I'm losing hope that things can turn around, although there are probably a lot of people who think that the company can eventually get back on track. I'm just wondering how.
15 replies (most recent on top)
Intel is capital intensive and DEI is essential for raising capital these days.
Thanks to Pat's predecessors and their DEI appointments to executive positions, Intel has become the "Bud Light" of the semiconductor industry. There will be no chance of coming back unless PG purges DEI and all things whoke completely from the company and brings the "back to basics" Grovian culture 100% back. The problem is PG is trying to do the latter while allowing the former to continue to exist inside Intel. The two cultural mindsets cannot coexist long term and PG is losing valuable time by not taking action to commit fully to Grovian culture. Perhaps his hands are tied by the BOD.
@1vxl
Buying Israeli startups.
To share buybacks. To the market that apparently seemed a wiser use than what we have today.
Where did all the money go during all of the record profit quarters? To the execs and the dividends?
"performing horribly for a while" is an understatement--22+ years of stagnant stock valuation is quickly approaching a quarter century.
Leadership by 2025, really??!
2125, maybe!
Let's give pat the benefit of the doubt and see if intel regain leadership by 2025
@1zmk unfortunately your highest math level achieved is calculus for business majors and ur calculations can't be trusted
Once a tech company lost its lead, there is no come back. Look at Motorola, Nokia, RIM etc.
@gdy Yes. I did the math and will exit Aug 15. I’m saddened by what it has come to but you are correct and no amount of sugar coating or ignoring it will change the facts.
I honestly have no idea what IBM actually does these days.
I’m sure people work there and collect a paycheck.
Don’t worry so much. Mediocrity isn’t so bad.
Intel isn’t doomed.
It’s just not a tier 1 tech company any longer.
It will be like IBM.
Sort of just hanging around with nobody noticing.
Why so much hand wringing? Use rational logic and check your emotions in with the woke DEI officers. In this case the analysis is pretty simple. The reason is that Intel has bet the farm on the IFS 'moonshot' as the CEO calls it.
So, it's binary. It will be a huge success or an unmitigated disaster. Everything rides on it.
No, to my mind I see Intel started vs. TSMC way too late. The cost for each new node is prohibitive and we are in rising cost of capital environment. Intel investors will grow skeptical far before Intel turns a profit on such a heavy fixed investment. Those new fabs will sit as empty shells until demand shows up. Yet, customers won't commit until they see the proof Intel can execute. The CFO noted this problem on the last earnings call. He is very clever. He has out when the do do hits the fan.
Next, you have skillset and culture. Intel culture is not customer centric. Never will be. As far as skillset, Intel knows nothing about sending high mix, low volume SKUs through the fam. Next we have cost structure. Intel is bloated, inefficient and even tax breaks will not make up the gap. (Note the the tax breaks are nearly meaningless given the new 15% min. corporate tax).
Ecosystem. Ever sent a design through a contract manufacturer? I have. They need to support a wide range of tool flows, IP and interfaces. Intel doesn't have any of it. Why will the vendors support Intel when there are no customers? Why not wait until Intel proves themselves? And, Intel has no skillset in managing external ecosystem. Remember, these are the guys that have been riding on a monopolistic, vertical integration strategy since day one...
Next we have leadership. The company has stuffed the ELT with DEI hires that have no skillset in design or manufacturing silicon. The flagship strategy is IFS so what does Intel do? They put Stu Pann in charge. Give me a break. Is this the industry expert in cm that will lead Intel's turn around? I seriously doubt it. Stu Pann has been an Intel lifer and the bulk of his career was heavy handing pricing and negotiating with PC OEMs using contra revenue as a club to generate high margins when AMD was struggling with both design issues and outsourcing fab. Now those problems are solved and the PC market is well in decline and post the commoditization phase.
So, when you see, you rational logic and zero emotions I myself have concluded that the odds Intel succeeding with IFS are as close to zero as I come up with using 4 digits or less.
Now, maybe your analysis is different, but the point is -- stop the waffling.. take out your pencil and do some real analysis. In the end, doubling down on your commitment to stay in a situation that defies all logic is the real boogey man.
Same concerns here… I think reality is heavily stacked against INTC… nearly beyond a miraculous comeback story at this point… timing was too late on PG’s plans… internal turmoil and macro headwinds just too much to overcome…