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: Noel who wrote (178096)	5/25/2004 4:58:50 PM
From: Robert O	Respond to of 186894

As someone pointed out, Intel top-level executives are underpaid compared to their peers at other companies -- even with stock options taken into account. ########## Sun? WCOM? JDSU? LOL

To: Noel who wrote (178096)	5/25/2004 6:08:29 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Respond to of 186894

Intel top-level executives are underpaid... For a long time Intel has had what appears to be too many executives though. Not just an Intel problem, but the older tech companies seem to have a real problem with collapsing VP positions once they are created. I think the total options pool for all execs needs to be looked at, not just what one guy gets paid.

To: Noel who wrote (178096)	5/25/2004 6:34:56 PM
From: Elmer Phud	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Noel - someone has put together a thoughtful argument for expensing stock options and backed it with quantitative analysis. This is a lot better than Carl's rants about greedy and dishonest executives Carl was once a liked and respected member of this thread. Unfortunately I think he's lost his mind.

To: Noel who wrote (178096)	5/25/2004 11:02:57 PM
From: hueyone	Respond to of 186894

The issue is not whether Intel executives are getting overpaid, but rather the issue is overstating earnings and performance by not deducting stock option expense on the income statement. The current bill in the House that suggests expensing stock options paid to execs on the income statement, but not to expense stock options paid to the rank and file on the income statement, is absolutely ridiculous. Either stock option compensation is expensable compensation or it isn't, and nearly everyone with advanced degrees in accounting and finance have analyzed the situation and determined it is. Currently, only campaign donations along with a few genuinely confused lawyers in the House lacking financial analysis skills are holding back the FASB recommendation to expense stock options. It is unfortunate that Barrett is actively promoting continuing on with this (legal) scam of failing to expense stock option compensation on the income statements. It puts a big stain on an otherwise great company---as does management thumbing its nose at the shareholder vote. JMO.