(Replying to PARENT post)
[1] https://www.crn.com/news/components-peripherals/intel-ceo-pa...
(Replying to PARENT post)
If they're cutting executive salaries by the largest amount it sounds good on paper but doesn't really do anything because their pay is, as you said, stock based.
So, unsurprisingly, very skeezy unless they change the largest factor in their pay.
(Replying to PARENT post)
Wait till you see what will happen to the stock when talent leaves the company (whatever it has left, anyway) after such pay cuts...
(Replying to PARENT post)
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.
(Replying to PARENT post)
(Replying to PARENT post)
(Replying to PARENT post)
If they cut the salaries and still enough people stay, then the money they saved still is surplus by that definition.
(Replying to PARENT post)
The wealthy getting wealthier on the backs of the working class. In this case, literally TAKING from the working class to maintain the wealth machine.
(Replying to PARENT post)
One reason I imagine is them being excluded from dividend etfs which would mean an outflow
(Replying to PARENT post)
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.
Intel's sales aren't going to get any better anytime soon, so the cut is coming eventually. They're starting a death spiral, one that'll be hard to escape.