Corporations exist as a privilege granted by the government as protection against certain liabilities that would discourage individuals and groups from doing riskier things all the way back to the charter days. The meme of 'it exists to return money to shareholders' is reductive and sounds propagandistic. What purpose an organization turns it's work to is up to the people who make the decisions, and varied.
People are entitled to setup a company with any aims that they wish. In Intels case, as with many other businesses, investors have bought the shares in an expectation of the maximum possible return on investment. Delivering this is also the responsibility of the board as enshrined by law.
In US corporate law, a board of directors are elected by the shareholders to represent their interests. The shareholders overriding interest is maximising return on investment.
The extent of US corporate law is that directors have a fiduciary-like duty to maximize shareholder _value_, but also that they must act in the best interests of the company. Statements beyond that are not reflections of law, but of faith.
A couple salient points:
The "best interests of the company" need not, and often are not, simply maximizing quarterly profits, share price, etc. Indeed, sometimes these things are odds with one another.
Moreover, shareholder value includes but is not limited to return on investment. It is simply most convenient _from a managerial perspective_ to simplify diverse shareholder notions of value down to the most legible lowest common denominator.
The folks who are downvoting you need to google "board of directors liability". If the Board doesn't act in the benefit of shareholders, they'll get sued to oblivion.
Let's reductio ad absurdum our way through this, shall we? If what you say is true, then during the run up of Bitcoin, any corporation that didn't lay off all its employees and use the money to buy as much Bitcoin as possible was violating their fiduciary duty to maximize return on investment, right? Or maybe every corporation should turn itself into a casino or pornography producer since those are quite profitable endeavors, right?
> Delivering [the maximum possible return on investment] is also the responsibility of the board as enshrined by law.
This is utterly and completely false.
If you don't believe me, here's what Justice Alito (known for his conservative/libertarian bent on the court) had to say in the Hobby Lobby opinion: "Modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not.
Sure, it's a privilege, but the privilege does not exist for the benefit of its employees.
> What purpose an organization turns it's work to is up to the people who make the decisions, and varied.
Just because they can do certain things does not mean it's ethical. Employees themselves are agents, not principals - employees making decisions to enrich themselves at the expense of actual owners is highly problematic from an ethical standpoint.
A lot of people in this thread seem to be confusing the fact that employees acting for the benefit of shareholders is not strictly enforceable and the benefit itself does not have to be monetary in nature with the idea that employees can do whatever they want with the power that they have. This is simply not the case - sure, employees don't have to maximize for the short-term profits or stock price, or even in some cases, companies can be mission-driven, with a long-term mission that's prioritized ahead of profit-maximizing.
None of this means it's reasonable to make a decision to hold on to employees for the employees' benefits, rather than the corporation's benefit, except to the extent that it helps the long-term mission of the company.
A stronger onshore chipmaking industry could be one thing. There are plenty of other reasons individual shareholders might have to park their money in one place as opposed to another which don't simply have to do with maximizing returns. People have ethical considerations, ideological considerations, patriotic considerations...
The purpose of Intel is to manufacture chips. Selling them to make money allows them to reinvest to make more chips. Offering shares on public exchanges raises funds to... you guessed it, make more chips.
If the only true end goal of every corporation is to make money, then eventually we would eventually end up in a financial shell game where money is shuttled around ledgers while nothing of value is created. (Yes, I know.)
> If the only true end goal of every corporation is to make money, then eventually we would eventually end up in a financial shell game where money is shuttled around ledgers while nothing of value is created
No, we end up with Intel manufacturing chips (in order to make money). If Intel becomes unable to make money manufacturing chips, I guarantee they will stop doing it.
'Making money is necessary but not sufficient to explain the motivation.
“I do not expect to join any company which is simply a manufacturer of semiconductors. I would rather try to find some small company which is trying to develop some product or technology which no one has yet done. To stay independent (and small) I might form a new company, after a vacation.”
Noyce and Moore incorporated their new venture on July 18th and made a commitment to continued innovation a fundamental component of their company’s culture.'
I don't see anything in your quote or link that suggests that Intel was anything but a money making venture. To "develop some product or technology which no one has yet done" makes that pretty clear to me. And they didn't stay small either, now ranked 46 on the Fortune 500.
By the way, Gordon Moore was worth an estimated 7 billion when he died earlier this year.
Sure, it’s up to management. Management here decided that layoffs and a buyback were the right call. If you think you know better than the people who run the company, please share.
