3 ms·
> He knows what it means to cut down to bare minimum, and this could be considered a signal that he feels he could get more than the forecasted % elsewhere, and
by thephyber 9y ago
> He knows what it means to cut down to bare minimum, and this could be considered a signal that he feels he could get more than the forecasted % elsewhere, and that he doesn't feel holding on to the stock is worth the negative backlash that is sure to happen with such a move.
Possibly. But it's possible that he did it on the assumption that US tech stocks are already overvalued and anticipates a correction soon.
Yes, he likely isn't "all in" on Intel stock right now, but does that necessarily mean that it's specifically Intel that he thinks has problems?
- fjsolwmv 9y agoHis action is telling all shareholders to sell Intel stock because it's overvalued. Maybe not Intel specific, but it's Intel inclusive.
- user5994461 9y agoOr he's buying a new yacht.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- jasomill 9y agoWhy not simply investments that he happens to believe are better values than Intel stock? Or is he expected to believe that Intel shares are in fact so undervalued that they represent the best investment he could possibly make? Or to voluntarily maintain investments in what he believes is a comparatively suboptimal vehicle merely to "take one for the team"? In other words, why would one expect, let alone demand, a CEO to make what he believes are poor financial decisions in his personal life? As for being "invested in the company", once you reach the level of Fortune 50 CEO, the concept is basically nonsense: practically speaking, no matter how poorly you invest or perform, barring criminal prosecution, you'll still end up financially better off than nearly everyone else in the world, including many, if not all, of your peers.