161–170 of 293 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
real talent leaves
This. I've had one pay cut in my career, and it immediately made me just up and leave. I don't know why one would tolerate such a thing, unless there was significant up-side still on the table.
You don’t want a Silicon job because your talent is illiquid. They can take a giant dump directly in your mouth while making steady eye contact and you can’t leave because there is nowhere to go. In software and in startups if you have relevant skills and modern, up to date experience you can switch easily. Don’t work in industries that are declining and have no future and require advanced technical training that is…
Intel has a steady funnel of smart international PhD grads who are usually fine with the comparatively lower pay.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depends on the investor. There is an entire class of investor that is focused on stocks that reliably deliver a dividend. I wasn't aware that Intel had joined old-economy companies like oil, but I also don't fully understand the dividend investor mindset, as I can't figure out a tax situation that makes it appealing...
> also don't fully understand the dividend investor mindset Suppose you have ~5 million invested for retirement. The dividend you could get from this is ~100k-150k per year. That is a very livable salary if you want to retire early (45? 50?) and focus on your family and hobbies. Does this make sense yet? It's essentially a conservative way to lead your live if you are not necessarily married to your profession.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> also don't fully understand the dividend investor mindset Suppose you have ~5 million invested for retirement. The dividend you could get from this is ~100k-150k per year. That is a very livable salary if you want to retire early (45? 50?) and focus on your family and hobbies. Does this make sense yet? It's essentially a conservative way to lead your live if you are not necessarily married to your profession.
No, it absolutely makes no sense to me. Dividends are taxed as income, capital gains is taxed at different rates.
Exactly, you either supplement your income with it or retire early and replace your income with it.
There are whole generations of people doing this.
If Intel cuts its dividend the stock will crater. Since executive compensation is stock-based, tied to the stock performance, or both, there's an obvious incentive to keep the dividend going. The dividend has become more political than normal. In finance theory, a dividend is supposed to be a paid-out return. If you're cutting salaries to pay the dividend that means that you don't have enough surplus...by definition.…
If they cut the salaries and still enough people stay, then the money they saved still is surplus by that definition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> If Intel cuts its dividend the stock will crater Not necessarily. It really makes zero difference to the valuation of a company. Investors really punish companies that can barely cover their dividend (or worse have to borrow). If earnings are bad and revenues are not growing, the dividend is just a hokey shell game that works for about 5 minutes.
Depends on the investor. There is an entire class of investor that is focused on stocks that reliably deliver a dividend. I wasn't aware that Intel had joined old-economy companies like oil, but I also don't fully understand the dividend investor mindset, as I can't figure out a tax situation that makes it appealing...
REITs and telcos are a much better choice for this investor class.
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…
> 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. I don't think optimizing the performance of banks the create trillions of debt and were bailed out trillions of dollars is "in the interest of taxpayers".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> also don't fully understand the dividend investor mindset Suppose you have ~5 million invested for retirement. The dividend you could get from this is ~100k-150k per year. That is a very livable salary if you want to retire early (45? 50?) and focus on your family and hobbies. Does this make sense yet? It's essentially a conservative way to lead your live if you are not necessarily married to your profession.
No, it absolutely makes no sense to me. Dividends are taxed as income, capital gains is taxed at different rates.