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: Road Walker who wrote (174275)	4/29/2003 12:06:21 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

JF, Do you think that is typical of most Intel employees? What was the rational? I think that's "rationale." And I think you had it right in your post. I wouldn't necessarily call it a "slap in the face for shareholders," though. I'd consider it more of a reaction to the bubble bursting. It calls into question the entire purpose of stock options, which itself is affected more by the volatility of the market than by employee performance. Like I said before, I think a program of profit-sharing would be more reflective of employee performance than stock options. But of course that would cost Intel, because we all know stock options don't "cost" anything (notice the quotes). Maybe the execs are hoping for another 2000-like bubble so we can cash out like some of my coworkers. You should have seen how green I got when my friend told me he cashed out in 2000 and bought a house at the same time (and at a good price). Tenchusatsu

To: Road Walker who wrote (174275)	4/29/2003 12:32:43 PM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 186894

Hi John & Thread, there's an Intel engineer that was arrested as a material witness for suspected terrorism: cnn.com The SJMN had an article on this the other day, with a link to a website: freemikehawash.org I was reading the government's document on it, and with the exception of #105 in the document (which could be huge), he sounds like a guy that is the victim of assumed guilt by association. What are your thoughts on it? Here's my thoughts on it: The document said he grew a beard after his parents visited him, and started to dress "Eastern". I don't think a person is guilty because they grow a beard and get more traditional when their parents visit. In fact, this is very common with Indian Shieks (SP?) that I know, as well as other nationalities. Parents of immigrants tend to have more influence on their kids in the traditional sense than American parents seem to, so I think the government's interpretation of this is from an American perspective of a non-immigrant. The document said he was going to try and start a business. He or his wife created a bank account for her only and moved $5k into her account and put their house in her name. The document acted as if this was unusual. It's actually very normal for business owners to move their house & household money into their spouse's name. My brother did this (he's a doctor with a practice) and many small business owners do this, before starting a business. So, I don't understand why the government thought that was unusual. The document said that he spent more time at home after 9/11/01. But that sounds normal, given that he was termed from Intel in August of 2001. Usually after people depart a job, they have more time to spend at home. The document said he shopped at REI in Oct for some hiking stuff. Isn't that what most people in high-tech do when they take time off? Geez, I bought an "outdoor survival book" from Amazon and the book was written by (gasp) the military (they have a good outdoor book) - does that make a person a terrorist? And I bought the book just prior to the Anthrax attacks happening but was unlucky enough to receive it just after the attacks started, so I ended up tossing the book out before opening it, because the UPS (or Fedex) tracker information showed it came from the same region that CNN reported was suspected of being infected with anthrax. Talk about bad timing and being unlucky. I still want that book. The document found it strange he didn't call people in China even though he said he would try to start some type of business. Geez, how can you call someone in China before you have even been there? The document said a neighbor said he got more distant after 9/11. Geez, who didn't. Immigrants even had the additional burden of trying to stay safe after 9/11, from racist physical attacks. I know of one hiking trip that was canceled as a result of people's valid concerns about being in public areas on the anniversary weekend of 9/11 because they were immigrants. The document said, a neighbor said he had more visitors from Middle Eastern men in September. Well, geez, considering that he was termed in August 2001, I would imagine it would be normal to suddenly have time for visitors. The document said he told his wife he was going to try to do some type of business in China and then later on he told someone else he was thinking of some other business type in China. Geez, this sounds no different than Silicon Valley, where business plans seem to change every month or weekly. When people start their businesses, they generally keep an open mind to consider all options and they tend to go after a variety of potential projects to see what works. The government thought this was suspicious. I think it's actually funny they think it's suspicious because in startup land, it's actually very normal to change business ideas. In fact, if you don't, you're standing still. The government also found it suspicious he told a hotel in China that he was a tourist, rather than starting a business. I don't see anything suspicious in that at all - you don't tell someone you don't know that you're going to start a business, not until you get things figured out. The government thought it suspicious he didn't phone some China Minister of Oregon's Business Economic something-or-another to get help from them on vendors & established in China. I can't think of a soul that would call the government for help on how to get vendors in China -- you don't go to the government, you go to your industry contacts in the USA and ask around. I never even heard of the Minister of whatever-its-name-was, even though I have had several mainland China business-people wanting to conduct business with our startup. The government thought it was suspicious he reserved a room at a hotel but stayed somewhere else. Wow, I do this all the time. I get to a city and find something either cheaper or better, or closer to something, or I simply change my mind. The government thought it was unusual he went to China with some people from mosque. I don't find that weird at all - churches, temples or mosques are a place where you meet people and many churches even have organized trips overseas. I think the government's report conveys suspicion over several perfectly normal and very common things that small business owners do. However, I do think there are three things that are worthy of investigation: - why did he term from Intel in August of 2001, which is only one month before 9/11. (Though Intel would know this reason and whether or not it's cause for suspicion.) - why wasn't he able to pick up on the fact that his friends were involved in terrorism? (Though, his white American wife didn't seem to pick up on it either.) - line #105 -- if he is the person being described in #105 (though no name is mentioned) and if the 3rd person commentary about the unamed person is accurate and if it's him, then he's guilty. I think this entire thing boils down to line #105. I don't know him, so can't even begin to guess if he's actually involved or not. On an unrelated note, I know of two people whose names happen to exactly match a terrorist's name so have heard how the government struggles to try to figure out who is bad and who is good. They eventually figured it out, but it's a time sink for the government in terms of resources and a defocus to getting the bad people. Regards, Amy J

To: Road Walker who wrote (174275)	4/29/2003 1:18:16 PM
From: THE WATSONYOUTH	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

It would mean that Intel management doesn't care about the added dilution. Oh, it cares about dilution.... at least to the extent that it will lower the value of their options. Why do you suppose Intel buys back billions worth of shares each year rather than paying a handsome dividend? That Intel management is running the company for the benefit of the employees; at the expense of the shareholders And it took you how many years to figure that out?? THE WATSONYOUTH