scared of the proxy fight. Let’s go Engine No. 1 the employees need you.
What is Engine No. 1?
Not all of us are sitting on a pile of XOM stock. In fact very few people receive RSUs. Most remaining employees stand to lose not gain from Engine No 1 plan. Lose as in lose their job.
Close minded? How? Engine No 1 won’t require oil and gas engineers in the numbers we currently employ. How does this not lead to layoffs?
Did you acquire your stocks through RSU awards? Big risk that the Engine No 1 plan won’t work out and then you will be left with underperforming stock and no dividend along with having fired a bunch of employees for no good reason.
Engine No 1 will reduce the number of oil and gas projects. If you are an engineer who does oil and gas projects you will no longer be needed by Engine No 1. They aren’t going to retrain you. They will fire you and hire a lower paid renewables engineer to take your place on their renewables projects.
If Engine no.1 succeeds, welcome to woke exxon. Personally, i hate commies.
Too late to pivot against competitors.
Can't sell off our neanderthal capital to invest in already existing technologies.
Rabbit out of a hat. Deceased rabbit. Choir invisible.
Ahh yes. It's like telling the crew on an old ship that replacing the hull is too expensive... just work twice as hard tossing the water out. Sure it leaks, but its cheaper this way.
The layoffs are already planned and will happen any way, done deal. The Engine 1 proposal will force EM to to finally reposition as an energy co. vs o&g co. and that long over due vision will enable EM to start playing to win which is very different than playing "not to lose"..which is what EM has done for years (too safe, too many risk assessments, to many controls, etc.), . Plus, we will all benefit from the higher stock price this repositioning will drive...I know I will.
Trolls are down voting, but it's true.
You effectively wipe all nearterm growth opps, significantly decrease head count, and reinvest headcount savings in green energy. Brutal for existing employees.
I mean... It s—s now... But this would be even worse.
Ok Darren.
Very close minded thinking