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: carl a. mehr who wrote (172687)	1/29/2003 4:55:16 PM
From: Jim McMannis	Respond to of 186894

RE:"The list goes on: Somebody please include the ones that I left out. Is Grove clean?" Probably not. Not if it doesn't matter when you cashed out. So many sticky fingers from getting all that free Candy...

To: carl a. mehr who wrote (172687)	1/29/2003 5:06:30 PM
From: carl a. mehr	Respond to of 186894

Humble One It is clear that the foxes guarding the Intel earnings don't understand the meaning of: Fiduciary responsibility fi·du·ci·ar·y (fĭ-dû'shç-ĕr'ç, -shə-rç, -dyû'-, fî-) adj. a. Of or relating to a holding of something in trust for another: a fiduciary heir; a fiduciary contract. b. Of or being a trustee or trusteeship. c. Held in trust. d. One, such as an agent of a principal or a company director, that stands in a special relation of trust, confidence, or responsibility in certain obligations to others. fiduciary (fĭdû'shçĕ'rç) , in law, a person who is obliged to discharge faithfully a responsibility of trust toward another. Among the common fiduciary relationships are guardian to ward, parent to child, lawyer to client, corporate director to corporation, trustee to trust, and business partner to business partner. In discharging a trust, the fiduciary must be absolutely open and fair. Certain business methods that would be acceptable between independent parties dealing with one another “at arm's length” may expose a fiduciary to liability for having abused a position of trust. Thus, in an ordinary business transaction the prospective purchaser of land need not inform the seller of an imminent rise in realty values, but one buying land from a partner must disclose such information. In many cases courts will treat an unexplained profit derived from a fiduciary relationship as an instance of constructive fraud. It is clear from their hidden "salary" payments that the "foxes" have stepped over the line...humble carl

To: carl a. mehr who wrote (172687)	1/29/2003 6:17:27 PM
From: Proud_Infidel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Pottruck has been a director of Intel since 1998. My question is this- why is he granted such a large option package a such a low price, when INTC's shares have not seen $1.60 for what 10 years? This is obscene and people take it as a regular course of business. Please note, I have always thought these "compensation" packages were obscene; it is just now that the rock is being lifted and light is shining beneath. intel.com

To: carl a. mehr who wrote (172687)	1/29/2003 6:59:38 PM
From: Saturn V	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Ref < Is Grove clean ? > Oh Humble One, will you please define "Clean" ! ( Please pardon the Clintonism !) If you define "Clean" as someone who did not make money from exercise of stock options, then you will have to exclude the management of most successful American companies of the last fifty years. The management of HP, Intel,Apple, Sun, Oracle etc benefited themselves and their shareholders by working their butt off to increase shareholder value and the stock price. The list of "Clean" would be filled with the management of unsuccessful companies. If the management indulged in PUMP AND DUMP then there is a violation of fiduciary responsibility. There is no evidence of that at Intel. If anything the management appears does not appear to have cashed out at the peak. Remember Intel went up almost 50 fold during 87-00 time frame. However I am disturbed by the exercise price of $1.50 for David S. Pottruck who apparently joined in 1998. I do not understand how that came about! Intel needs to clarify this. If Intel did indeed grant an option to Mr. Pottruck at $1.50 in 1998, then he must have paid massive taxes to IRS in 1998 for the difference between the market price in 1998 and the exercise price of $1.50. For this reason options are rarely granted below the market price. After the Enron collapse where there was a obvious failure of fiduciary responsibility ( Insufficient disclosures about off balance partnerships, in which the management had ownership, and outright Pump and Dump), and WorldComm where there was massive accounting fraud, we have succumbed to a WITCHHUNT of all stock options.