Expand Energy (Formerly Chesapeake)

[MikeOKC]

For continuity and to show the pattern of contempt shown to stockholders, please see my post concerning CHK's latest outrage (Chesapeake Arena):
http://www.okctalk.com/showthread.ph...328#post451328

[MikeOKC]

And the hits just keep on comin'!


5 Outrageous CEO Spending Abuses & Perks
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...pedia56111.DTL

AND (same day)

"Chesapeake Energy (NYSE: CHK ) occasionally enters the spotlight for the egregious pay CEO Aubrey McClendon rakes in. My Foolish colleague Matt Koppenheffer recently asked whether Chesapeake Energy is run for McClendon's benefit, rather than shareholder value. So it's no surprise to find Chesapeake on the list of jet-set offenders as well. Its corporate aircraft payout adds up to $500,000, with its TCL compensation score denoting "very high concern," although its AI risk rating is just "average."
http://www.fool.com/investing/genera...ur-stocks.aspx

[MikeOKC]

OUCH! The truth hurts...This should wake-up some prospective CHK buyers. Aubrey, probably time for another Cramer puff piece.

Chesapeake: The Lost Decade

http://seekingalpha.com/article/2878...he-lost-decade

and.....

this exclusive Reuters report on Aubrey's sweetheart FWPP deal which allows him to - personally - cash-in on every well...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...77E4BT20110815

"Paul Hodgson, senior research associate and an expert in executive compensation at GMI Ratings, a corporate governance research and ratings firm, expressed skepticism about the FWPP. Chesapeake's behavior and governance raise concerns that over the long term "significant shareholder loss" may occur, he said."

So much smoke, all the time, when and where is the fire? Poor Jim Cramer, Aubrey's big buddy, must think all his work for CHK is destined to be for nothing.

[Maynard]

OUCH! The truth hurts...This should wake-up some prospective CHK buyers. Aubrey, probably time for another Cramer puff piece.

Chesapeake: The Lost Decade

http://seekingalpha.com/article/2878...he-lost-decade

and.....

this exclusive Reuters report on Aubrey's sweetheart FWPP deal which allows him to - personally - cash-in on every well...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...77E4BT20110815

"Paul Hodgson, senior research associate and an expert in executive compensation at GMI Ratings, a corporate governance research and ratings firm, expressed skepticism about the FWPP. Chesapeake's behavior and governance raise concerns that over the long term "significant shareholder loss" may occur, he said."

So much smoke, all the time, when and where is the fire? Poor Jim Cramer, Aubrey's big buddy, must think all his work for CHK is destined to be for nothing.

[MikeOKC]

All I saw was the headline and I knew that CHK and Aubrey McClendon would be on the list.

Banana Republic USA: Meet the 25 CEOs Who Make More Than Their Companies Pay In Taxes

Sure enough - #3 on the list.

[mugofbeer]

So MikeOKC, do you pay more taxes every APril than the IRS code requires?

[MikeOKC]

So MikeOKC, do you pay more taxes every APril than the IRS code requires?

No, I don't. Apples and oranges, Mug. The article and chart simply pointed out that AM was paid more in compensation in 2009 than taxes paid by the company he heads and CHK had $7.7 billion dollars of revenue. It's saying more about what your CEO is being paid than anything. Not to mention, his sweetheart FWPP deal, where he makes money - personally - on every well (see 3 or 4 posts back) isn't even counted in that compensation. With that FWPP, seriously, no telling how much McClendon rakes in as the CEO of this public company. But again, the issue is that even without that, he personally made more money than all of CHK paid in corporate taxes. That's pretty hard to fathom.

[okcpulse]

So what was he paid in 2010? And you lost me on your source from sfgate. sfgate is about as liberal leaning as a conservative paper, which blows their credibility. You've spent post after post going after a production company who over-compsensated their CEO two years ago. Again, you are not wrong in voicing your concerns, but it DOES seem that you are singling out CHK. If you're an industry insider like myself, my resources contradict what is floating around in the papers. Yes, CHK took a black mark, but when NG prices plummeted, the had to do damage control.

And yes, natural gas is clean energy. Sounds to me like the only clean energy on your agenda is a pure EV. Far from sustainable. Natural gas emits far less CO2 than gasoline.

[MikeOKC]

So what was he paid in 2010? And you lost me on your source from sfgate. sfgate is about as liberal leaning as a conservative paper, which blows their credibility. You've spent post after post going after a production company who over-compsensated their CEO two years ago. Again, you are not wrong in voicing your concerns, but it DOES seem that you are singling out CHK. If you're an industry insider like myself, my resources contradict what is floating around in the papers. Yes, CHK took a black mark, but when NG prices plummeted, the had to do damage control.

And yes, natural gas is clean energy. Sounds to me like the only clean energy on your agenda is a pure EV. Far from sustainable. Natural gas emits far less CO2 than gasoline.

It's not just post after post going after Aubrey Kerr McClendon's 2009 salary. It's post after post of breaking AubreyNews. I "single" him out because his corporate governance (along with his sweetheart board of directors) is one of the worst in all of America. That's not a particularly controversial position. That's pretty much a given. Even when CHK stock is rising - the threat of an AM bombshell always looms - as the SeekingAlpha story posted earlier this month discusses.

[MikeOKC]

Always something new. This was actually published by Investor Place on the 1st, but I waited until after Labor Day to mention it here:

Chesapeake Energy: Natural Gas or Hot Air?

"Chesapeake is legendary for its total contempt of shareholders. Whether it’s the amount spent on corporate jets for top executives, including CEO Aubrey McClendon, or the millions sponsoring the NBA’s Oklahoma City Thunder, McClendon’s personal play toy, shareholder rights are not at the top of its priorities."

"If you want a good-paying part-time job, find a way onto Chesapeake’s board of directors. All but one of eight were paid $400,000 or more in 2010. Most impressively, McClendon managed to earn $21 million in 2010 while Chesapeake paid no federal income taxes..."

What a great reputation Aubrey enjoys!?!?! CHK will have a hard time shaking the "rogue CEO" image as long as...well...as long as they have a rogue CEO!

Just an aside and I came across this quite accidentally, I was told that a major newspaper has been or will soon have a reporter in town looking up-close at Aubrey and CHK. Specifically the use of shareholder funds for everything but energy. Think Thunder, retail, buying a neighborhood of Oklahoma City at inflated prices, part-time board directors who are wealthy on their CHK board presence alone (and mere rubber stampers for Aubrey), etc. I doubt it will be pretty. People of this city better wake-up to the fact that Aubrey Kerr McClendon has built a monster - with contempt for stockholders - that may come back to bite our city - big time.

[ultimatesooner]

Dude did aubrey steal your wife/gf or something

[MikeOKC]

Dude did aubrey steal your wife/gf or something

Oh....we can post time and again about football or whatever...but I'm not allowed to keep people updated on corporate malfeasance at CHK? By the way, I just can't take anybody who addresses me as "dude" seriously.

[dankrutka]

I'm not a busy expert by any means, but CHK is very important to OKC and McClendon seems to be running the company very recklessly. It is worrisome. For those that are not worried, what do I not know?

[MustangGT]

As long as my stock continues to appreciate I am happy. I do not give a tinkers hoot as long as my investment continues to on average rise. A few dips in the road are okay but in the end it is all about profit.

[onthestrip]

I'm not a busy expert by any means, but CHK is very important to OKC and McClendon seems to be running the company very recklessly. It is worrisome. For those that are not worried, what do I not know?

It is quite fine to be worried and you probably should be. There are numerous reports and articles on the risk and bad corporate governance Chesapeake practices. However, most people dont want to believe this because they are either employees that are blind, friends of employees that see chpk as a good company because it employs lots of their friends and other people, or people who love all the good Aubrey and chpk does (thunder, the arena name, boathouses, whole foods, Christmas lights, etc). And while all the above is true, chpk and Aubrey do many good things but it is no reason not to be critical of their ways and be worried if things went south for them. Because if it did they will have left thousands without work and totally wreck the real estate market in okc for many years to come.

I'm happy for all the things this company has done but it doesn't stop me from worrying or paying attention to what others around the country are saying about them.

[MikeOKC]

As long as my stock continues to appreciate I am happy. I do not give a tinkers hoot as long as my investment continues to on average rise. A few dips in the road are okay but in the end it is all about profit.

Mustang, Please read "The Lost Decade" - an article about CHK's problem for stockholders. It spells it out very clearly why it's always "almost hot" but fails to deliver. You are right - it is all about profit. Right now, CHK at times seems to be run for only Aubrey's profit and not that of shareholders.

[MustangGT]

MikeOKC I read it and thanks for the posting. I have bought and sold CHK on a regular basis. So far I am WAY AHEAD of where I was before. Sure Aubrey flies high but as long as my pockets are being filled I am only concerned about it if Aubrey was running the company differently would it put more or less money in MY pocket? I want him and the entire coporation to maximize shareholder profit. I do not give a crap about being green or environmentally sound. It does not bother me at all how it occurs as long as it occurs. I am concerned with corporate governance only if it negatively effects my profit margin.

Somtimes I go long and shometimes I sell short. Stocks are a lot like shooting Craps. Sometines you bet with the house and sometimes against. PROFIT AT ANY COST!!!

[MikeOKC]

Stocks are a lot like shooting Craps.

You're right about that. I once had a discussion with a gambler (horses) who saw no difference between what he does and buying & selling stocks. He said that, unlike casino gambling, with the ponies you have to become educated - Who's the trainer? Run well in the rain? Mud? Dry track? Bloodline. Leg strength. Recent health issues. He went on and on with what he knows about all these horses and how he spends hours upon hours studying these horses and then matching them up against the other horses he's studied...clearly he knew what he was talking about. The longer he went on the more he sounded like a good fund manager!

[betts]

I do not give a crap about being green or environmentally sound.

Your grandchildren might wish you and a lot of other people felt differently.

[MikeOKC]

Your grandchildren might wish you and a lot of other people felt differently.

I agree, betts. Part of corporate responsibility - as per the charters (remember them?) - is to do what's best for shareholders and the "community-at-large." There's no excuse to leave our children and grandchildren a world that modern industrialism has possibly rendered uninhabitable for future human beings. I agree we must do everything we possibly can to minimize further damage and hopefully there's still time to reverse the shock to our environment at so many levels. Corporations have a responsibility to do all they can. One day, we might wake-up and wish we had been busy yanking corporate charters, while we still had a chance to save the world as we know it.

[MustangGT]

I stongely DISAGREE. The community at large phoooeey. A corporation has only the stockholders to answer to . If you want to change corporate behavior buy into the business and vote your hearts out. If you own no stock in a corporation then you have no say and need to but out/shut up. Uninhabitable for future generations is WAY over the top and NOT reality. Do you actually think that CHK and their corporate behavior will ruin the environment? Not hardly. Betts I bett my grandkids will more than appreciate the financial largesse that befalls them more than the green malarkey.

PROFIT BABY PROFIT.

[betts]

OK. Neither of us will hopefully be around to see the fallout of what's being done to the environment by corporations and the rest of us, but I don't think future generations will thank us. You cannot eat money, either.

[MustangGT]

Nope I cannot eat money but I sure CAN eat food it will buy.

[betts]

If there's food to buy. If we have more summers like this one, we won't be growing much in Oklahoma. My plants flowered, but there were no vegetables. I'm guessing it was the heat, because it wasn't lack of water or fertilizer. I spent the entire summer just trying to keep them alive.

[dankrutka]

Nope I cannot eat money but I sure CAN eat food it will buy.

Is it possible to sound more selfish and narrow minded? Wow. Pretty pathetic.