5 ms·

Intel paid $0.125 per share in Q1 dividends [1], down from $0.365 (a 66% drop). The journalist who wrote this article and headline is after outrage and clicks,

Intel paid $0.125 per share in Q1 dividends [1], down from $0.365 (a 66% drop). The journalist who wrote this article and headline is after outrage and clicks, and it's obviously working here. Not surprised people are losing respect for journalists and the profession is gradually dying...except for the few good publications taking a bulk of the profits (Reuters, Financial Times, Bloomberg, etc). 1- https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/INTC/history?filter=div https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/INTC/history?filter=div

garbagecoder 3y ago
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.
lemmsjid 3y ago
I think it's more of an ideological issue than the journalist or headline being inaccurate. To oversimplify: If you buy into the idea that a corporation is there for its shareholders, then there's little to be outraged about. If you believe a corporation is there for both its employees and shareholders, then there may be some outrage to be had. There is no universal truth there. The mainstream perception right now is the shareholder-oriented view, and the more I understand capitalist incentive structures, and the fact that buying into the market is pretty much the underpinning behind our retirement structure, the more I personally subscribe to that view. But not everyone does, and there are many good reasons to not! Even within the shareholder-oriented view, there's also a question of short term vs long term thinking. Does the slump that's causing the job cuts justify losing the domain knowledge, momentum, etc. that might come alongside job cuts? Is Intel making a bad call here? Even as a shareholder I might think Intel's being too drastic. The headline, while potentially outrage-baiting, does carry important information. If Intel were losing so much money that it was unable to pay dividends, then the job cuts would be almost universally justifiable. I certainly would have some sour grapes if I were laid off in the midst of an organization that can still pass value to its shareholders, especially if I felt that I were a part of that success and effort.
- qeternity 3y ago
  > If you buy into the idea that a corporation is there for its shareholders It's not an idea, it's a literal legal duty.
  - plokiju 3y ago
    That doesn’t mean it can’t be questioned
  - jakelazaroff 3y ago
    I don't think that's actually true. e.g. a quick google search turns up [1] [2] [3] which all state that a board is not legally obligated to maximize shareholder value. Do you have a source for the law/court decision? [1] https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co... [2] https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/shareholder-value-purpose-corporation https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/shareholder... [3] https://medium.com/bull-market/there-is-no-effective-fiduciary-duty-to-maximize-profits-939ae50d0572 https://medium.com/bull-market/there-is-no-effective-fiducia...
space_fountain 3y ago
I think there have been times in the past were dividends were thought to be conditioned on the company performing well. Say not having to lay off people. I recognize there are other ways to think about the situation, but I think it definitely isn't clear to me that there should be any dividend while a company is losing money and literally being forced to fire people
- qeternity 3y ago
  They aren't losing money. Wherever did you get that idea? Also issuing a dividend because you saved a bunch of money by laying off people you don't need is exactly the sort of thing that shareholders would demand and expect. It's called good corporate governance.
  - space_fountain 3y ago
    https://www.google.com/search?q=intel+profit&rlz=1C5GCEM_enUS1050US1051&oq=intel+profit https://www.google.com/search?q=intel+profit&rlz=1C5GCEM_enU... Seems to say they lost 2.7B in the first quarter of 2023?
    - booi 3y ago
      Yeah I dunno what they're talking about. This was the largest loss of all time for Intel. Nobody in their right mind should be issuing a dividend... and I'm a shareholder.
      - qeternity 3y ago
        There are a lot of things that go into GAAP EPS. You can be profitable and have negative GAAP EPS.
        MichaelZuo 3y ago
        Can you list some real world examples where the difference was in the multiple of billions?
throw93 3y ago
I think the journalist is bang on point. The company can pay $1.5B in dividends but cannot pay enough to keep their workforce. Corps will do everything to avoid paying their workforce fair share of the profits.
- anonporridge 3y ago
  Intel's revenue and profit have been collapsing this past year and looks bleak compared to the historical trend, https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/INTC/intel/revenue https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/INTC/intel/revenue The Intel workforce and leadership is failing to perform and continue bringing in sufficient revenue to justify a workforce of its size, and they will all lose their jobs anyway if it continues.
  - forty 3y ago
    That seems a good reason not to spend money on dividends which I don't think will help the company become more profitable. Cutting jobs to save money is understandable, but the savings should be used to invest into the business.
    - worrycue 3y ago
      Not saying I support this, because losing work sucks, but shareholders are the ones that own the company - the C suite is just there to run it on their behalf. If shareholders think that firing a bunch of people to “eliminate waste” and pulling capital from the company in the form dividends to reinvest elsewhere is the way to maximise their returns (as a whole) then that’s what will happen.
- readthenotes1 3y ago
  You assume they are a charity? I assume,based on my observations, that most companies have employees that impede productivity. But, i do wish companies placed their responsibility to their employees over shareholders.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
phatfish 3y ago
WCCFTech is pretty much blogspam, their output is targeted towards Red vs. Green and Console vs. PC outrage. It is mostly regurgitating press releases, probably written by ChatGPT at this point. The content is barely journalism to start with.
anonporridge 3y ago
Broke: Following journalists and the news to stay informed and be a good citizen. Woke: Following data and long term trends to stay informed and be a good citizen.
systemvoltage 3y ago
There is a new breed of Journalists that are clearing the malaise. They need to invent a different professional title as “Journalist” is now tainted.

garbagecoder 3y ago

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.

lemmsjid 3y ago

I think it's more of an ideological issue than the journalist or headline being inaccurate. To oversimplify: If you buy into the idea that a corporation is there for its shareholders, then there's little to be outraged about. If you believe a corporation is there for both its employees and shareholders, then there may be some outrage to be had. There is no universal truth there. The mainstream perception right now is the shareholder-oriented view, and the more I understand capitalist incentive structures, and the fact that buying into the market is pretty much the underpinning behind our retirement structure, the more I personally subscribe to that view. But not everyone does, and there are many good reasons to not! Even within the shareholder-oriented view, there's also a question of short term vs long term thinking. Does the slump that's causing the job cuts justify losing the domain knowledge, momentum, etc. that might come alongside job cuts? Is Intel making a bad call here? Even as a shareholder I might think Intel's being too drastic. The headline, while potentially outrage-baiting, does carry important information. If Intel were losing so much money that it was unable to pay dividends, then the job cuts would be almost universally justifiable. I certainly would have some sour grapes if I were laid off in the midst of an organization that can still pass value to its shareholders, especially if I felt that I were a part of that success and effort.

qeternity 3y ago
> If you buy into the idea that a corporation is there for its shareholders It's not an idea, it's a literal legal duty.
- plokiju 3y ago
  That doesn’t mean it can’t be questioned
- jakelazaroff 3y ago
  I don't think that's actually true. e.g. a quick google search turns up [1] [2] [3] which all state that a board is not legally obligated to maximize shareholder value. Do you have a source for the law/court decision? [1] https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co... [2] https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/shareholder-value-purpose-corporation https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/shareholder... [3] https://medium.com/bull-market/there-is-no-effective-fiduciary-duty-to-maximize-profits-939ae50d0572 https://medium.com/bull-market/there-is-no-effective-fiducia...

space_fountain 3y ago

I think there have been times in the past were dividends were thought to be conditioned on the company performing well. Say not having to lay off people. I recognize there are other ways to think about the situation, but I think it definitely isn't clear to me that there should be any dividend while a company is losing money and literally being forced to fire people

qeternity 3y ago
They aren't losing money. Wherever did you get that idea? Also issuing a dividend because you saved a bunch of money by laying off people you don't need is exactly the sort of thing that shareholders would demand and expect. It's called good corporate governance.
- space_fountain 3y ago
  https://www.google.com/search?q=intel+profit&rlz=1C5GCEM_enUS1050US1051&oq=intel+profit https://www.google.com/search?q=intel+profit&rlz=1C5GCEM_enU... Seems to say they lost 2.7B in the first quarter of 2023?
  - booi 3y ago
    Yeah I dunno what they're talking about. This was the largest loss of all time for Intel. Nobody in their right mind should be issuing a dividend... and I'm a shareholder.
    - qeternity 3y ago
      There are a lot of things that go into GAAP EPS. You can be profitable and have negative GAAP EPS.
      - MichaelZuo 3y ago
        Can you list some real world examples where the difference was in the multiple of billions?

throw93 3y ago

I think the journalist is bang on point. The company can pay $1.5B in dividends but cannot pay enough to keep their workforce. Corps will do everything to avoid paying their workforce fair share of the profits.

anonporridge 3y ago
Intel's revenue and profit have been collapsing this past year and looks bleak compared to the historical trend, https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/INTC/intel/revenue https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/INTC/intel/revenue The Intel workforce and leadership is failing to perform and continue bringing in sufficient revenue to justify a workforce of its size, and they will all lose their jobs anyway if it continues.
- forty 3y ago
  That seems a good reason not to spend money on dividends which I don't think will help the company become more profitable. Cutting jobs to save money is understandable, but the savings should be used to invest into the business.
  - worrycue 3y ago
    Not saying I support this, because losing work sucks, but shareholders are the ones that own the company - the C suite is just there to run it on their behalf. If shareholders think that firing a bunch of people to “eliminate waste” and pulling capital from the company in the form dividends to reinvest elsewhere is the way to maximise their returns (as a whole) then that’s what will happen.
readthenotes1 3y ago
You assume they are a charity? I assume,based on my observations, that most companies have employees that impede productivity. But, i do wish companies placed their responsibility to their employees over shareholders.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

phatfish 3y ago

WCCFTech is pretty much blogspam, their output is targeted towards Red vs. Green and Console vs. PC outrage. It is mostly regurgitating press releases, probably written by ChatGPT at this point. The content is barely journalism to start with.

anonporridge 3y ago

Broke: Following journalists and the news to stay informed and be a good citizen. Woke: Following data and long term trends to stay informed and be a good citizen.

systemvoltage 3y ago

There is a new breed of Journalists that are clearing the malaise. They need to invent a different professional title as “Journalist” is now tainted.