9 ms·

Intel shareholders can now vote to ensure Intel takes a stand against China, if they choose. But it seems those individuals do not want that. So Intel is doing

Intel shareholders can now vote to ensure Intel takes a stand against China, if they choose. But it seems those individuals do not want that. So Intel is doing what it is supposed to do -- operate in accordance with wishes of the shareholders.

4ggr0 5y ago
I think the shareholders who have this power would probably also be included in OPs quote.
burkaman 5y ago
Counterpoint: the human beings that run Intel are not "supposed to" do everything possible to make their shareholder more money, regardless of the cost. I accept that they're going to do that, but there's nothing forcing them to, there's just a general cultural acceptance of greed.
- FredPret 5y ago
  Management is very much supposed to do whatever the owners tell them to do. If they don’t like it, they can resign in protest. Having said that, someone at Intel, owners or managers, are way off track here and in need of severe consequences. They picked the wrong side.
  - michaelt 5y ago
    Shareholders haven't resolved that Intel must or must not use slave labour. And a court isn't going to second-guess the management if they judge the cost savings of using slave labour don't outweigh the potential for reputational damage. As such, management are free to act either way.
    - FredPret 5y ago
      A flaw in the system to be sure. As a former INTC owner, I dumped my stake a while ago. I think there should be far more shareholder involvement in general. We are far too acquiescent as a group. If you polled every direct and indirect INTC holder (you may be one, unknowingly) about slavery and concentration camps, you’d walk away with a near 100% mandate for taking all measures against it.
    - Loughla 5y ago
      I would argue that 'shareholders' aren't able to influence these decisions at multi-national mega corporations, because many don't even know they are shareholders. Think about Joe Blow from the US. He has a managed 401k or some such investment. He has no idea the 'low-risk' fund offered through Edward Jones invests in Intel or Google or whoever. He has no idea he plays a part in this.
      - reaperducer 5y ago
        I would argue that 'shareholders' aren't able to influence these decisions at multi-national mega corporations There's such a thing as activist investors, and they seem to be gaining influence lately. From what I read in the newspaper, they're behind a lot of the changes that are starting to happen at certain multi-national oil companies.
      - FredPret 5y ago
        Very true. Public shareholding is like a parallel democracy, where almost none of the voters are paticipating or voting. I strongly believe we need more voter participation here.
  - reaperducer 5y ago
    Management is very much supposed to do whatever the owners tell them to do. If they don’t like it, they can resign in protest. It's not a one-way street. Management can do things, and if the shareholders don't like it, they can sell their shares in protest. Happens all the time.
- bravo22 5y ago
  No one is saying that. They do what the shareholders want because that's who they legally work for. Shareholders can say screw China, take a stand and they will. They can't unilaterally say screw the shareholders we're going in this direction. A company is a group of people coming together for a purpose. Management can't destory the group in pursuit of their own values. A ship's captain can't risk the ship because of their own values.
  - burkaman 5y ago
    > They do what the shareholders want They haven't even asked what the shareholders want. They don't think they need to, because they believe that everyone will naturally share their belief that money is their highest priority.
    - bravo22 5y ago
      Management doesn't ask shareholders for approval on every decision. They have a duty to act in the best interest of the shareholder. Generally that means not having reduced revenue. This is what most people accept. If shareholders want them to do something different they can let them know.
      - burkaman 5y ago
        > Generally that means not having reduced revenue. I think this is the fundamental disagreement we have, and it's probably too big of a conversation for a comment thread. In my philosophy of determining "best interest", revenue is an important consideration, but not the only one and not the most important one. There is certainly no legal duty to increase revenue or stock price or anything like that.
  - reaperducer 5y ago
    They do what the shareholders want because that's who they legally work for. Under which law? Plenty of corporate boards do things their shareholders don't like every day.
baybal2 5y ago
> Intel shareholders can now vote to ensure Intel takes a stand against China, if they choose. But it seems those individuals do not want that. Good question, who are Intel shareholders?
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > who are Intel shareholders? https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/intc/institutional-holdings https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/intc/instituti...
- bravo22 5y ago
  Keep in mind that institutional investors like index funds hold share on behalf of indvidual persons.
  - baybal2 5y ago
    That's even worse, as this means somebody takes your money, and pay somebody to stooge for China without you knowing.
    - bravo22 5y ago
      Well you presumably know what is in your portfolio or can find out if social issues are that important.
- michaelt 5y ago
  Intel is chopped up into tens of millions of tiny slices, and everyone with any form of retirement savings has a handful through some sort of fund. Generally these people barely know they're shareholders, they receive none of the paperwork needed to vote at the AGM, they have a slice several orders of magnitude too small to exert any influence, and they have no way of identifying or contacting other shareholders to take any sort of coordinated action. Anyone who expects X to be done by shareholders is going to be disappointed.
  - 5y ago
vmception 5y ago
Those shareholders are going to sell to shareholders that have other priorities. Fun in theory but too bad only Americans tolerate those PE multiples. So, look out below!
- bravo22 5y ago
  Which again goes to my point. People who care about Intel taking a stand against China should actually buy shares from the existing investors and make them. If no one wants to do that then what is all these kvetch about "capitalism" and "greed" corrupting companies and our values when it is the people who do not care. Certainly not enough to pay up for the shares.
  - vmception 5y ago
    ha, a classic prisoner's dilemma. in my case I was waiting for disgruntled shareholders to sell because an aggregate stance was not taken by management or other shareholders, and then when sold it goes to people more or less apathetic. in your case you want people to buy the shares at any price but likely a premium, in order to exercise a goal, which I frankly think is absurd. so guess the market has priced everything in well enough, as an aggregate opinion on its own.
    - bravo22 5y ago
      Interesting take. Here is my view: If the American consumers of Intel chips -- the people and government actors -- are unhappy with Intel's stance then they can also not buy their chips. This is basically what the Chinese are doing (without owning shares). Now granted the Chinese people have little say in it but the government is ostencibly acting on their behalf. Even if China was a democractic country and the CCP could not ban Intel outright then the government or the people could say that they would not buy Intel chips. So if Americans did the same to uphold their own belifes then Intel would suffer here and that would reduce the stock price, which would make it easier for people who want to take them to take the progressive position to buy the stock and force them to reverse their position. The key take away is that there is no scenario in which both sides actuall care about the issue and Intel stock doesn't drop. Since it doesn't it means that Americans do not care about it as much as the Chinese, or do not know how to express their displeasure :)
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> Intel shareholders can now vote to ensure Intel takes a stand against China, if they choose. But it seems those individuals do not want that. Too early to conclude this. These tensions present not only a reputational risk for Intel, but financial ones as well, particularly if tensions escalate. Managers might not care, but there is precedence for shareholders taking a longer view [1]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/09/business/exxon-mobil-engine-no1-activist.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/09/business/exxon-mobil-engi...
- bravo22 5y ago
  I think the shareholders SHOULD take a stand, at Intel, Disney and other companies. The point I was making was that the power is in their hands, not management.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > the power is in their hands, not management Management absolutely has a say.
avgcupofcoffee 5y ago
Steltek 5y ago
Collective action problems are not solved through capitalism. Unfortunately, Western countries are gripped by misguided reactive individualism right now and governments are very hamstrung.

4ggr0 5y ago

I think the shareholders who have this power would probably also be included in OPs quote.

burkaman 5y ago

Counterpoint: the human beings that run Intel are not "supposed to" do everything possible to make their shareholder more money, regardless of the cost. I accept that they're going to do that, but there's nothing forcing them to, there's just a general cultural acceptance of greed.

FredPret 5y ago
Management is very much supposed to do whatever the owners tell them to do. If they don’t like it, they can resign in protest. Having said that, someone at Intel, owners or managers, are way off track here and in need of severe consequences. They picked the wrong side.
- michaelt 5y ago
  Shareholders haven't resolved that Intel must or must not use slave labour. And a court isn't going to second-guess the management if they judge the cost savings of using slave labour don't outweigh the potential for reputational damage. As such, management are free to act either way.
  - FredPret 5y ago
    A flaw in the system to be sure. As a former INTC owner, I dumped my stake a while ago. I think there should be far more shareholder involvement in general. We are far too acquiescent as a group. If you polled every direct and indirect INTC holder (you may be one, unknowingly) about slavery and concentration camps, you’d walk away with a near 100% mandate for taking all measures against it.
  - Loughla 5y ago
    I would argue that 'shareholders' aren't able to influence these decisions at multi-national mega corporations, because many don't even know they are shareholders. Think about Joe Blow from the US. He has a managed 401k or some such investment. He has no idea the 'low-risk' fund offered through Edward Jones invests in Intel or Google or whoever. He has no idea he plays a part in this.
    - reaperducer 5y ago
      I would argue that 'shareholders' aren't able to influence these decisions at multi-national mega corporations There's such a thing as activist investors, and they seem to be gaining influence lately. From what I read in the newspaper, they're behind a lot of the changes that are starting to happen at certain multi-national oil companies.
    - FredPret 5y ago
      Very true. Public shareholding is like a parallel democracy, where almost none of the voters are paticipating or voting. I strongly believe we need more voter participation here.
- reaperducer 5y ago
  Management is very much supposed to do whatever the owners tell them to do. If they don’t like it, they can resign in protest. It's not a one-way street. Management can do things, and if the shareholders don't like it, they can sell their shares in protest. Happens all the time.
bravo22 5y ago
No one is saying that. They do what the shareholders want because that's who they legally work for. Shareholders can say screw China, take a stand and they will. They can't unilaterally say screw the shareholders we're going in this direction. A company is a group of people coming together for a purpose. Management can't destory the group in pursuit of their own values. A ship's captain can't risk the ship because of their own values.
- burkaman 5y ago
  > They do what the shareholders want They haven't even asked what the shareholders want. They don't think they need to, because they believe that everyone will naturally share their belief that money is their highest priority.
  - bravo22 5y ago
    Management doesn't ask shareholders for approval on every decision. They have a duty to act in the best interest of the shareholder. Generally that means not having reduced revenue. This is what most people accept. If shareholders want them to do something different they can let them know.
    - burkaman 5y ago
      > Generally that means not having reduced revenue. I think this is the fundamental disagreement we have, and it's probably too big of a conversation for a comment thread. In my philosophy of determining "best interest", revenue is an important consideration, but not the only one and not the most important one. There is certainly no legal duty to increase revenue or stock price or anything like that.
- reaperducer 5y ago
  They do what the shareholders want because that's who they legally work for. Under which law? Plenty of corporate boards do things their shareholders don't like every day.

baybal2 5y ago

> Intel shareholders can now vote to ensure Intel takes a stand against China, if they choose. But it seems those individuals do not want that. Good question, who are Intel shareholders?

JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> who are Intel shareholders? https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/intc/institutional-holdings https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/intc/instituti...
bravo22 5y ago
Keep in mind that institutional investors like index funds hold share on behalf of indvidual persons.
- baybal2 5y ago
  That's even worse, as this means somebody takes your money, and pay somebody to stooge for China without you knowing.
  - bravo22 5y ago
    Well you presumably know what is in your portfolio or can find out if social issues are that important.
michaelt 5y ago
Intel is chopped up into tens of millions of tiny slices, and everyone with any form of retirement savings has a handful through some sort of fund. Generally these people barely know they're shareholders, they receive none of the paperwork needed to vote at the AGM, they have a slice several orders of magnitude too small to exert any influence, and they have no way of identifying or contacting other shareholders to take any sort of coordinated action. Anyone who expects X to be done by shareholders is going to be disappointed.
- 5y ago

vmception 5y ago

Those shareholders are going to sell to shareholders that have other priorities. Fun in theory but too bad only Americans tolerate those PE multiples. So, look out below!

bravo22 5y ago
Which again goes to my point. People who care about Intel taking a stand against China should actually buy shares from the existing investors and make them. If no one wants to do that then what is all these kvetch about "capitalism" and "greed" corrupting companies and our values when it is the people who do not care. Certainly not enough to pay up for the shares.
- vmception 5y ago
  ha, a classic prisoner's dilemma. in my case I was waiting for disgruntled shareholders to sell because an aggregate stance was not taken by management or other shareholders, and then when sold it goes to people more or less apathetic. in your case you want people to buy the shares at any price but likely a premium, in order to exercise a goal, which I frankly think is absurd. so guess the market has priced everything in well enough, as an aggregate opinion on its own.
  - bravo22 5y ago
    Interesting take. Here is my view: If the American consumers of Intel chips -- the people and government actors -- are unhappy with Intel's stance then they can also not buy their chips. This is basically what the Chinese are doing (without owning shares). Now granted the Chinese people have little say in it but the government is ostencibly acting on their behalf. Even if China was a democractic country and the CCP could not ban Intel outright then the government or the people could say that they would not buy Intel chips. So if Americans did the same to uphold their own belifes then Intel would suffer here and that would reduce the stock price, which would make it easier for people who want to take them to take the progressive position to buy the stock and force them to reverse their position. The key take away is that there is no scenario in which both sides actuall care about the issue and Intel stock doesn't drop. Since it doesn't it means that Americans do not care about it as much as the Chinese, or do not know how to express their displeasure :)

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> Intel shareholders can now vote to ensure Intel takes a stand against China, if they choose. But it seems those individuals do not want that. Too early to conclude this. These tensions present not only a reputational risk for Intel, but financial ones as well, particularly if tensions escalate. Managers might not care, but there is precedence for shareholders taking a longer view [1]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/09/business/exxon-mobil-engine-no1-activist.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/09/business/exxon-mobil-engi...

bravo22 5y ago
I think the shareholders SHOULD take a stand, at Intel, Disney and other companies. The point I was making was that the power is in their hands, not management.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > the power is in their hands, not management Management absolutely has a say.

avgcupofcoffee 5y ago

Steltek 5y ago

Collective action problems are not solved through capitalism. Unfortunately, Western countries are gripped by misguided reactive individualism right now and governments are very hamstrung.