News Pat Gelsinger has advice for Lip-Bu Tan as he settles into 'one of the hardest jobs available

[Admin]

Pat Gelsinger expressed strong support for successor Lip-Bu Tan and the IDM 2.0 strategy, while acknowledging the immense financial and market pressures that made the transformation difficult.

Pat Gelsinger has advice for Lip-Bu Tan as he settles into 'one of the hardest jobs available : Read more

 

[-Fran-]

"The former CEO of Intel also criticized the short-term focus of financial markets, which he said clashed with the long-term nature of the transformation Intel was undergoing."

Ding, ding, ding, ding.

We can't have nice things because of venture capitalists being vultures in the worst of ways. Where are the incentives to keep companies thriving when you can just short them for instant big margins. Makes no sense there's no stricter regulation for it.

Regards.

 

[jp7189]

"The former CEO of Intel also criticized the short-term focus of financial markets, which he said clashed with the long-term nature of the transformation Intel was undergoing."

Ding, ding, ding, ding.

We can't have nice things because of venture capitalists being vultures in the worst of ways. Where are the incentives to keep companies thriving when you can just short them for instant big margins. Makes no sense there's no stricter regulation for it.

Regards.

I wouldnt put all VCs in that camp. There are definitely some long thinkers amoung them. I think the big problem are the casual investors and fund managers that are hunting quick profits and dont care to look deeper in the business.

Running a public company gives you that influx of funding, but exposes you to the expectations of the wankers. That's the tradeoff, and one of the reasons why many large companies stay private and some public companies privatize. Intel isn't in a position to do that.. so wankers it is.

 

[phead128]

Intel should be partially state owned if it's truly a national security asset.

 

[DS426]

Intel should be partially state owned if it's truly a national security asset.

Many companies are of national security interests in the U.S. and [likely moreso] profitable, such as Northrup-Grumman, Lockheed Martin, *scratch this one off for now* Boeing, and other Defense contractors and organizations in those supply chain webs and support providers. Intel just probably needs to get a little more in bed with Uncle Sam like those companies to lock in more lucrative contracts.

I say that as DOGE is cleaning house, so actually too late for that, lololol.

 

[DS426]

Oh and thank you author for not using the same photo of Pat G. on the excavator as it's been used a million times now.

 

[TheSecondPower]

We can't have nice things because of venture capitalists being vultures in the worst of ways. Where are the incentives to keep companies thriving when you can just short them for instant big margins. Makes no sense there's no stricter regulation for it.

Venture capitalist are by definition people who invest in startups, which is an investment that usually returns no profit at all for the first few years. Intel isn't a startup and therefore has no venture capitalist investors. The problem is the stockholders: billionares, 401k managers, and stock speculators. If you have a 401k plan your 401k manager might be pressuring Intel to make short-term gains.

 

[jg.millirem]

‘He reiterated his full support for both the board and Lip-Bu Tan as they continue forward with the IDM 2.0 vision.’

Aw gee whiz, I’m all choked up. One big corporate family.

 

[parkerthon]

Venture capitalist are by definition people who invest in startups, which is an investment that usually returns no profit at all for the first few years. Intel isn't a startup and therefore has no venture capitalist investors. The problem is the stockholders: billionares, 401k managers, and stock speculators. If you have a 401k plan your 401k manager might be pressuring Intel to make short-term gains.

Correct. And for people that think going private is better, let me introduce you to our friend Private Equity who is even more notrious for buying up middling privately held companies, burying them in debt to the hilt, charging lucrative management fees, and stripping them for parts after they don't track for a 300% ROI after 3 years. Capitalism is a brutal world. Intel is simply horribly underperforming for a company with a market cap north of 100 billion, so it's understandable they are harshly criticized for their mistakes.

As an American chip maker, I wantIntel to succeed and rise from the ashes. More recently though, I can't just dismiss the defective products, massive PR screw ups, and huge losses. Looking back historically too, they have missed so many busses(e.g. GPUs, mobile, ARM), that they are clearly where they are today due to a lack of vision by their leaders. If I'm being brutally honest, I believe they got fat and happy in the late 90's and abused their market brand dominance ever since until competition finally caught up with them. Took about 15-20 years, so when it happened, why was anyone surprised?

I don't think companies should be supported by investor money forever because of their brand or being some country's crown jewel. Using Intel as an example of how investors conspire to short a company and push it down is not a very good example. Intel has many challenges, and many of them have been there for a long time. As much as I want Intel to turn it around, it seems foolish at this point to invest in them. Forget the big money or the dumb money, it's right there on the wall. Their numbers suck and nothing about their outlook inspires great confidence. I don't think this is capitalist vultures as much as the market recognizing how bleak things look.

 

[bit_user]

I clicked on the article with a cynical mindset, thinking that his "advice" was really just a transparent attempt to rehabilitate his image. I still think that, but I don't really disagree with any of the remarks attributed to him. I do like his analogy of the "90-day shot clock", which is a basketball metaphor (for those who didn't know).

 

[bit_user]

We can't have nice things because of venture capitalists being vultures in the worst of ways.

It's not the venture capitalists, but rather the market traders. VCs actually will invest in a company with a multi-year RoI timescale, but mostly in startups and with an eye towards getting a multiple return on their investment. Once a company is publicly traded, then you have to worry about folks like day traders and those on Wall St. (i.e. big fund managers).

Where are the incentives to keep companies thriving when you can just short them for instant big margins. Makes no sense there's no stricter regulation for it.

I think part of the problem is that we no longer penalize short-term capital gains like we used to. That removed the disincentive for traders to try and make a quick buck, then dump a stock and move on.

It's politically unpopular to bring it back, but I think it's one of the easier & cheaper ways to improve the long-term health of US companies.

 

[Mindstab Thrull]

Glad to see Pat actually acting supportive of Lip-Bu Tan and Intel. A lot of people, when leaving a company, basically are "good luck, I'm going to deal with this now" and leave it at that. Pat's like, "hey look, before you get started, here's some stuff you should know and look out for. You've got this." Good move.

 

[bit_user]

Glad to see Pat actually acting supportive of Lip-Bu Tan and Intel. A lot of people, when leaving a company, basically are "good luck, I'm going to deal with this now" and leave it at that. Pat's like, "hey look, before you get started, here's some stuff you should know and look out for. You've got this." Good move.

He's not saying anything Tan wouldn't already know. These comments aren't directed towards him.

I'll agree with you on one point, which is that his remarks do seem aimed to lower the expectations for a quick turn-around by Tan. I think that's not necessarily altruistic, but should still be helpful to him.

 

[phead128]

Pat Gelsinger signed a heavily restricted non-disclosure agreement (NDA) as part of his golden parachute retirement deal. He is not allowed to say anything bad about Intel or divulge any secrets. So I would take any superfluous "Go Blue, I support Tan" with a grain of salt, since Pat and Tan butted heads before. The reality is probably Pat hates him, hates Tan's strategy, but he can't say that or there will be lawsuits.

 

[thestryker]

If I'm being brutally honest, I believe they got fat and happy in the late 90's and abused their market brand dominance ever since until competition finally caught up with them. Took about 15-20 years, so when it happened, why was anyone surprised?

It was the mid-00s when the board started getting more financial focused people with no clue about the industry and it got worse since then. There's no surprise at all regarding the shift when the people with control care more about maintaining quarterlies.

 

[aberkae]

He sure has a lot to say these days. Almost every other day there is another article of him sharing his opinions due to his successful career. 🤪

 

[Alvar "Miles" Udell]

The biggest problem with Intel is all their failed experiments that cost a fortune and either underperformed and were killed after as little as one generation or never saw the light of day, and their 5 nodes in 3 years push again cost an unnecessary fortune because they didn't want another 14nm++++++++++ repeat.

 

[PixelAkami]

Many companies are of national security interests in the U.S. and [likely moreso] profitable, such as Northrup-Grumman, Lockheed Martin, *scratch this one off for now* Boeing, and other Defense contractors and organizations in those supply chain webs and support providers. Intel just probably needs to get a little more in bed with Uncle Sam like those companies to lock in more lucrative contracts.

I say that as DOGE is cleaning house, so actually too late for that, lololol.

Ehhh, don't like this way only because some people are scared that the Orange man up in the house supposedly might pull CHIPS funding which even though Intel is a massive company, could still suffer heavily ONLY because of how expensive foundry stuff is.... especially if you fall behind like Intel did.

 

[Mr Majestyk]

Intel should be partially state owned if it's truly a national security asset.

So Amuricans do want communism. I knew it all along!

 

[Pierce2623]

Wall Street kills tech companies. The fact that they fire CEOs for taking a loss now to improve the future shows EXACTLY what the problem is. Pat was charting the ONLY course where Intel could maintain its position. Being able to do everything at a competitive level made them a massive juggernaut and if the company had stuck to engineering principles instead of Wall Street principles they’d be where Nvidia is.