Intel shareholders revolt against Pat Gelsinger's pay package Intel shareholders voted to reject the compensation packages for the chipmaker's top execs, according to regulatory documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), although the vote was non-binding on the company. The Intel Form 8-K submission to the SEC dated May 12 shows that about 1.78 billion votes were …
Yeah, I'm sure you do...
Also, I found it interesting that Mr Gelsinger has a strategy that may or may not pay off in the long run and the shareholders are annoyed about that. That seems a tad suicidal to me. If they focus on the quick buck today, there will be no Intel tomorrow. So many companies are hindered by boards and investors wanting quick returns...
That.
It is not suicidal for the shareholders, which have no actual commitment to the company. They own shares, but are mostly interested in the share price rising and getting some payout now. They are not necessarily in it for the long run. Yes, this system is broken. I feel that paying the execs partly in shares with an obligation to hold them for at least X years is an incentive for them to not f' up the company's future - or would be, if they would not be paid eye watering sums anyways...
I like your idea of shares being awarded with an obligation to hold it long term. They may also do it with options.
It will force the senior execs to think of where the company is heading years after they have left, before they actually get any benefit.
I feel that paying the execs partly in shares with an obligation to hold them for at least X years
IIRC Gelsinger doesn't get the shares for five years, and the award is dependent on the share price so if it isn't higher than when they were issued he doesn't get them at all. If so he'd have to get by with his salary which is "only" a few million a year.
When Tim Cook got his eye popping pay package when he took over for Jobs, part of his shares would be awarded after five years and part of them after ten. While he may have been paid an insane amount of money, as a long time Apple shareholder I have no complaints with his performance or compensation - especially given the number of analysts who felt Apple was "done" without Jobs.
"as a long time Apple shareholder I have no complaints with his performance or compensation - especially given the number of analysts who felt Apple was "done" without Jobs."
I'm underwhelmed by Mr Cook's leadership. Apple is weighted too much towards the iPhone and has dropped the ball many times on supporting other products. They have also diminished the value of some products such as Final Cut by making radical changes the industry didn't like send them to Adobe and other video editing software.
I think stock shares can be a good way to incentivize executives focus on creating value, but if it's the sole focus, its too easy to game the system for a short(ish) term cash out. Just pushing vestment out five years or so isn't good enough. I'd be happy to delay gratification for that long if the pay out was $100mn. I could spend the rest of my life moving between the summer and winter palaces.
"Whichever way you look at that, Intel is a good company to have a job at."
Yes, but. I know Apple isn't as big as the windows base, but they've shown that at a certain point bringing out their own processors wasn't insurmountable. Others may follow.
Dave at EEVblog just released a video where he was showing some surplus optometrist gear he purchased. A couple of the units ran on XP. These days it can be much simpler to operate that sort of equipment on a custom distribution of Linux that is transparent to the user. It's not like this equipment will be upgraded so it runs on W7, 10, etc. Besides maintenance releases for a couple of new features and bug fixes is about all they'll get. Dedicated hardware like that is replaced after a period of time so Windows isn't a benefit which can mean that an Intel processor isn't necessary.
The fools, the idiots ! Don't they shareholders know what they're doing ?
Where is the time when then Vivendi's soon to be ex-CEO, Messier, was basically blackmailing investors to pay him big to leave or face the pain of him staying in control and plummeting the shares ?
BTW, why is shareholders' votes non-binding ?
Something other than current share price.
Anything other than current share price.
I'm revolutionary enough to think top-level management's bonuses ought to be linked to 'what did your reign do to improve the viability of the company, 10-20 years later'. Basic pay ought to be something like company median pay maybe with something to account for reinvested profits, sensible cash reserves, retention of staff (on the basis that people leaving is a bad sign, sacking people is nasty, and training up new staff is a drain on productivity) and customer satisfaction after several years ownership/use of product.
Anyway, reward the guys that made e.g. the electric drill that lasted me 20+ years, and don't give tuppence to the bean-counters that make me buy a new washing machine 10 minutes after the warrantee expires.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
