Thread regarding Intel Corp. layoffs

Steady updates of divestitures shows where some of the headcount reduction is happening.

As groups get updated targets they will do additional reductions or hiring, but I think most of the net loss will be through the disassembly of the Intel conglomerate.

My guess is that the spin off of Intel Capital was a point of disagreement between Pat and the Board. Real Sense is also to be spun off, and I'd expect Mobileye shares to be sold at some point. The pace of the Altera spin off appears to be accelerating, and in all cases the bias towards action has to be balanced with getting the best possible return on each divestiture.

All this is good for the company, as it should result in meaningful debt reduction and streamlined capital needs going forward. Whatever value having so many non-core activities was, that day has long gone.

Would like to see the HVM fabs spun off as an independent foundry, with TD remaining with Intel along with whatever product groups are not spun off.

TD has the most capital needs and the longest payback on investment, and there is enough production capability for Ronler to provide the return needed, while giving latest node access to Product groups.

HVM may currently be profitable, and would be easier to fund without TD as part of the same organization.

Probably all of Floundry is kept together in the spin off, but that burdens that standalone entity with a lot of capital needs to remain near the leading node.

In any case, looks promising for Intel to clean up the balance sheet through divestitures and right-size the company in the process.

by
| 1932 views | | 11 replies (last January 18, 2025) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+1jhrhjvqg

11 replies (most recent on top)

Looks like the difference in strategy is revealing itself in real time.

This is where having such a finance oriented Board shows what it really wants.

It is all about stripping the company assets for short term gain.

Even if they had the patience for IDM 2.0 the end goal was to maximize the value of eventually selling off the company.

The next CEO/s will be chosen by the company with the highest bid.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @k7+1jhrhjvqg

@bd+1jhrhjvqg TD was historically not the same organization and the rest of the Fabs.

They were combined in the past few years. I don't recall the timeframe but it might have been under PG or maybe BS.

Their capital and management needs are distinctly different. They don't even forecast or budget the same way.

The comment about HVM being profitable was correct (as I recall). It could easily stand on its own as a foundry.

As with the IBM and GF relationship, TD could get paid by foundry for technology transfers.

The Ronler site has all the capacity that the Product groups need for leading node production (for the first year or two of a ramp). They then could contract foundry for any additional capacity needed. They already manage wafer starts that way between TSMC and foundry.

I'd agree with the other posters that TD and HVM are more likely to remain in the same entity, but it isn't hard to see that there could be a better fit, more able to accommodate internal as well as external customers.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @en+1jhrhjvqg

Worst acquisitions ever.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @de+1jhrhjvqg

Intel's chickens are coming home to roost.

Years of monopolistic behavior combined with arrogance and other anti-competitive behavior made Intel complacent and lazy. And customers and competitors are chuckling, in a way.

Actually, customers do want Intel to succeed, but not because of "Intel." Intel dying would be bad for the entire market. 100k employees out of work, etc.

They want Intel to succeed so there is competition in the (1) CPU space (2) process space and (3) in the other ancillary "expertises" Intel has. Customer's want competition, not monopolies.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @da+1jhrhjvqg

TD remaining with Intel and only HVM fabs getting spun off doesn't make any sense. The HVM fabs and TD are one unit. Can't be split. A factory network without TD is useless.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @bd+1jhrhjvqg

And another thing, not entirely related to this thread but I am sick and tired of hearing Intel executives claim all the customers want Intel to be back in the driver seat. That is delusional. They want a second source, sure, but they sure as he-l don't want the old intel x86 monopoly back. There are deep seeded resentments in this industry because of some of the thing Intel and microsoft have done. Those resentments will only go away if the company breaks apart.

PG used to claim this and I rolled my eyes when he did. DZ and MJ basically said the same thing this week at open forum.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @bc+1jhrhjvqg

Pat was fired because of the PowerPoint marketing Scam - 4 nodes in 5 Years. 18A is in bad shape.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @at+1jhrhjvqg

Without economy of scale, TD will not be profitable. There’s too much fixed costs and not enough units to amortize. Costs go up per node and volumes have to increase accordingly. They aren’t and won’t without external customers.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @af+1jhrhjvqg

Finally. A non troll thread. Thanks for posting, keep it up.

  • 28yr Ronler vet
by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ab+1jhrhjvqg

Wrong thesis. Pat was FIRED because he lied about the true status of 18A as well as his out of control spending that has bankrupted the company. Pat has done the most harm to the company of all prior CEOs and his ouster is perhaps the best decision of this board.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @aa+1jhrhjvqg

For those unfamiliar with Intel Capital, it serves as a venture capital investment firm within the company, with investments sometimes leading to acquisitions by the company and sometime just taken public.

At times it has been profitable, but many of the acquisitions proved highly unprofitable and the whole notion that Intel ever needed this function is dubious, imo.

Most M&A does not work out. Much better to internally develop technology, learning what talent is actually value-add and how to manage the developing products and markets. Acquisitions are a short cut to doing real work, and often leave companies with groups they are not well-equipped to manage.

But M&A is always popular with CEOs because it makes the organization bigger and that justifies more compensation for the CEO.

the incentive to M&A is actually that simple

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @a2+1jhrhjvqg

Post a reply

: