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: rkral who wrote (174457)	5/14/2003 7:06:52 AM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Hi rkral, RE: "It may appear incongruent to investors, but that is what they should expect .. when the stock price declines over a few years. Consider ...." I think the counter argument could be, a) the total number of high-tech public companies on Nasdaq was (I believe) loosely cut almost in half - two times more executives looking for the same spot: Demand < Supply, b) companies could be importing more execs to increase supply, c) keep an eye on the employee to ceo ratio, d) increase age/wealth diversity so that comp decisions reflect input from all demographics in order to maximize gains (ala Italy entrepreneur), e) and most important: be more careful about appearances of being incongruent to investors. Even if numerically the amount isn't material, it rather becomes material if it has an impact on other larger scale issues to either the company or the industry as a whole. f) don't always believe compensation surveys - don't they tend to represent the past, status quo, rather than being instruments of change for the future? g) groom more execs for the queue, so there's more backup h) it's okay for comp committees to let an exec walk once in awhile, tends to send a message to the rest of them to settle down a bit until the company is out of the woods. Sometimes a person has to let the one that chomps at the bit too much go because there's always a greener pasture on the other side of some fence. i) fix the 2:1 ratio between ceo/vp so vp's don't vye for another ceo's job at another company (though, that's an industry issue, not an Intel thing.) But I agree with you that 100,000 would have been too small. But I also think 350k pushed the appearance limit that has to be factored when granting a lot during a time when the stock has performed poorly (- 37% YOY). Some of these things are industry issues, not an Intel thing. But fixing it needs to start somewhere. Intel is good at setting industry standards. On another note, I'm against expensing options for many reasons, one of which is because it places options on the same level of treatment as cash, which means an exec can run to their boards and say, "hey, since options cost the same as cash, there's no reason for teh company to give this to me in options, I want this in cash." A risk free vehicle. We definitely don't want that to happen - that's what the smokestack companies have - oodles of guaranteed cash, no broad-base ownership, so very two tiered, not a formula for growth. Overall, Intel's got the right of it, for the most part. The NYTimes claimed that stock ownership creates abuses -- I hope the recent abuse of plagerism they've experienced helps them realize the issue is corporate governance is the way to prevent abuses, the issue is not about stock options. In fact, if NYTimes writers/editors had options, maybe they would have kept a watchful eye on their colleagues performance? This is what happens in stock option companies. A few years ago at Intel, there was a divisional manager that proactively jumped in to save another division, I bet because he didn't want to see his stock tank -- otherwise, what's the incentive to stick your nose into someone else's business? Stock makes it your business. Regards, Amy J