Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Intel Cuts Employee Pay to Maintain Quarterly Dividend

semianalysis.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 293 posts

Re: Intel Cuts Employee Pay to Maintain Quarterly Dividend

#101

Post by numbsafari »

Spooky23 wrote: post #19
rz2k wrote: post #6

When bailed out banks paid bonuses it was understandably unpopular, but there was a certain logic that retaining talent optimized performance of the remaining bank, and therefore it was ultimately in the interest of taxpayers. It seems surprising that Intel either doesn't think that retaining top talent is in the interest of shareholders, or thinks that investors aren't able to understand the investment. I would assu…

Where are they going to go? I’m sure the key people won’t hurt as much, but hardware people are pretty screwed overall. Your mastery of some Intel process has not much value in the market. I worked at a tenant in a well funded facility doing semiconductor manufacturing R&D and prototyping. The nicest cars on that lot belonged to the tradesmen running wire and pipe for the tools. A few execs drove fancy cars in their…

Yeah, it’s not like there’s a ton of new manufacturing capacity building in the US, or an explosion of firms wanting to do custom, in house designs…

Re: Intel Cuts Employee Pay to Maintain Quarterly Dividend

#103

Post by kube-system »

faeriechangling wrote: post #67
tshaddox wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you’re predicting a major decline of globalism, then betting on a domestic firm in an extremely economically important sector that is currently extremely reliant on globalism doesn’t sound that crazy.

What stops the Americans from simply stealing (or buying) TSMC or Samsung or whatever technology with how deep their fingers are into those companies and starting up fabs as needed? Even if the world "Deglobalizes" overall does that really mean that America maintaining its influence over countries like Taiwan and Japan and South Korea is not an option if the issue is important enough? America also has AMD/Nvidia for…

Multinationals have no loyalty to any country anyway. Giving TSMC big tax breaks to build top fabs in the US to make AMD chips is equally as good as having Intel be a success from a national security perspective.

Re: Intel Cuts Employee Pay to Maintain Quarterly Dividend

#104

Post by r2vcap »

faeriechangling wrote: post #67
tshaddox wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you’re predicting a major decline of globalism, then betting on a domestic firm in an extremely economically important sector that is currently extremely reliant on globalism doesn’t sound that crazy.

What stops the Americans from simply stealing (or buying) TSMC or Samsung or whatever technology with how deep their fingers are into those companies and starting up fabs as needed? Even if the world "Deglobalizes" overall does that really mean that America maintaining its influence over countries like Taiwan and Japan and South Korea is not an option if the issue is important enough? America also has AMD/Nvidia for…

There are many reasons why Koreans are angry with the US, and some are related to semiconductors.

After Intel sold its NAND division to SK Hynix, South Koreans were upset because the US government was trying to impose sanctions on Chinese chip factories. Koreans believe that Intel sold it to South Korea after consulting with the US government, knowing that Intel's Dalian fab in China would be affected. It is some kind of insider trading or fraud.

Then passing the IRA and pressuring Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix to build semiconductor factories on US soil is not an allied attitude.

Re: Intel Cuts Employee Pay to Maintain Quarterly Dividend

#105

Post by squokko »

rz2k wrote: post #6

When bailed out banks paid bonuses it was understandably unpopular, but there was a certain logic that retaining talent optimized performance of the remaining bank, and therefore it was ultimately in the interest of taxpayers. It seems surprising that Intel either doesn't think that retaining top talent is in the interest of shareholders, or thinks that investors aren't able to understand the investment. I would assu…

At a bank, 90% of the people do not have any distinctive talent - the companies just hire Type-A looking people, even regardless of college major. This is in many ways why they work so hard and subject themselves to such indignities -- fundamentally they know it and they know they could be replaced at the drop of a hat.

Re: Intel Cuts Employee Pay to Maintain Quarterly Dividend

#106

Post by elihu »

georgeburdell wrote: post #17

Even weirder that last year Intel trebled the stock bonus, added a high performer profit bonus adder, and increased base pay by a lot. What a strange about face. What is Pat doing?

Intel is projecting a loss next quarter, something that hasn't happened in a really long time. Pat doesn't want it to happen on his watch, but I think it would have been better to cut the dividend or take the loss than to do pay/bonus/benefit cuts like this.

Wouldn't be surprised if the words "organize" and "union" are spoken in hushed tones by a few people in the hallways tomorrow. If that gets any momentum behind it it would be a glorious thing and long overdue, but it might not help with Intel's financial difficulties or inspire shareholder confidence...

Re: Intel Cuts Employee Pay to Maintain Quarterly Dividend

#107

Post by Rathseg »

freetime2 wrote: post #85
chrisbolt wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If stock buybacks are more tax-efficient, why are dividends better?

I had to think about this for a bit, and then ended up Googling it. According to Investopedia [1] the key reasons buybacks are controversial are: > Artificial financial results: The impact on earnings per share can give an artificial lift to the stock and mask financial problems revealed by a closer look at the company’s ratios. > Abuse: Companies can use buybacks as a way to allow executives to take advantage of sto…

3 more reasons why buybacks are bad:

1. There have been a studies that show companies are very good at doing buybacks near market highs rather than market lows so they are not efficient use of capital. Note that there have also been studies that try to claim stock buybacks do deliver long term value, but I have not found them convincing.

2. To build on the price bump point, the biggest beneficiary is actually short term activist investors and traders(who conveniently have similar time horizons as the executives) rather than long term shareholders.

3. Frequently buybacks are funded by draining reserves and/or with debt(especially when interest rates were low), this leaves companies weak when economic shocks happen like when the pandemic hit and we had to bail out the airlines who had no cash because they had been spending all their spare cash on buybacks. This could happen with dividends too but it is harder because it is an ongoing 'expense' you have to plan for because you pay it out every quarter rather than allow large sudden expenditures like you have with buybacks.

https://hbr.org/2020/01/why-stock-buybacks-are-dangerous-for...

Re: Intel Cuts Employee Pay to Maintain Quarterly Dividend

#110

Post by blihp »

landemva wrote: post #11
rz2k wrote: post #6

When bailed out banks paid bonuses it was understandably unpopular, but there was a certain logic that retaining talent optimized performance of the remaining bank, and therefore it was ultimately in the interest of taxpayers. It seems surprising that Intel either doesn't think that retaining top talent is in the interest of shareholders, or thinks that investors aren't able to understand the investment. I would assu…

Or Intel has found cover from other tech shops to 'do the necessary' and prune the dead wood. It's about time the C level began to look at employee performance and contribution to profits or losses.

The C level is the dead wood at Intel. This is 15+ years of bad management decisions catching up with them.
Post reply on HN