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: GVTucker who wrote (180474)	3/29/2005 8:55:23 AM
From: Proud_Infidel	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Heck, Splinter of AMAT got the maximum bonus of $5 Million for moving the stock down (and nowhere since he came on board), so I would gladly take "only" $1.84 Million. And it should be noted that AMAT's revenues are a fraction of what INTC's are. Disgusting all around.

To: GVTucker who wrote (180474)	3/29/2005 9:11:27 AM
From: robert b furman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

That is what does make sense. Pimp the outstanding shares(dilute) and rip off the stockholders through greedy stock creation and the appropriate response is a downward price. Once the stock options MUST be expensed - we'll see an end to this theft. Therefore the greediest of executives have a short window in which to maximize their greedy wealth transfer. The correct response to this is a diluted stock price - and better yet an ousting of the corrupt management level. JMHO Bob

To: GVTucker who wrote (180474)	3/29/2005 9:45:56 AM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

GV, How do most comp committees handle stock option compensation before someone retires from CEO but shifts to chairman? (This is a question.) Did Chambers get a bonus last year? (This is a question) finance.yahoo.com No doubt Intel stumbled last year - we all felt it. That is for sure. But I was a bit puzzled by the 350k doubling on the way down, more than the bonus. Also, the purpose of options is for future performance while you are in that position you are compensated for. I probably would have made the bonus $400k and divided the 350k options by the number of years a person is not in the position they are being compensated for over the vesting period. Additionally, in this economy, 350k is pricey. Things are compressing across the board. There's no running away from it. Regards, Amy J

To: GVTucker who wrote (180474)	3/29/2005 9:53:03 AM
From: Elmer Phud	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

GV In addition he exercised 340,000 options for $10.7 Million. money.iwon.com

To: GVTucker who wrote (180474)	3/29/2005 3:28:52 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

I agree with the premise of your post (that Barrett is overpaid), but I don't think we can attach executive salaries to stock prices in this climate. Barrett can't help the fact that the dollar is crashing or the budget deficit is at an all time high.

To: GVTucker who wrote (180474)	3/29/2005 4:22:43 PM
From: Saturn V	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Ref- For the same year, Craig Barrett's salary was $2.62mm. His bonus was $1.84mm, a full 70% of his salary. That is absurd for a year that should be considered a failure for Intel Based upon financial metrics 2004 was one of Intel's best years. So the bonus compensation should obviously reflect that, since the bonus is determined before the year begins and is based upon sales and profit goals. And Intel did pretty well on that score. Barrets compensation was always relatively low compared to most US CEOs. Jerry Sanders would have extravagant compensation even in years when AMD was barely making it. But I agree that US CEO compensation is higher than it should be, particularly when compared to other countries like Japan etc. But given Intels last years financial performance, and average US CEO compensation, it is unfair to single out Barret. However I am also a frustrated Intel stock holder. So the issue is market perception of Intel. Intel did have execution problems on some new designs last year. However those problems have been resolved, but the market perception has not changed. Even Microsoft, Cisco and the other large high techs are sporting much lower PEs and stock prices. The market does not appear to see significant growth in the future, assuming that high tech has matured. So I will have to wait and have Intel prove the market perception to be too pessimistic.

To: GVTucker who wrote (180474)	3/29/2005 8:02:02 PM
From: The Duke of URL©	Respond to of 186894

Wouldn't it seem appropriate to know the terms of the options rather than to just state the amount. It could be egregious it could be meaningless, depending on the terms. As far as the stock price goes, this cannot be a total shock to you. Business has been down since the millennium and the crash and the bombing. What is at issue here is the decision, which is primarily Barrett's to spend 27 Billion on plant and about 18 Billion on Research during this period. The bad news is the expense. The good news may be that Andy Bryant said that Intel's "physical plant" is straining to keep pace with demand. The bad news is that we do need to view the terms of the options. The bad news is that David Pottruck who invented these massive bonuses is still on the board, The good news is we sold what 40 Billion dollars worth of stuff in 04. this is what Bryan posted: "If Intel's stock rose between 5 percent and 10 percent per year over the next 10 years, Barrett's options would be worth between $5.9 million and $15.1 million, while Otellini's options would be worth between $5.1 million and $12.9 million. If Intel's stock does not rise, the options can expire worthless." That is crap. He got 1.3 million last year. But inclation will make the stock rise more than that. What was the basis for the grant of the options. Andy Grove, and Gordon and are not available any more to watch this stuff. This could be very bad.