back to article Intel CEO made $178m in first 10 months, AMD CEO got a $2m pay rise

In a sign of how badly Intel's board wanted Pat Gelsinger to turn around the storied chipmaker, the company paid the new CEO a whopping $178 million in total compensation last year for his first ten or so months on the job. That is nearly eight times what former CEO Bob Swan made in 2020. The semiconductor giant released the …

  1. VoiceOfTruth

    Intel and subsidies

    In other news: https://www.theregister.com/2022/03/24/intel_chips_subsidy/

    1. Throatwarbler Mangrove Silver badge
      Thumb Up

      Re: Intel and subsidies

      Congratulations . . . for failing to thoroughly read the article!

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    '"The package requires substantial stockholder value creation in order to realize its targeted value," Intel said in its new proxy statement.'

    Or substantial inflation. Doubling in 5 years reflects roughly a 14% CAGR. Given the current US inflation rate, he's already more than halfway there without doing a thing. And meanwhile the shareholders don't benefit at all from higher stock prices except by becoming ex-shareholders, while Gelsinger can manipulate the books to convince the market of whatever he wishes to feather his own nest. The board should be ashamed of themselves; this compensation structure has been proven to create perverse incentives and reward managers for outcomes unrelated to their work. Instead he should be given some number of perpetual but non-transferable dividend rights each day he works for the company. If what he builds is strong and lasting, he will reap the rewards alongside the rest of the shareholders for many years to come regardless of market fashions or macroeconomic policy. If it is all price manipulation, inflation, and short-term results at the expense of long-term profits, he will end up with little or nothing. It's especially silly in this case given that the turnaround plan consists primarily of long-term investments (usually a good idea!); Mr Gelsinger ought to have preferred such a compensation plan himself.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      What he should be given is exactly what he has been given.... so long as he can convince Apple to dump their own chips and go back to Intel.

  3. NoneSuch Silver badge
    Devil

    Let's get a GoFundMe going for these underpaid execs.

    However do they scrape by...?

    1. oiseau
      WTF?

      Let's get a GoFundMe ...

      Whatever for?

      No need for that.

      The 45+ million (+/- 5M) American citizens without any access to basic welfare services and healthcare (not to mention the homeless millions) will be the ones who help these poor souls make ends meet:

      Gelsinger later pointed to Wall Street's negative response as evidence that his company is worthy of receiving part of the $52 billion in US subsidies that await approval in Congress.

      Any corporation that can pay these obscene amounts of money to their CEO's needs no subsidies.

      None whatsoever.

      Need money to build a new fab?

      Instead of giving them more tax cuts and benefits, ask the bloody shareholders to put up some of their own moolah.

      That is just what they are there for, not just for cashing in dividends.

      O.

      1. Throatwarbler Mangrove Silver badge
        Unhappy

        "Instead of giving them more tax cuts and benefits, ask the bloody shareholders to put up some of their own moolah.

        That is just what they are there for, not just for cashing in dividends."

        Hahaha . . . no. The initial investors in Intel, back in the dawn of time, created value by contributing capital to the company. The existing investors are rent-seekers, pure and simple. Welcome to Wall Street.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "got" not "made"

    Intel CEO got $178M, ITYM.

    How much he "made" is a matter for considerable debate. This is also known as "late stage capitalism".

  5. Plest Silver badge
    Facepalm

    Call me cynical...

    If some how he managed to make the company earn 50x or 100x that minimum by his very presence or leadership qualities, then fair enough. CEO is a job, you work well, make the company earn it's keep you get a nice fat paycheck. Or on the other hand it's more likely the US version of the "old boys club" and CEO's are playing a giant corporate circle-jerk where they just try their hand at whatever position comes up after an old college mate vacates the CEO position! This year you head Coke, next year you head Intel, year after than you run a clothing company, it's the same right, just shout at the top management, who shout at the middle-management who shout at we working schmoes to actually get stuff done!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Call me cynical...

      This is almost right. It's unusual for a CEO in one industry to go be a CEO in another, though it does happen. What's not at all unusual is for a retired CEO to sit on half a dozen other giant corporations' boards of directors. Usually these retired CEOs own no meaningful interest in these corporations and any shares they do own were usually given to them as compensation for sitting through a few meetings. It's not unusual to see multinationals with 20 directors, most of whom are retired CEOs and lobbyists, with the occasional token academic or banker. As long as the skin-tone and gender makeup is "right", the board is considered "effective" and "experienced" by whatever ISS is called nowadays, who tell all the index funds that own these companies how to vote. Never mind whether any of the directors care or even know the first thing about the businesses they're supposed to be guiding or the shareholders they nominally represent.

      If you don't like this state of affairs (and I don't either), vote against every useless director. Every share you own, every company, every year. The company's CEO shouldn't be on the board either; that's the hired help. Choose to own smaller companies that index funds don't buy, so you don't have to fight ISS. Typically I find that even so I vote against 60% of the directors, despite selecting companies that have at least one useful, invested director. Most have none at all, just retired club buddies skimming their half mill a year off each company and rubber-stamping whatever the current CEO wants.

      Capitalism was fine. This is not capitalism. If it were, the owners would be running these companies.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like