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: tcmay who wrote (173086)	2/17/2003 1:13:40 PM
From: GVTucker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Now it is becoming more common for _accountants_ to be moving up. I fear for American technology when EEs and ChemEs and physicists are left down in the trenches so that MBAs, marketing types, lawyers, and accountants can run the companies. Outside of CFO/Controller positions, which have always been landing spots for accountants, I don't think that's the case at all, at least with specific reference to the accountants. More globally, look at the top ten tech companies in the S&P. First, MSFT. The top spot is either Gates or Ballmer, depending on your perspective. Gates is a software guy. Ballmer's a career MSFT guy, if you ignore a very short stint at P&G. Next IBM. Sal Palmisano. Who the heck is he? Probably an MBA type, that's always been the IBM way. Next, Intel. Craig Barrett, engineer all the way. Cisco. Chambers is an MBA/marketing guy all the way, just the kind you don't like. Of course, that company wasn't doing much of anything until they kicked the engineer/founders out of the company. Hard to knock that choice of an MBA. Dell. No MBA/accoutant bean counter running that company, for sure. Oracle. Same thing, founder's still there and in charge. Next on the list is the only one I can find where the philosophy has truly shifted from an engineer to a bean counter, Hewlett-Packard wiht Carly Fiorina, and I think you've got a legitimate argument that the bean counters might have killed a fine company. Final 3 in the tech top 10 are Qualcomm, Texas Instruments, and either eBay or Applied Materials, depending on whether you want to call eBay a technology company or not. Personally, I see it as just a retailer that happens to use the 'Net as its distribution network. Qualcomm is run by an engineer (I.M. Jacobs), TI is also run by an engineer (Tom Engibous), eBay is either run by the founder or his handpicked successor (Meg Whitman), and the CEO of AMAT is someone I'm not sure of (James Morgan), though I am sure that the President of AMAT, Dan Maydan, is an engineer. Which is a pretty long way of saying that I think you are pointing out a trend that doesn't exist.

To: tcmay who wrote (173086)	2/17/2003 2:20:38 PM
From: hueyone	Respond to of 186894

I see you are a former employee of Intel in the early days. Congratulations. Both Intel and Msft were outstanding performers with legitimate economic profits long before Silicon Valley got carried away with the stock option loophole to the extent they did in the late nineties. And to this day neither of these companies earnings would be impacted nearly to the extent that some other technology companies would be if stock options were to be expensed. MSFT Fiscal 6-30-02 6-30-01 GAAP EPS 1.41 1.38 S&P Core EPS 1.30 1.22 Gaap with SO Exp. .98 .91 INTC Fiscal 12-31-01 12-30-00 GAAP EPS .19 1.51 S&P Core EPS .11 N/A GAAP w/ SO Exp. .04 1.40 SEBL Fiscal 12-31-01 12-30-00 GAAP .49 .24 S&P Core EPS -1.02 N/A GAAP w/SO Exp. -1.02 -.29 Perhaps expensing stock options would separate the wheat from the chaff. There are numerous pretenders to the throne in the technology sector who have no legitimate economic performance, with reported earnings grossly inflated by failure to expense stock options. Capital inflows to companies have been horribly inefficient over the last decade due to the distortions caused by failure to expense stock options. If companies were to come clean to investors by expensing stock options and reporting real economic results, the companies that truly have outstanding management, technical expertise and outstanding organizations, can still rise to the top (or stay at the top) and be more strong, while those companies that have been relying on sleight of hand accounting to stay in the game well past a time when we reasonably should expect legitimate economic performance, will either change their compensation structures to be in line with their real economic performance, or they will wither away. That is what free enterprise is about isn't it, survival of the fittest? Regards, Huey

To: tcmay who wrote (173086)	2/18/2003 8:42:11 AM
From: Amy J	Respond to of 186894

Hi Tim, RE: "MBAs and marketing types have long been on the fast track to the top in American companies...I fear for American technology when EEs and ChemEs and physicists are left down in the trenches so that MBAs, marketing types, lawyers, and accountants can run the companies." ------------------------- This downturn has put the money people in charge in many organizations & companies. I hear complaints about this at many companies - especially those hit the hardest where they don't have profits. Finance guys are in charge right now in many places across the Valley. But I remind engineering-minded friends & contacts this is simply a phase - money people are excellent at pruning and refocusing - they are truly needed right now. But when the economy turns, the innovators will need to step up to the plate and help companies expand, so they need to learn to be patient. Finance guys for the most part (with the exception of some talented ones, that I think Intel may have) don't grow gardens, they pull out the weeds. Consumer high-tech firms have higher acceptance and need of non-engineers because of the focus on consumer marketing and public image. But high-tech companies are still mainly headed by people with technical backgrounds and usually with line-management experience. I don't think that's changed, but then again I'm not old enough to know what the 70's were like as compared to today. You can tell who is in charge at Intel - where does the $5B go every year? That's engineering as far as I can tell. I think this downturn may have hurt the future engineering talent pool. (I hope not.) What do students think of engineering these days? What with the huge downturn & sending engineers overseas? Do students understand that the industry isn't sending the new, creative product engineering positions? Mainly some of the more repetitive items, or the stuff that's spec'ed out to a T, and the IT stuff. And even some of that's over done. So many people have left the industry that when this turns, the industry may have some problems in recruitment. Regards, Amy J