D-mb Dave says that financials are stable, if still not exciting. Naga talks about smart capital.

Keep in mind the issue here, by all appearances, is whether to break up the company, plus disagreement about staffing needed to run the existing business

Pat (and the loser Foundry manager who recently was 'Retired') was not cost efficient in the build out, scale or staffing of the Foundry, and was trying to retain a lot of staffing on the thought that growth was gonna come back. This is 1990s Intel thinking.

Naga is stating that Intel will no longer push for max outs, replacing it with a strategy that is focused on capital investments which are tied to proven customer demand.

On the Product side, it is still early but we'll see if examples like Pat's egregious Ai product forecasts, which ultimately had to be reduced below the internal estimates, are replaced by a more honest approach.

Comment! It's anonymous!

6 replies (most recent on top)

Wake me up before you go go.

New Intel is needed. Trying to make Intel something like Intel of glory days is not the right strategy. Those glory days are over and new glory days will come only with realistic and visionary strategy. Few of the board members need to be fired as they are equally responsible for the fiasco. Next few months will be very difficult and since chances of a turnaround aren't good, most likely someone will buy Intel and break it into 3 companies.

a lot of useless buzzwords
wake me up when either of those two comes up with a good physics solution

One should look at his forecasting track record and then decide whether to believe what he says or not.

Best compromise is Intel maintains 51% and Amazon, Google, Nvidia, Microsoft and Apple buy in to the remaining 49%

See if the ultimate outcome is that Intel IPOs Foundry (retaining 50.1% but it is an independent company), and maybe sells off or merges some product divisions.

Altera would be a good proof point, where Pat wanted to retain 50.1% but that limited the number of buyers. If instead it is able to be sold outright or at least more than 50%, then that is a sign that the company is no longer going to try to remain a conglomerate.

Likewise, they could/should sell the remaining MBLY stake, as that is not a core business.

Could even see CCG and/or DCG go down the same path, where Intel may retain a share if the buyer doesn't have the capital to take the whole thing.

Pat was trying to rebuild the old Intel, to the point where he quit when it became clear that was not going to happen.

Why? Because a much smaller Intel can't pay his inflated salary. It is as simple as personal greed.

Thread regarding Intel Corp. layoffs

D-mb Dave says that financials are stable, if still not exciting. Naga talks about smart capital.

6 replies (most recent on top)

Post a reply