Intel Corp (INTC)

[SemiconEng]

The stockholders are the risk takers. They may not "bust their arse" working for the company, but chances are they busted their arse working for the money they are investing in the company. They provide the capital that makes Intel function, and that pays the salary of the employees. Employees don't have downside risk, owners have constant downside risk, as anyone that bought between $20 and $75 understands.

-- That still does not entitle them to a repricing of their stock. That is a benefit for the employees that work for the company and put effort into it, not for people who could have taken their money and invested it elsewhere. The money they used to buy that stock was not given to them by intel in exchange for effort put into the company, and you can twist that B.S. you're spouting any way you want, it doesn't change that basic fact.

I'm neutral on expensing options; both sides have great arguments. I do believe that you compensate performance, and recently Intel has increased option grants as their performance has decreased. As an owner/risk taker I take that as a sign that Intel cares more about the employees than the owners. So I reduced my risk. When many of the other owners reduce their holding, those employee options are worthless. Like it or not, it all comes back to the owners. Without them, Intel is nothing.
John

---Many employees ARE Owners through the companies stock purchase plan. They did not get that stock repriced either, so it all basically boils down to a basic fact. If you don't like the way the company is being run, then sell your stock, and go buy something that you are more pleased with. That's the way it works. I don't think that you or dlr_972 speak for the majority of intel stockholders, and nobody is forcing you to buy or hold intel stock. But holding on to intel just so you and dlr_972 can bitch and whine about the way things are being run, is a bunch of B.S. Don't like it, get out. Simple.

Semi