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: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (174243)	4/25/2003 8:27:39 PM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Hi Lizzie and Thread, "I would suggest that those companies like intel who are voicing loud opposition to options expensing draft an executive pay proposal and put it forth to the shareholders immediately. ...The fact that these boards are just sitting there, in the middle of what is obviously something of a shareholder revolt, is amazing to me." I think you're right. They should get a move on it, and if possible, propose something fast that addresses the public's mood (their shareholders) and the underlying issues of quantity while stock performance has dropped, otherwise, they most likely will have their own shareholders running to a solution that doesn't even address the underlying concern and could be filled with some long-term harmful ramifications to growth (time will tell) that also lacks financial clarity. It sort of amazes me too, they didn't do something extreme during this period (such as no options for one year) for the greater good in order to ensure no LT harmful impact to the company's growth & no impact to clarity of financials. I think their board or comp committee doesn't have enough diversity to get them in touch with the average Joe/Jane's perceptions & lack of understanding on these issues (and how to manage that), or they felt forced to grant more (at a poor time that's counter productive to their larger goal) because they perceived they'd have an issue with their execs if they didn't hold off for say one year, but that doesn't make sense to me because smart people understand the concept of doing things for the greater good - ST pain for LT gain. But I think the op-ed piece was very good. At least they did one thing that was well done. Congress needs to wake up. Expensing is unrelated to corporate governance and expensing wouldn't have avoided Enron's problem but proper corporate governance would have. That's obvious to me, probably because I have experience in setting exec compensations and understand the issue is proper corporate governance by comp committees, which expensing has nothing to do with. Of course, the average Joe/Jane probably doesn't understand that - look at Duke trying to explain the obvious. Intel's board needs to propose something fast, at least something they can do for the short-term, rather than leaving their shareholders with no recourse on quantity, which will have the net of shareholders running to voting something else in (such as expensing options) that actually doesn't solve the concern. If I were an exec at Intel, I'd be phoning in my voluntary decision not to take options for one year for the company (and their own) greater good. Regards, Amy J