[neelm]

If he wants to succeed, he will need to reconsistute the board. That's a tough one since they appointed him, but otherwise it won't work. The type of transformation Intel needs to go through won't withstand a myopic, short term oriented bureaucracy.

[alienthrowaway]

> If he wants to succeed, he will need to reconsistute the board.

Intel is a publicly listed company.

[beambot]

Yes, and I'm sure all those public shareholders are mighty unhappy with the current board's stewardship.

[missedthecue]

Unfortunately, index funds and mutual funds own about 68% of the Intel, with Vanguard retirement funds being the biggest. These passive custodian investor companies just vote along with the board's recommendation rather than making opinionated or activist decisions.

[branko_d]

> These passive custodian investor companies just vote along with the board's recommendation

I know that's true, but I'm wondering - why? Why wouldn't they just withhold their vote and let the remaining (active) investors make decisions?

[brookst]

I’m with you except “unfortunately”. I don’t think we really want Vanguard trying to be an activist investor in all the companies they have major positions in.

[missedthecue]

It's a huge downside of passive investing. We lose a democratic element of corporate America by surrendering our votes to a couple big custodians that really don't care either way. I agree that I don't think Vanguard trying to make opinions on 1000s of company votes is the fix.

[blackhawkC17]

> We lose a democratic element of corporate America by surrendering our votes to a couple big custodians that really don't care either way.

By design, though, the people who invest with Vanguard do that precisely to offload decisions to experts and focus on other things.

Passive investors have neither the time nor expertise to monitor and vote on corporate decisions, so we're stuck with the current system regardless.

I think Intel is a bureaucracy that's gradually eating itself. Maybe it's harsh, but such companies might not be worth saving. They should be left to fizzle out and another should take their place.

The beauty of capitalism is that giants can fall down to earth, and smaller startups can take their place. Rinse and repeat.

[dash2]

I think the post above you asks a relevant question - shouldn't Vanguard, rather than always voting with the board, just not vote at all? Wouldn't that be the truly neutral position?

[rstuart4133]

> These passive custodian investor companies just vote along with the board's recommendation rather than making opinionated or activist decisions.

I don't know where you get that idea from. They own so many shares they have direct control over who gets appointed to the board, and unlike a small investor when these guys walk away with their money it hurts. I often see the news reports of them flexing their muscles in the board room.

It's true they probably don't have much to say about bets like 18A or corporate culture. But they will almost certainly be involved on the decision on if or when Intel will be split up - if only because these investors decide which, if any of the new entities they are prepared to fund.

[endemic]

IIRC when Jobs came back to Apple, there was a major board shakeup.

[gessha]

Just because the board made mistakes doesn't mean you have to go full altman on them.

[alexey-salmin]

At this point I think you should. They literally took a great company and run it into the ground over profits

[7speter]

He left said board about 6 months ago after having a falling out with the previous CEO, so…