Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Intel Hardware

Intel's Stock Jumps 18.8% - But What's In Its Future? (msn.com) 19

Intel's stock jumped nearly 19% this week. "However, in the past year through Wednesday's close, Intel stock had fallen 53%," notes Investor's Business Daily: The appointment of Lip-Bu Tan as CEO is a "good start" but Intel has significant challenges, Morgan Stanley analyst Joseph Moore said in a client note. Those challenges include delays in its server chip product line, a very competitive PC chip market, lack of a compelling AI chip offering, and over $10 billion in losses in its foundry business over the past 12 months. There is "no quick fix" for those issues, he said.
"There are things you can do," a Columbia business school associate professor tells the Wall Street Journal in a video interview, "but it's going to be incremental, and it's going to be extremely risky... They will try to be competitive in the foundry manufacturing space," but "It takes very aggressive investments."

Meanwhile, TSMC is exploring a joint venture where they'd operate Intel's factories, even pitching the idea to AMD, Nvidia, Broadcam, and Qualcomm, according to Reuters. (They add that Intel "reported a 2024 net loss of $18.8 billion, its first since 1986," and talked to multiple sources "familiar with" talks about Intel's future). Multiple companies have expressed interest in buying parts of Intel, but two of the four sources said the U.S. company has rejected discussions about selling its chip design house separately from the foundry division. Qualcomm has exited earlier discussions to buy all or part of Intel, according to those people and a separate source. Intel board members have backed a deal and held negotiations with TSMC, while some executives are firmly opposed, according to two sources.
"They say Lip-Bu Tan is the best hope to fix Intel — if Intel can be fixed at all," writes the Wall Street Journal: He brings two decades of semiconductor industry experience, relationships across the sector, a startup mindset and an obsession with AI...and basketball. He also comes with tricky China business relationships, underscoring Silicon Valley's inability to sever itself from one of America's top adversaries... [Intel's] stock has lost two-thirds of its value in four short years as Intel sat out the AI boom...

Manufacturing chips is an enormous expense that Intel can't currently sustain, say industry leaders and analysts. Former board members have called for a split-up. But a deal to sell all or part of Intel to competitors seems to be off the table for the immediate future, according to bankers. A variety of early-stage discussions with Broadcom, Qualcomm, GlobalFoundries and TSMC in recent months have failed to go anywhere, and so far seem unlikely to progress. The company has already hinted at a more likely outcome: bringing in outside financial backers, including customers who want a stake in the manufacturing business...

Tan has likely no more than a year to turn the company around, said people close to the company. His decades of investing in startups and running companies — he founded a multinational venture firm and was CEO of chip design company Cadence Design Systems for 13 years — provide indications of how Tan will tackle this task in the early days: by cutting expenses, moving quickly and trying to turn Intel back into an engineering-first company. "In areas where we are behind the competition, we need to take calculated risks to disrupt and leapfrog," Tan said in a note to Intel employees on Wednesday. "And in areas where our progress has been slower than expected, we need to find new ways to pick up the pace...."

Many take this culture reset to also mean significant cuts at Intel, which already shed about 15,000 jobs last year. "He is brave enough to adjust the workforce to the size needed for the business today," said Reed Hundt, a former Intel board member who has known Tan since the 1990s.

Intel's Stock Jumps 18.8% - But What's In Its Future?

Comments Filter:
  • The over 100 billion dollars of them the last several decades? https://www.commondreams.org/o... [commondreams.org] Intel is one of many companies that have repeatedly chosen to enrich their shareholders and executives at the expense of their worker base
    • Given the worker base have traditionally received stock options and grants as well as a employee discounted price on shares, Buybacks enrich the worker base as well.
      • Ok? (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        It's like the least efficient way to pay your employees. If you want to pay them, just pay them. If that was the goal, 90% of that $100 billion was wasted. They could have just paid their employees a few billion and then invested the rest in R&D.

        The whole point of paying employees in stock is to avoid the cash hit. Spending $100 billion to juice the stock price to benefit employees is pants-on-head retarded.

      • Because I've been in IT long enough to have watched multiple times when the rank and file employees have their stock options stolen and only the C-Suite got away with it. So Elon Musk got half a billion dollars when he was fired from PayPal for incompetence. But all those AOL employees who should have been sitting pretty had their stock stolen and it wasn't fuck all they could do about it.

        I think the best one was there was a company that made a streaming video game box where the employees built the prod
    • It's really only the bigger shareholders that are getting ahead on the stock buybacks because they can churn through shares to make quick profits. If you actually hold the stock for any length of time you get screwed because money that needed to be going into research and development is instead dumped in the stock buybacks.

      That's why Intel is in the mess it's in now. Anything they tried to do that wasn't immediately balls to the walls profitable got thrown out. They started to compete with arm on low po
      • I've never heard a good explanation for why stock buy backs are so awful. You fail to explain how it shuts down competition or innovation in any way. Your post seems to presuppose that Intel would have otherwise invested the money in R&D. I don't think that this is the case and history has shown that companies with a lot of excess cash tend to either pay out dividends or buy smaller companies. In the first case money is being distributed to all share holders as opposed to only those who sell back to Int
        • You gave a couple of good reasons for buybacks, but the main driver is to neck up the share price so the stock options are worth more. Those stocks can then be sold and taxed at the capital gains rate instead of the C-level income tax rates.

          From my standpoint having the stock go up isn't that useful because I can only sell the share of stock once. Dividends are a repeating income stream that is far more preferable even if the tax rate is higher. Then again, my marginal tax rate is 22%, not 36 something.

        • Share buybacks are a tool of management. To characterize them as "bad" is misplaced. It's a matter of how corporations are allowed to legally govern their affairs.

          How they are used is a different thing entirely. Business is war. Things don't work out for everyone. Shares and options are also tools.... and rewards depending on which side you are on. Are they evil or can they be manipulated ? Sure they can ... but that is how it works. Should we allow companies to do those things ? It's called corporate gover
        • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

          Stock buybacks aren't awful. They're just a company using excess cash to buy stock in a company, which they do all the time.

          There is a certain situation where the execs have a lot of poorly thought out stock price-based incentives and can cheat the system a bit, primarily by borrowing to buy the company's own stock, but boards and investors aren't as dumb as people seem to think so that's not nearly as widespread as those people would assume.

        • The only explanation is that like all tools this one "can" be abused by self interested management. most large enterprises this is not an issue as the share buybacks are strictly controlled and planned ahead so that execs can't maneuver bonus's to take extra advantage. Realistically the money was never going to be spent on R&D, as you rightly point out it would have either been given back to the shareholders as dividend (which has less value as it has tax associated with it) or used to purchase other c
  • They're already engaging in a JV with TSMC? Whatever. They need to let go of their fab 10BN/year loser biz and focus on what they can much more easily turn profitable if they want to have a prayer of saving people's jobs, improving shareholder value, and focus their R&D in design and product... not manufacturing. The CHIPS ACT was for the that. But there won't be any national bail-out for Intel on the ropes. Too many hedge fund managers and corporate raiders demanding profitability are in the cabinet (
    • You know with the almost complete lack of competition in FABS I don't think that would be a good idea. I think they didn't tell would just get bled dry if they tried to do that. Which is why they don't do it
  • by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Sunday March 16, 2025 @08:03PM (#65238893)

    Intel's Stock Jumps 18.8% - But What's In Its Future?

    Bonuses and golden parachutes for upper management?

Your good nature will bring you unbounded happiness.

Working...