back to article Intel execs discuss the possibility of spinning off foundry

Intel's interim co-CEOs, David Zinsner and Michelle Johnson Holthaus, discussed the possibility of fully spinning off its foundry business while speaking at the Barclays investment banking conference on Thursday. Both, however, insisted a decision to that effect would not be made in the near term and was unlikely to be made by …

  1. Brewster's Angle Grinder Silver badge
    Coat

    Who'd be a CEO? You do all the hard work. Get fired. And somebody else comes along and claims all the credit for your work.

    No wait, I've seen the salary. I'd put up with it. In fact, it's pretty much what happens now but for far less money. Mine's the coat with the golden parachute in the pocket, thanks.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      As somebody who's worked with well more than their share of directors and CEOs, I can assure you that most of their lives are not happy times on a bed of loot. Every important decision lands on their shoulders, any exotic holiday has a near certainty of being hounded by the office, their diary is forever full, and rarely much under their control. You might assume that sacking a few thousand workers before Christmas gives them joy, I can say with certainty that's a part of their job they hate and that preys on their mind.

      Don't read into that any defence of the C-suite, as I think they're far too often wankers, pyschopaths or simply operating beyond their competence. Yes, great money, but happiness and leisure, perhaps 1% of the time.

      I also know that a good many of them find the role being wafted before them, and think "hey! how difficult can it be? I'll do it for two years and run off with a big payoff!". The reality that follows is that they either get sucked in and start to believe they NEED the money and can't leave after two years, or they simply crash and burn.

      1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        "Every important decision lands on their shoulders, any exotic holiday has a near certainty of being hounded by the office, their diary is forever full, and rarely much under their control."

        That can happen much further down the food chain as well. As can the crash and burn out.

        The significant thing in this case, however, is that there is wide-spread belief that Gelsinger as CEO was Intel's best chance of sorting problems that had accumulated under (presumably) much the same board of directors. Problems accumulated over the long term are not likely to be turned round in the short term. If the directors weren't prepared to stick with what looked like being a long haul job it was up to them to step down. S&P's reaction should tell them that if they don't know it.

        1. O'Reg Inalsin

          Overall, I agree. But 2 major non-technical, management errors occurred:

          (1) The decision to release 13/14 with BIOS settings that had them self destructing even without overclocking. (Sounds technical, but was probably a failure of management pushing too hard to be told what they wanted to hear).

          (2) Talking up the opening of foreign fabs in Israel and Germany, way beyond what was affordable or realistic.

          I have no idea if Gelsinger was really responsible for those, but he was CEO at the time.

  2. nautica Silver badge
    Thumb Up

    The title states (almost) every one of Intel's problems

    The TITLE...

    "Intel execs discuss the possibility of spinning off foundry

    'Does it ever fully separate? I think that's an open question for another day,' interim co-CEO says

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    "...execs..."--there's NO ONE PERSON responsible for making decisions.

    "...INTERIM CO-CEO says"--there is, absolutely, and without any doubt, NO ONE PERSON WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING ANY DECISIONS WHATEVER.

    "Intel execs discuss the possibility...""--let's call a meeting so it seems as though we're doing something 'executive'-like..."

    "...I think that's an open question..." You don't seriously expect us to know what to do now, if at all, do you?"

    "...for another day". --"Never do today what you can put off 'til tomorrow."--Mark Twain

    Sell your Intel stock. Now

    --------------------------------------------------------

    "If you had to identify, in one word, the reason why the human race has not achieved, and never will achieve, its full potential, that word would be 'meetings.' "--Dave Barry

  3. Gene Cash Silver badge

    CHIPS act

    Intel loses the CHIPS act funds if it spins off the foundry and doesn't keep 50+% controlling interest.

    How does that affect things?

    1. nautica Silver badge
      Meh

      Re: CHIPS act

      "...How does that affect things?"

      Fairly seriously.

  4. Proton_badger

    When giants starts fully spinning off divisions like that it's often sign of a death spiral. AMD survived the days when they had to spin off GloFo though.

    1. nautica Silver badge
      Meh

      Big, BIG difference between then and now...

      "...AMD survived the days when they had to spin off GloFo..."

      The BIG difference being that AMD was already (fairly) healthy at the time, and Global Foundries had a lot of other very healthy investors. Intel does not, nor has, enjoyed either advantage. Intel has been in a death-spiral for quite some time--starting a long time ago when the bean-counters gained control of what had been an engineering- and science-driven organization (firing, of course, all the people who got them to where they were; the engineers and scientists) , turning it into what an ex-boss once described as an organization whose only production output is 'bullshit and colored slides'.

  5. Dave81

    Not clear

    Whenever I hear about Intel spinning off its foundry business, it sounds like they’re thinking of becoming fabless like AMD. But I don’t that’s what they mean. I think it means that the part of their business targeting external foundry customers will be spun off. The article needs to clarify this.

    1. UnknownUnknown

      Re: Not clear

      The aspiration is that the Foundry is very large - so primary customer is Intel, and the significant capacity left can be sold of to contract manufacture. I think Samsung was a model where it is the supply chain…..

      VERY expensive, why Foundry is Haemorrhaging money… and despite this being the plan all along Intel investors taking fright on top of other crap like faulty issues and strategic mistakes over 20 years - like flogging their market leading XScale/StrongArm business just as Smartphones were faking off gorge shite that was Intel Atom. Plus Itanium Debacle.

      However Intel is up shit creek without the CHIPS funding - a lot defence related…. So it’s likely to be another mucky private equity distressed capital Spin Off In Name Only like the Cork Fab where for a pile of money the investors are getting a per chip made fixed fee bounty.

      Private Equity Handjob as a Service - HJaaS

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like