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: JDN who wrote (67237)	10/23/1998 8:22:00 AM
From: Glenn D. Rudolph	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

INTC: PAINE WEBBER increased estimate for fiscal year ending 12/98 from $3.17 to $3.30 on 10/14/98 INTC: PAINE WEBBER increased estimate for fiscal year ending 12/99 from $3.94 to $4.00 on 10/14/98 INTC: PAINE WEBBER increased estimate for quarter ending 12/98 from $0.90 to $0.94 on 10/14/98

To: JDN who wrote (67237)	10/23/1998 2:58:00 PM
From: nihil	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

RE: Stock options The only way an employee can hope to become rich is to be an optioned employee in a growth company. [consider examples of great contributors to corporate success like the physicists at Bell Labs who invented the transistor, the engineers at Toyota who invented JIT or the language writers at IBM who invented FORTRAN, or the guys at Bell Labs who wrote Unix and C) and got nothing or very little in individual rewards. I understand that none of them got rich from their companies. I suppose Bardeen made more from his first Nobel Prize than he did from Bell Labs, and he went to the University of Illinois where he doubtless made far more from his piece of his second Nobel prize than he did from incentives from the University. Shockley, of course, left Bell and went to Palo Alto, where he played a major but nigh forgotten role in creating Silicon Valley. Moore and Noyce (among others) who as the "traitorous eight" left Shockley Labs to form what became Fairchild Semi, were dissatisfied with the business climate and lack of recognition and reward of engineers and scientists, and founded Intel. Intel rewarded professional employees with options, a real revolution, and for years had more optioned employees and a larger percentage of optioned employees than anyone else. I believe Intel started the wide-ownership stock option game. The plan has two major aspects: individual grants (in number of shares) are assigned by management differentially on the performance of the individual -- this serves as an individual incentive, ties the employee close to the company, makes separation or discharge an fearful alternative for the employee and inexorably makes him or her conform behavior to the goals of the company; the current value of the option, or, more important, the value at expiration, depends on the performance of all and is a group incentive. One may by furious individual activity gain approval and options on a large number of shares, but unless corporate EPS grows, the results are ashes. A large grant at AMD out of the money requires repricing to create short-term incentives. The extent to which options can replace salary is limited, and few companies like to hire people who have to make the trade off. The option is an important sweetener for the most industrious, ambitious, cooperative, able, and productive. These people will get top salaries and will (on the average, be top producers. Under no conditions will they go to work for a mediocre or weak company. The top companies have to compete among themselves for these stars, and the most powerful tool they have is the growth of EPS in the company itself. I believe this process is drawing the most productive people out of companies that don't play the option game successfully, out of the not-for-profit sector and government, and from overseas labor market where few firms are both willing and able to play the game.

To: JDN who wrote (67237)	11/1/1998 5:35:00 PM
From: DownSouth	Respond to of 186894

>in truth IMHO only the executive personell and board can really influence a company. Employees, even sales personell are usually influenced more by immediate reward such as commissions and bonuses. I know you wish to drop this subject, but since I have experience as a sales person with stock options and commissions, I can tell you for sure that the stock options DO influence performance. It changes the motivation from being strictly "out for myself and the commissions" to be "working for the commissions and the overall good of the company". My colleagues, almost to the person, would agree, I am sure.