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: Saturn V who wrote (180886)	4/23/2005 8:00:46 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

re: I believe that most CEO compensation is excessive, but Barret is relatively low on the scale. My impression (could be wrong) is that Intel is top heavy in the number of executives and their compensation (not just CEO). They certainly have to buy back a lot of stock each year to pay for their option grants. I keep wondering if the companies I own are run for the benefit of the employee's (especially the executives) or the shareholders (owners). I would like to hear what other people think with regard to Intel. Are we just providing the funding that is necessary to make the executives rich? Or will we eventually get a cut of the HUGE cash flow? Why do we own this stock? John

To: Saturn V who wrote (180886)	4/26/2005 6:08:29 PM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Saturn, you forgot to mention this: Edward Zander Motorola $38.9 mil. He got paid for doing this: finance.yahoo.com Though, he did better than Intel here: finance.yahoo.com "But even Kovacevich can't compete with Home Depot CEO Bob Nardelli, who rang up a wild $6.4 million in perks, primarily due to a forgiven loan" If an employee doesn't pay a loan back, a collection agency is called. But if a CEO doesn't pay a loan back, it's called a perk. There should be consistency. fortune.com