May 8, 2024

Fair Game: A Shareholder Challenges an Occidental Petroleum Move

Or it was until mid-February, when a bit of boardroom weirdness erupted at Occidental Petroleum, the oil and gas exploration and production company based in Los Angeles and one of Mr. Romick’s holdings.

On Feb. 14, out of the blue, Occidental issued a terse, two-paragraph news release. In it, the company announced the creation of a search committee to identify possible successors for Stephen I. Chazen, the C.E.O. It was the first that shareholders had heard about replacing Mr. Chazen, and Mr. Romick said he felt that there was more to the story than Occidental stated.

Then a Wall Street Journal article pointed to boardroom intrigue at the company and suggested Mr. Chazen was being pushed out. Mr. Romick took action.

“I don’t disagree with the idea that there has to be better succession planning at the company,” Mr. Romick, 49, said last week, “but it was putting the wrong guy out to pasture.” The right guy, he contended, would have been Ray R. Irani, the executive chairman of Occidental’s board and its chief executive before Mr. Chazen for 21 years.

Dr. Irani, 78, has ignited controversy at Occidental before. When he was C.E.O., his rich compensation was criticized, and three years ago, 53 percent of Occidental shares voted at the annual meeting rejected the company’s pay policies. A group of shareholders also threatened to mount a proxy fight to oust four independent directors at the company. Afterward, in 2011, Dr. Irani stepped down as C.E.O., and Mr. Chazen took over.

The current plan is for Dr. Irani to retire altogether from the company in 2014. But when the board released its surprise succession statement regarding Mr. Chazen, some investors became concerned that removing him would allow Dr. Irani to postpone his exit. Trying to tamp down this speculation, the company in early April denied any boardroom strife and said Dr. Irani would retire next year, on schedule.

“This is not the time to ask Dr. Irani to step down,” said Dale Petroskey, a spokesman for Occidental. “He can help to ensure continuity and good execution during this period of transition.” He declined to make any board members available for comment.

Nevertheless, the boardroom imbroglio has drawn investor scrutiny to Occidental’s directors just ahead of its annual meeting on May 3 in Santa Monica, Calif. Under its bylaws, any board member who does not receive support from a majority of voted shares has to resign.

Mr. Romick is among the investors who say it’s about time that Occidental’s board is scrutinized. Its directors are among the most highly paid in corporate America: the nine current directors who served for all of 2012 received an average of $640,000 in annual compensation, most of it in stock.

Aziz D. Syriani, 71, is the lead independent director. The C.E.O. of the Olayan Group, a global trading, services and investment organization, he received stock and cash worth $879,000 last year as an Occidental director.

This year’s proxy statement says the board as a whole met five times in 2012. (The audit committee, which Mr. Syriani heads, met eight times.)

“There is no justification for what they earn,” Mr. Romick said. Moreover, the rich pay may induce directors to put managements’ interests ahead of shareholders’, he said.

Mr. Petroskey of Occidental disagrees. “Directors’ compensation is primarily based on an annual stock grant,” he said. “While the directors have not voted themselves an increase in the amount of shares awarded in the annual grant in more than a decade, the value of the grant has increased in recent years due to the very strong performance of Oxy stock.”

Then there is the lengthy tenure of Occidental’s directors — an average of 12 years. Mr. Syriani has served since 1983, which raises questions among some investors about whether his allegiances lie more with the company than with shareholders. As an April 7 research report by Deutsche Bank noted, under governance guidelines in Britain, such longevity would deem the Occidental board “not independent.”

Mr. Petroskey noted that the New York Stock Exchange, where the company’s shares trade, has no such measure of independence. “There are advantages to having a long-serving director with deep knowledge of the company and its operations,” he said. “The board is united under Mr. Syriani’s leadership on continuing to make the difficult but necessary decisions to move this company toward a strong future.”

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/21/business/a-shareholder-challenges-an-occidental-petroleum-move.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

You’re the Boss: Has Perky Jerky Lost Its Perk?

Courtesy of Perky Jerky.

Start

The adventure of new ventures.

Long before Lady Gaga donned her famous meat dress, Brian Levin was wearing a 30-pound beef tunic.

Decked out in silver packets of beef jerky, the entrepreneur’s “jerk suit” made him look like a human-shaped convenience store rack. His mission? Drawing attention to Perky Jerky, a caffeinated meat snack he brought to market two years ago with a co-founder and college buddy, Matt Keiser. Together, they sell it through Home Depot, 7-Eleven, Target, Publix and Sports Authority, claiming nearly $1 million in revenue for 2010.

Yes, you read that right: “caffeinated meat snack.” Perky Jerky’s beef and turkey varieties are steeped in guarana, a Brazilian berry that’s packed with caffeine. The original Web site set up by the company — Performance Enhancing Meat Snacks — claimed that “Each 2 oz. pack of Perky Jerky contains roughly 150 mg. of caffeine, or slightly less than the caffeine amount in 2 Red Bulls.”

But Mr. Levin learned something that Lady Gaga apparently has not: Attention isn’t always such a good thing. In March of last year, the United States Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service sent him a cease-and-desist letter two weeks after the snack was mentioned in a Wall Street Journal article about guarana. The gist of that buzz-killing message was this: Guarana is authorized as a food additive only when used in small quantities as a flavor enhancer, rather than in the larger quantities required to produce a caffeinated boost.

While the U.S.D.A. wouldn’t comment on Perky Jerky’s case specifically, officials explained that the Food Safety and Inspection Service “would not allow producers of beef jerky to add sufficient quantities of guarana to produce a stimulant effect.” In short, the feds told Perky Jerky to go cold turkey.

Since then, Mr. Levin says he has quietly mellowed the brand’s high-octane formula and turbocharged marketing. The word “caffeine” does not appear on new promotional materials or packaging. “We’ve taken down the levels of guarana,” he said. Nowadays, he added, a single serving of Perky Jerky has about as much caffeine as a Diet Coke. (So far, there’s been little mention of the lowered caffeine dose on the company’s Web site, though it did come up on Twitter.)

“We live in a very gray area of government regulation and that’s why we have to be very careful with what we say and how we say it,” Mr. Levin said.

And therein lies a challenge. Ever since the Englewood, Colo., company introduced its unusual snack in August 2009, the product has been marketed to adrenaline junkies as “the meat with a motor.” Mr. Levin still pitches it to the media with a larger-than-life origin story: He and Mr. Keiser were riding a chairlift together at the Snowbird ski resort in Utah when they realized that the beef jerky they’d stashed in a knapsack had been baptized by a leaky Red Bull. He says that they ate the soggy, yet fuel-injected snack and — voila! — the idea for Perky Jerky was born.

During a preliminary interview this April, Mr. Levin explained that getting distribution in national chain stores had been challenging, but that Perky Jerky appealed to retail category managers who “have seen lightning strike before in the form of 5-Hour Energy and even Red Bull.” He added: “This is the next Red Bull.” The strategy seemed to be working. In June, Target stores nationwide began carrying Perky Jerky.

So what do you do when your product loses a main selling point? In other words: What’s Perky Jerky without the perk? Mr. Levin says he hopes to pivot the brand toward a high-end audience by approaching retailers like Whole Foods and Lululemon, pitching it as a low-calorie, protein-rich snack with quality ingredients or, as he puts it (with a straight face), “the filet mignon of beef jerky.”

That might require overcoming stereotypes that lump beef jerky with cowboys, rowdies and the late wrestler Macho Man Randy Savage, who for many years exhorted television viewers to “Snap into a Slim Jim!” It would also mean attracting more female snackers, Mr. Levin added. But that could be tricky for a brand whose slogans include “Everyone wants my meat,” a line that’s available on $20 T-shirts sold at the company’s Web site. Asked whether the shirts jibe with the upscale image he wants to create, he said, “You have to do something that gets people’s attention.”

But the new strategy is not fully in place. Remnants of the old heady, well-caffeinated days still crop up via continued fan sightings of the Jerk Mobile, the company’s Porsche Cayenne S.U.V., which is painted with the Perky Jerky logo and the slogan “caffeinated beef jerky,” along with many online vendors and articles that reflect the old marketing copy and the original 150-milligram caffeine dose. (“It’s out there but, we don’t condone it in any way,” Mr. Levin said of retailers using the outdated messages.) Perky Jerky’s YouTube channel still showcases bobble-headed avatars for Sarah Palin and Larry King discussing the product’s peppy properties. “It is caffeinated beef jerky,” cartoon Palin explains. “Perky Jerky gives me the energy I need to stay up with the Alaskan sun, 24 hours a day!”

It’s clear that there is some confusion in the market. “When we put a product on our site and say it has ‘x’ amount of caffeine in it, it needs to have ‘x’ amount of caffeine in it,” said Jamie Grove, the vice president of marketing at ThinkGeek.com, an e-commerce site that reported $76.3 million in sales for 2010 and has an entire section dedicated to caffeinated products, including Perky Jerky.  The site describes Perky Jerky as “Sweet sweet caffeine in beef jerky form!” and says it contains 150 milligrams of caffeine per bag.

Mr. Grove said the company hadn’t been advised of any changes in Perky Jerky’s caffeine content but planned to check into it. A lower dosage, he said, wouldn’t necessarily exclude it from its offerings, so long as the company knows what that dosage is and can be straight with customers. “If we get some waffly answer and if we don’t come away with confidence I won’t want to have this on our site,” Mr. Grove concluded. “There’s no reason for us to carry things that are marginal. There’s plenty of stuff that’s legit and upfront.”

Earlier this week, a fan on Twitter wrote: “I hope it is an energy drink in food form…” The reply from Perky Jerky? “We just might be .”

Does Mr. Levin worry that consumers may buy Perky Jerky because they have a false impression of how much caffeine is actually in his product?

“I will never worry that people are buying it,” he replied. “I will worry that they’re not.”

In March, Mr. Levin told Entrepreneur magazine he expected Perky Jerky to bring in as much as $10 million for 2011. But in an interview last week, he revised that projection to somewhere between $3 million and $5 million.

What do you think? Can Perky Jerky class up its act and keep its mojo without a caffeine kick? Is there an alternative?

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=fc1b5c891fe7fd6392feff0cc0db9acc

Room For Debate: The Sorry Lot of the Risk-Averse Saver

Introduction

retirees Srdjan Srdjanov/Dreamstime.com

The Federal Reserve’s policy of keeping interest rates at rock bottom is meant to stimulate the economy and encourage people to invest and borrow. But as a recent Wall Street Journal article notes, it also means that people who simply want to save money — especially those who are older or those who cannot manage the complexities of a financial portfolio — continue to be caught in a bind. They either lose ground, because interest rate returns are low while food and energy costs are going up, or they have to consider making investments that are relatively risky and require longer term commitment.

What does this mean for the financial security of cautious small savers? If they are going to lose ground, what incentive do they have to save in the first place?

 Read the Discussion »

<!–

Topics: Economy, Federal Reserve, inflation, interest rates, savings

–>

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=615f47b8800b1d419d198865f3de85f6