Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Amy J who wrote (167170)	6/27/2002 4:12:12 AM
From: Tenchusatsu	Respond to of 186894

Amy, <It's unhealthy for this country if the industry leaders have arrangements such as this, that conveys to society their spouses are incapable, dependent individuals that can't save, or work should the need arise.> Given the amount of money Mr. Ebbers is getting, I'd say he's the incapable, dependent individual who can't save or work should the need arise. "It seems to me that the best way to hurt rich people is by making them poor." - Eddie Murphy, Trading Places Tenchusatsu

To: Amy J who wrote (167170)	6/27/2002 9:31:29 AM
From: 2maclean	Respond to of 186894

Amy, In principle, I'm not sure how unusual this is (save in the rather generous amount). At the firm where I used to work, my pension plan offers to pay me a certain amount monthly for the rest of my life, or a lesser amount, which would then continue to be paid to my spouse for the rest of her life. Regards, 2MacLean

To: Amy J who wrote (167170)	6/27/2002 2:01:29 PM
From: BelowTheCrowd	Respond to of 186894

Amy, No different than many other collapsed enterprises in the past, where there were often benefit programs for spouses, brothers, cousins, best friends, parents, future grandchildren and just about everybody else. This has nothing to do with sexism, and everything to do with the fact that WCOM was effectively being run as a private bank for the benefit of Ebbers, his family and his friends. Yeah, corporate governance sucks.

To: Amy J who wrote (167170)	6/27/2002 2:15:04 PM
From: Proud_Infidel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Intel Senor Vice President Albert Yu to Retire SANTA CLARA, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--June 27, 2002--Intel Corporation today announced the retirement of Dr. Albert Y. C. Yu, Intel senior vice president and Strategic Programs director. Yu, 61, is a veteran of the semiconductor industry. He joined Intel in 1972 and has held a number of senior management positions with the company during his career. Most recently, Yu led Intel's international expansion activity, and has been responsible for driving Intel's strategy in the optoelectronics area. Previously, he served as senior vice president and general manager of the Intel Architecture Group, leading Intel's microprocessor development for 16 years, spanning the development of the Intel 386(TM) processor to the latest Intel® Pentium® 4 processor. "Albert Yu is well known and highly respected both within Intel and throughout the semiconductor industry," said Craig Barrett, chief executive officer. "Albert has been a key contributor to Intel's success over the years and we wish him well in retirement." Prior to joining Intel, Yu was with Fairchild Research and Development Lab, based in Palo Alto, Calif., where he managed semiconductor device research and development activities. Yu received his doctorate and master's degrees from Stanford University and his bachelor's degree from California Institute of Technology, all in electrical engineering. Yu is on the board of directors of Oak Technology Inc. and the Tech Museum of San Jose, Calif. He has published more than 30 technical papers and two books, "An Insider's View of Intel" (1995) and "Creating the Digital Future" (1998). His retirement will be effective Sept. 5. Intel, the world's largest chipmaker, is also a leading manufacturer of computer, networking and communications products. Additional information about Intel is available at www.intel.com/pressroom. Note to Editors: Intel and Pentium are trademarks or registered trademarks of Intel Corporation or its subsidiaries in the United States and other countries. Other names and brands may be claimed as the property of others.

To: Amy J who wrote (167170)	6/27/2002 2:16:23 PM
From: Proud_Infidel	Respond to of 186894

It's unhealthy for this country if the industry leaders have arrangements such as this But more than that, it is IMMORAL!

To: Amy J who wrote (167170)	6/27/2002 2:21:46 PM
From: BelowTheCrowd	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 186894

Another thought on corporate governance. I read an interesting opinion yesterday, stating that we owe some of the blame for the current state of affairs to the "do gooders" of the early 90s, who passed new laws to make hostile takeovers much more difficult. It should come as no surprise then that, as hostile takeovers declined to 4% from 14% of all mergers, executive compensation started a steep climb, eventually ending for some companies with bankruptcy and management scandal. The largely mythical abuses alleged to result from an unfettered takeover system were less costly to investors than what has occurred since. Every statute, adjudication, or regulation that in any way inhibited the free functioning of the market for corporate control simply raised the real cost of ousting inappropriate managers. Dollar for dollar, every increase in those costs could be claimed by incumbent managers, either in greater rewards to themselves or in inefficient management policies. Until the real cost of wastefulness equals the cost of a successful takeover fight, they remain secure behind a legal barrier to their ouster, at least until the whole house of cards collapses. Enron is a predictable consequence of rules that inhibit the efficient functioning of the market for corporate control. The solution is straightforward but by no means simple: repeal and reverse all the many statutes, rules, and case holdings that interfere with tender offers. American corporations would have to restructure themselves, as they did in the '70s and '80s, to live in a more deregulated market. There would be heavy human costs in the ensuing dislocations, and we could expect a screeching replay of the spurious arguments that won the day in the late '60s and mid-'80s. But with such a reversal of policy, however unlikely, executive compensation would begin to plummet, there would be less pressure on accountants to cook the books, and American corporations would probably enter another period of innovation, efficiency, and profitability. Full text in Yesterday's Wall Street Journal. I usually find something wrong with academic arguements in the Wall Street Journal. In this case, I really can't. A combination of state and federal law, combined with a complete abdication of responsibility by the largest owners of stock have effectively insulated management from any real threats. So long as they don't actually commit fraud or other crimes, they are virtually impossible to get rid of. No surprise they're making themselves rich while everybody else loses. Not to get into another flame war, but Jerry Sanders probably couldn't survive if he had to face the threat of somebody taking over AMD and refocusing it for maximum profitability rather than maximum ego trip. And he's pretty tame compared to some of the more extravagant managers in other industries. mg