Hacker News Reader

Comment by berkle4455 | Hacker News Reader

> keeping the payments nearly similar to the year ago quarter's figures

Intel reduced their dividend by 65% for a total payout of ~$0.5B not $1.5B [1]. Shitty journalists hallucinate more often than chatGPT.

[1] https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/INTC/history?filter=div

View on HN

Smallest dividend in 5 years. Hilarious headline & article.

Not just 5 years, it was last this low in 2007.

I was just coming back to edit that! Was easier to view the last 5 years, took longer to view previous data. Thanks :)

5% of all quarter 1 revenue was paid out as a dividend, when you just posted a 36% decline in revenue?

Is that normal? I've never worked for Big Corp.

Did intel cut 20% of their workforce last year as well? Because the layoffs are at the center of story here (and the third word in the headline), and the dividends are here to as an emphasis. There is nothing disingenuous about this headline.

The headline is incorrect as is the entire premise of the body. The 20% isn’t even accurate nor did they do any material layoffs in Q4 nor Q1.

The "people costs" have yet to actually hit from their first announcement in October 2022.

Paying off shareholders in one Quarter before you plan a mass layoff in the next quarter, and hinting these are unrelated, seems to me to be a more disingenuous move than to call out this fact.

> Paying off shareholders in one Quarter before you plan a mass layoff in the next quarter, and hinting these are unrelated, seems to me to be a more disingenuous move than to call out this fact.

They are unrelated. Intel pays dividends every quarter, layoffs or otherwise. The correlation coefficient between the two events is close to 0.

The fact that they massively reduced dividend payments during layoffs is likely correlated, though.

The 20% the article is referring to is 20% of certain groups not 20% company-wide.

> Did intel cut 20% of their workforce last year as well?

No.

Okay, substitute in $0.5 to the headline instead. Does the point change? Not at all.

I think so. The details a story of an Intel focusing it's resources instead of bumping it's stock price.

It does change the 'point' considering they're reducing spending both in terms of workers and shareholder payouts. To not include, explicitly, that they reduced the dividends gives the reader the impression that the only thing to decrease here was money spent on wages, that workers bore the brunt of their financial problems.

What’s the point? That you can’t fire people if you pay a divident?

To be blunt, yes. If you're comfortable enough to pay dividends then you're clearly not desperate enough to be doing layoffs.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com