| > LBT has done lots of things, including securing significant investment, cutting costs, made some good deals in the DC segment The only significant cost cutting is via layoffs, and that wasn't particularly different from Pat's strategy - LBT just added more layoffs. I have no reason to believe those deals would not have been made under Pat. They were made because the state of 14A/18A was better. And they were better not because of anything LBT did, but just the progression that was ongoing under Pat. The government investment is identical to the amount they had promised Intel under the CHIPS Act, except that now instead of a grant it's equity (a worse deal for Intel). There is an ongoing shareholder lawsuit that alleges the deal was made to stop Trump's online bullying, and wasn't made with the interests of the shareholders in mind. The other big difference is, frankly, Trump. I don't think some of the investments (e.g. Nvidia) would have occurred had Trump not been in the office. > Intel under Gelsinger was approaching its foundry business in a "build it and they will come" sort of way, hemhorrhaging huge piles of cash and merely crossing their fingers that customers would show up at this point. That is naive. Are you seriously suggesting Intel wasn't actively courting potential customers? I know from inside knowledge in multiple companies that wasn't the case. And you don't need to take my word for it - potential deals were reported multiple times in the press. As for hemorrhaging huge piles of cash, have you compared the financials with Pat vs now? As I mentioned before, the amount they're losing to Foundry hasn't changed - and that's precisely the complaint they had about Pat. In fact, the (valid) complaint was that all the funds were being routed to the Foundry, and thus Intel's products suffered (internally I know several teams complained they had to cut competitive features because they didn't have funding). > 18A yields are up, guidance looked good. They are no higher than was projected under Pat. As I said, Foundry-wise, everything is falling under the same trajectory as he had outlined - except the financials. They are worse than projected. As for the actual yields, I can assure you from sources in multiple potential customers that based on the data they've seen, it's still "Not good enough to commit to a deal." Improved? Yes. Good enough for a top tier company to rely on them? No. Yes, the revenue was a bit higher than projected, but that's because they projected low. And the reasons the projections were low is because, unlike Pat, LBT is not transparent. He gives little details, and so people make guesses. It's a classic example of transparency being punished. On an absolute level, the revenues are still low, compared to what Intel was achieving just a few years ago. Back then, this amount of revenue would have been viewed as a really bad quarter. > LBT has addressed AI strategy quite explicitly in public, and you can look it up if you want. Yes, I did. He came to Intel with a vision to position Intel strongly in the AI space. Then less than 6 months later, he announced he has more or less given up on catching up with Nvidia. What changed? He wanted to acquire an AI company, but the Board couldn't agree on it and while they were bickering, another company acquired them. And then LBT declared his surrender. I have strong connections within Intel - both Foundry and Products. I speak to them regularly. I always get 3 responses: - Things are as bad - no clear direction on what's going on (the layoffs never stopped, and they're still scrambling to keep their jobs) - Things are as OK - they're as they have always been - no changes. - Things are great! When pressed on what has changed, the answer is "Oh, nothing. But we're happy the stock is up!" I've yet to hear from a single personal contact there that the changes that have been made has improved anything. Pat had a rotation with all Intel Fellows. Each Intel Fellow met with Pat on a regular cadence. The one Fellow I'm routinely in touch with says he hasn't met with LBT, and nor has most Fellows he knows. No indication that LBT even cares what they have to say. The lack of transparency within Intel is quite notable. He gives no details during the quarterly company meetings, and has instructed the business leaders not to be transparent. The phrase "Oh, LBT is laser focused on results!" is heard often from them. I'm not saying Intel is a sinking ship (well, Foundry might be). $20 was clearly undervalued. But $80 is clearly overvalued, as we all agree. And Pat was the sacrificial lamb. |