Exxon’s top exec got a 17pct. pay raise in 2011
Exxon Mobil gave its top executive a 17 percent increase in compensation last year, as the oil giant posted one of its most profitable years on record.
Rex Tillerson, 60, received a pay package worth $25.2 million, up from $21.5 million in 2010, according to an AP analysis of a regulatory filing on Thursday.
Tillerson received an annual salary of $2.4 million, a bonus of $4.4 million and stock awards worth $17.9 million. He also received $519,230 in miscellaneous compensation including life insurance, personal security, personal use of company aircraft, and financial planning.
Tillerson owns 1.743 million shares of XOM stock worth $145 million, or 0.037% of the company. (Most of the stock of the Big Oil companies is owned not by their managers but by pension funds, mutual funds, and individual investors.)
For comparison, here are the latest available annual compensation numbers for the CEOs of XOM’s competition:
- Jim Mulva, ConocoPhillips, $27,713,594
- John Watson, Chevron, $25,000,000
- Peter Voser, Royal Dutch/Shell, €5,208,000 = $6,800,000
- Robert W. Dudley, BP, $3,404,300
But consider that each of these gentlemen has been successful in rising to the peak of the pyramid in the largest and most complex enterprises in the history of capitalism.
Then consider this:
|Robert Downey, Jr.||$31|
|Sarah Jessica Parker||$30|
|American Athletes||Earnings ($Millions)|
|Dale Earnhardt, Jr.||$26.6|
|International Athletes||Earnings ($Millions)||Sport|
|Fernando Alonso||$45.0||Auto Racing|
|Valentino Rossi||$30.0||Motor Sports|
|Reality “Stars”||Earnings ($Millions)|
Cross-posted at RedState.com.
This is idiotic. You cherry-pick the salaries of a few CEOs and entertainers to try to make some backhanded, convoluted point about CEO being justified based on the high wages of entertainers? Then you fail to actually articulate that point? Entertainer and CEO pay are both based on what the market chooses to pay them. The problem for your argument is that with entertainers, people are constantly voting with their dollars, and we can see a clear link between revenue generation and salary. The same is not true of CEOs.
“This is idiotic.” We can agree on that, except I would have used a colon instead of a full stop.
“You cherry-pick the salaries of a few CEOs and entertainers to try to make some backhanded, convoluted point about CEO (sic) being justified based on the high wages of entertainers?” I disagree about the “backhanded, convoluted” part. I thought it was pretty straightforward. Society values these people on different scales. And I suspect many of the entertainers make a lot more money than was listed due to profit participation in their projects. But more power to them.
“Entertainer and CEO pay are both based on what the market chooses to pay them.” We agree here, too. Technically, CEO pay is usually based on the decision of a Board committee, but they have incentive to compensate their guy well so he won’t be tempted to look for other work.
“The problem for your argument is that with entertainers, people are constantly voting with their dollars, and we can see a clear link between revenue generation and salary. The same is not true of CEOs.” Have you ever heard of the stock market? Via a stock’s price, the success or failure of a CEO is very apparent. An owner of stock may vote by selling his shares, or buying more, depending on his evaluation of the management team. A CEO who does a really poor job devalues his company & sees it go down the tubes or go bankrupt, then he loses his job. Most of these CEOs make a couple of million a year in salary, and the really big compensation numbers get rung up by stock options. That way, they hit a home run only if the stockholders do, too.
OK, to articulate my point fully: I have no problem with the CEO of ExxonMobil (as one example) making as much money as a really good cornerback in the NFL.