Unveiling the Mastermind Behind Exxon—the Most Successful Oil CEO Since Rockefeller

Shareholders holding Exxon’s stock expressed their views on the impending end of Lee Raymond’s era: “It’s like Michael Jordan leaving the Chicago Bulls.” At last year’s annual shareholder meeting in Dallas, one Exxon shareholder declared that Raymond—whose $26 million annual salary was already extraordinary—deserved even more, given that the company’s dividends had risen uninterruptedly for 21 years. Though he had devoted 40 years of his life to Exxon, little was publicly known about this son of a railroad engineer. Whether he was married, how many family members he had, or what he did outside work—these questions were effectively off-limits, even to colleagues who interacted with him most frequently. Even since assuming the CEO role in 1993, Raymond kept his personal life entirely out of the public eye, appearing in business-related public settings only with carefully calibrated frequency. Nonetheless, Raymond ranks among history’s most brilliant industrial CEOs—a judgment widely circulated on Wall Street and originally attributed to Morgan Stanley. “I have great difficulty tolerating foolish people,” Raymond remarked in response to that assessment. Raymond earned his Ph.D. in chemical engineering from the University of Minnesota in 1963—the only Exxon CEO ever to hold a doctorate—and his intellect is said to be extraordinary, according to former colleagues. This intellectual acuity manifested most strikingly in his mastery of cost control. In 1977—well before becoming CEO—Raymond slashed costs at Exxon’s refinery in Aruba, Caribbean, and successfully persuaded Venezuela to supply the heavy crude oil the facility urgently needed. Two years later, the refinery turned from a $10 million monthly loss into a $2.5 million monthly profit. In the early 1980s, as Exxon’s second-in-command, Raymond made cost reduction his top priority. He oversaw the company’s diversified ventures—from solar energy to computer-synthesized circuits—and concluded, “There are no profitability metrics here.” He ultimately shut down or sold off every single one. While competitors focused on global expansion, Exxon prioritized profit realization—making it critical to reduce the per-barrel production cost. In human resources, Raymond achieved the lowest headcount since Standard Oil’s bankruptcy in 1991: just 79,000 employees. Costs across oil production, transportation, and sales were also trimmed. Exxon reduced its operating expenses by an average of $1.3 billion annually over five years—equivalent to Phillips Petroleum’s total cost savings over 16 years. “Exxon is extremely frugal—they never waste money, unlike many other companies,” observed William Randol, an analyst at Lehman Brothers. In 1999, Exxon’s acquisition of Mobil made it twice as large as its nearest rival, Chevron Texaco. In this context, Raymond pushed his cost-cutting prowess to its zenith: crude oil procurement costs plummeted from $4 per barrel in the 1980s to just 64 cents—slashing internal costs by $4.6 billion and unlocking a total of $7 billion in savings. This achievement marked the pinnacle of Raymond’s decade-long tenure: “It was Exxon’s golden age—and will become an even brighter era for ExxonMobil,” Raymond declared.

Macroeconomic Indicators Snapshot for First Half of 2026 + Summary of Listed Companies’ Earnings Forecasts

This dataset compiles earnings forecasts for 1,614 listed companies (1,664 under media reporting criteria; some entries are missing). As the compilation was performed independently using an AI agent—not professional data platforms such as Wind—accuracy may fall short of institutional standards. Please note: Omissions are inevitable, and absolute accuracy cannot be guaranteed; all statements herein are for reference only. Among these 1,614 forecasts, the general trend shows improvement in resource-based sectors, select chemical/petrochemical firms, memory-chip manufacturers, securities firms, and certain overseas-expansion or digital-content enterprises. Meanwhile, real estate, the core photovoltaic industry chain, some coal-fired power generators, traditional manufacturing, and automotive sector players face mounting pressure. In terms of earnings performance: 341 companies forecast year-on-year growth (‘upward revision’); 233 forecast growth ≥50%; and 140 anticipate turning from loss to profit—totaling 714 companies, or 44.26% of the 1,613 valid entries (a ~1.4 percentage-point deviation from the media-reported figure of 42.97%, which remains within an acceptable margin for individual analysis). Another 712 companies forecast losses or continued losses (44.14%); 183 forecast declines (11.35%); and the remaining cases—accounting for just 0.25%—likely reflect minor data inconsistencies, with negligible impact on overall conclusions. Also noteworthy: positive earnings revisions stem from two distinct sources. One reflects genuine improvements in core operations—volume, pricing, and supply-demand dynamics. The other stems from non-recurring items—including investment income, fair-value adjustments, asset disposals, and debt restructuring. A substantial number of firms owe their improved net profits to such non-operational factors, which can significantly inflate consolidated net income but do not necessarily signal enhanced operational quality. II. Macroeconomic Indicators 2.1 CPI and Retail Sales (Social Consumption) Based on publicly verifiable data available at the time of this report, the YoY CPI shifted from the low levels seen in H1 2025 to approximately 0.98% in H1 2026, with monthly figures for January–June standing at 0.2%, 1.3%, 1.0%, 1.2%, 1.2%, and 1.0%, respectively. Retail sales data show strong recovery in H1 2025: growth remained above 5% during March–May, peaking at 6.4% in May—the highest point of the current cycle. Starting in June, however, growth declined month-on-month, falling to 0.9% by year-end, reflecting a clear quarterly weakening trend throughout 2025. In 2026, momentum remained subdued. Growth slowed markedly at the start of the year, slipping into negative territory from January to May; a modest rebound occurred in June. CPI alone suggests a markedly improved consumer price environment relative to H1 2025—but the average YoY retail sales growth stands at only ~0.6%. Taken together, CPI stabilization cannot be interpreted as evidence of broad-based consumer demand recovery. 2.2 PPI The YoY PPI shifted from an average of -2.77% in H1 2025 to an average of +1.50% in H1 2026, rising from 0.5% in March to 4.1% in June—the clearest sign of improvement. Yet rising PPI alone does not confirm robust end-market demand. If price increases stem from supply constraints, external shocks, or cost-push pressures, downstream firms may actually face greater strain. Indeed, photovoltaic, steel, certain automotive, and coal-fired power generation firms currently exemplify situations where product prices—or electricity tariffs—lag behind cost inflation or competitive pressures. 2.3 PMI, Retail Sales, and Fixed-Asset Investment The PMI rose from 49.3 in January 2026 and 49.0 in February to 50.4 in March, 50.3 in April, 50.0 in May, and 50.3 in June. The H1 2026 monthly average stood at 49.88—slightly above the H1 2025 average of 49.67.

REX American Resources Reports Record Q1 Fiscal 2026 Earnings

May 28, 2026

REX American Resources reported record Q1 fiscal 2026 net income per diluted share of $0.56 on revenue of $156.5 million. The company highlighted ethanol production expansion at its One Earth facility and progress on a carbon capture project.

REX American Resources Reports Record Q1 2026 Earnings

Stock Titan

TradingView

REX American Resources Reports Fiscal Q1 Earnings

10TV

2026-05-08

REX American Resources Reports Q4 2026 Earnings Beat

2026-05-11

Rex American Resources posts strong Q3 beat as ethanol output remains robust

2026-05-15

REX American Resources Sets May 28 Q1 2026 Results Call