Replies to post #11828 on Intel Corp (INTC)

[wbmw]

Carl, do we need to discuss reading comprehension issues here?

Moorea raised a point, and people addressed it in 4 separate responses.

"My question was: what is the rationale for Intel to feel the need to raise its option grants from 1-1.5%/yr to 2%/yr?"

I can think of two likely explanations. Semiconeng offered the first:

"Adding hourly employees to the stock option program beginning in 1997 would increase the percentage of options granted"

I also think it quite reasonable for the board, given the time period of 1997-2002 which included the bursted dot-bomb bubble, to issue additional options to compensate those employees who had put forth many years of service only to see many of their options rendered worthless.

It would be interesting to see if the 2% number remained constant through this past year. Do you have any data on that, or are you content to remain a troll here?

[SemiconEng]

Please be nice. Here is the link to the viewpoint of an Intel investor and speaker at the 2003 Intel Annual Stockholder's Meeting and should be read by all:
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=1034099
carl


I can't actually see the chart that you reference, so I can't tell if the increase is linear from 1997, or did it increase in the past few years?

The reason that I ask, is because there is a rational explaination for increases in stock options granted in the last 5 years or so. This is just IMO, and afaik, was not stated intel policy anywhere.....

Most semiconductor investors are well aware of the hard times semiconductor companies have had for the past few years. Reports of Dozens of announced layoffs, and cutbacks were popping up almost daily for awhile there, and at least weekly for sure. Just about evry Semiconductor company laid off some employees. Well, almost all, except for 1. Intel.

What do you suppose they did instead? Eat those higher personell costs? It surely wasn't reported anywhere that I saw, but I happen to know that what they did was cut the yearly raises. In the past few years, performance raises were severly curtailed, and I even heard that they were cut off completly once or twice during the past few years.

So, how are you supposed to retain your best people.....? Remind them that they're lucky to even have a job? No, that doesn't work, trust me. Maybe..... you grant higher stock options to most, if not all employees, hoping that the promise of better times, and therefore profitable exercisable options available in the future. Sort of a "Hang in there, things will get better" incentive.

Like I said, There is no documented evidence of any of this, just my pure speculation based on..... observation.

[Tenchu]

Carl, as I said before your run for the CA governor seat, I think the problem is industry-wide, not specific to Intel. Yet your anger is directed at Intel probably because you were once heavily invested in them, and you sustained losses due to reasons irrelevant to the issue of options.

As for Moorea's rant, maybe she (he?) should have also looked at how many options issued in 1999 and 2000 became worthless after the bubble popped. Would the Black-Scholes method of options expensing account for this? I'm not very familiar with Black-Scholes, but my guess is that it doesn't.

Tenchu