5 ms·

Internet commenters don't fare much better. Any dividend at all is the outrage hook. If you don't get that it's you that is missing something, even if you don't

Internet commenters don't fare much better. Any dividend at all is the outrage hook. If you don't get that it's you that is missing something, even if you don't agree.

boeingUH60 3y ago
Shareholders are the primary consideration in every company, above the C-Suite and employees. Not surprised Intel keeps paying dividends (significantly reduced even). If they don't, good luck raising money from the capital markets to fund those insanely expensive chip fabrication plants.
- zht 3y ago
  what about companies that don't issue dividends or stock buybacks? does that mean that their stock is worthless?
  - boeingUH60 3y ago
    Traditionally, the aim of buying shares in a public company was collecting dividends every quarter. There are exceptions when shareholders expect a company to lose money in the short term but make enough in the long term to return money back to them via dividends (or buybacks). But tech companies came and changed everything by selling BS visions and pumping their stock high…who needs dividends when I can lose money and still increase my stock price by selling the latest fad to investors, e.g., Uber. Personally, I think we should revert to the previous system.
    - zht 3y ago
      If you took a basic finance course you’d see that they are equivalent…
- FairlyInvolved 3y ago
  Outside of a few retail investors institutional buyers are no so naïve that they take a loss-making company paying out a dividend as a measure of good financial health. Long Intel but as Dylan (and many others) noted they should have stopped the dividend a year ago.
dcow 3y ago
If that's your analysis then it is even less sophisticated than the article. Everything exists in balance. These layoffs are strategic the company isn't under water. The juxtaposition of either keep employees or pay dividends, but not both, is not useful or even remotely realistic. Investors are still important and need to be paid for their money. And if Intel shows that it can't support investors, then who will invest in the future?
- garbagecoder 3y ago
  It's not "my analysis" and I explicitly made clear it wasn't (see: "even if you don't agree"). I told you what the rage hook was. I don't know enough to have an opinion about whether this is in balance on not, but no one reading will care they reduced their dividend, but you had to deboooooonk it because ackshually it was a lower dividend. That's not the point. Also, this mythology of the corporation as a shareholder profit maximizer is just dead 70s orthodoxy. It isn't the case in most other developed economies and you and Marty Lipton and can keep Delaware.
  - dcow 3y ago
    I very carefully didn't fart out maximize shareholder value anywhere in my comment because I don't believe that myth either. I wasn't debunking anything. I was responding to the sentiment that "companies should only pay dividends when their quarterly earnings are positive", which is the rage hook as you said, and also a myth. I understand you were just calling out the porn in front of you... "you know it when you see it" style. But you also phrased it in a diminutive way towards the person you were responding to. What you failed to catch is that I am using the royal you in my comment. I'm not calling you out specifically, I'm telling the reader that if you actually buy into the porn, then you lack sophistication.
username_my1 3y ago
I'm really surprised how entitled people are if they never learned how the public market and invetments work. Investors expect that a stock would return it's value in dividents or the company will have a very likely positive future outlook, intel doesn't have the second (lots of debt, lots of capital required to stay compatitive and high interest rate). letting go of employees for intel is only logical and they should keep doing it until they start seeing positive returns to their new investments.
filoleg 3y ago
Fully agreed, but, at least personally, I have a much lower quality bar for random internet comments than I do for financial articles written by people calling themselves journalists. Those articles usually being just slightly better than random internet comments is definitely not something to be proud of imo.

Internet commenters don't fare much better. Any dividend at all is the outrage hook. If you don't get that it's you that is missing something, even if you don't agree.

boeingUH60 3y ago

Shareholders are the primary consideration in every company, above the C-Suite and employees. Not surprised Intel keeps paying dividends (significantly reduced even). If they don't, good luck raising money from the capital markets to fund those insanely expensive chip fabrication plants.

zht 3y ago
what about companies that don't issue dividends or stock buybacks? does that mean that their stock is worthless?
- boeingUH60 3y ago
  Traditionally, the aim of buying shares in a public company was collecting dividends every quarter. There are exceptions when shareholders expect a company to lose money in the short term but make enough in the long term to return money back to them via dividends (or buybacks). But tech companies came and changed everything by selling BS visions and pumping their stock high…who needs dividends when I can lose money and still increase my stock price by selling the latest fad to investors, e.g., Uber. Personally, I think we should revert to the previous system.
  - zht 3y ago
    If you took a basic finance course you’d see that they are equivalent…
FairlyInvolved 3y ago
Outside of a few retail investors institutional buyers are no so naïve that they take a loss-making company paying out a dividend as a measure of good financial health. Long Intel but as Dylan (and many others) noted they should have stopped the dividend a year ago.

dcow 3y ago

If that's your analysis then it is even less sophisticated than the article. Everything exists in balance. These layoffs are strategic the company isn't under water. The juxtaposition of either keep employees or pay dividends, but not both, is not useful or even remotely realistic. Investors are still important and need to be paid for their money. And if Intel shows that it can't support investors, then who will invest in the future?

garbagecoder 3y ago
It's not "my analysis" and I explicitly made clear it wasn't (see: "even if you don't agree"). I told you what the rage hook was. I don't know enough to have an opinion about whether this is in balance on not, but no one reading will care they reduced their dividend, but you had to deboooooonk it because ackshually it was a lower dividend. That's not the point. Also, this mythology of the corporation as a shareholder profit maximizer is just dead 70s orthodoxy. It isn't the case in most other developed economies and you and Marty Lipton and can keep Delaware.
- dcow 3y ago
  I very carefully didn't fart out maximize shareholder value anywhere in my comment because I don't believe that myth either. I wasn't debunking anything. I was responding to the sentiment that "companies should only pay dividends when their quarterly earnings are positive", which is the rage hook as you said, and also a myth. I understand you were just calling out the porn in front of you... "you know it when you see it" style. But you also phrased it in a diminutive way towards the person you were responding to. What you failed to catch is that I am using the royal you in my comment. I'm not calling you out specifically, I'm telling the reader that if you actually buy into the porn, then you lack sophistication.

username_my1 3y ago

I'm really surprised how entitled people are if they never learned how the public market and invetments work. Investors expect that a stock would return it's value in dividents or the company will have a very likely positive future outlook, intel doesn't have the second (lots of debt, lots of capital required to stay compatitive and high interest rate). letting go of employees for intel is only logical and they should keep doing it until they start seeing positive returns to their new investments.

filoleg 3y ago

Fully agreed, but, at least personally, I have a much lower quality bar for random internet comments than I do for financial articles written by people calling themselves journalists. Those articles usually being just slightly better than random internet comments is definitely not something to be proud of imo.