Forced Departure of CEO: What Lies Ahead for Intel?

In a dramatic turn of events for Intel, the sudden departure of CEO Pat Gelsinger opens up a new chapter for the storied tech giant, one that has struggled in recent times. With Gelsinger's exit, the company's board is now faced with fresh opportunities to explore a myriad of potential strategic options. These could include significant moves such as divesting chip manufacturing operations or even courting buyers like Qualcomm.

Over the past months, Intel's board had been deliberating various possibilities, weighing the merits of private equity deals, the split of factory operations from product design, and other bold maneuvers. However, Gelsinger had consistently opposed the idea of breaking up the company, instead advocating for a robust revival plan focused on restoring Intel’s technical superiority and its ambition to become a leading contract chip manufacturer.

Yet, with Gelsinger no longer at the helm, Intel finds itself in a position to revisit these discussions. Investment bank giants Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs have been enlisted to assist Intel in identifying paths forward, indicating the seriousness of the situation.

This shake-up has also reenergized interest from potential suitors such as Qualcomm, which had previously explored the idea of acquiring parts of Intel but had seen little progress. With the leadership vacuum created by Gelsinger's departure, the climate may be ripe for renewed negotiations.

Advertisement

As this unfolding drama became apparent, it was revealed that the Intel board had effectively presented Gelsinger with a stark ultimatum over the weekend: resign or be terminated.

Sources close to the situation noted that the board felt compelled to take action because Gelsinger’s turnaround strategy had not yielded results quickly enough. This impatience sits in stark contrast to the plummeting share prices, which have dropped more than 50% this year—a significant indicator of unrest among shareholders.

Announcing Gelsinger's retirement, Intel confirmed his departure on December 1st and indicated that he would also step down from the board. Interim co-CEOs David Zinsner and Michelle Johnston Holthaus have been brought aboard while the search for a permanent replacement is underway.

This abrupt change is merely the latest signal of troubled waters for the 56-year-old institution. As Frank Yeary from Intel mentioned in a public statement, “There's still much work to do, and we are committed to restoring investor confidence.”

Gelsinger himself acknowledged the complexity of the situation, stating, “For all of us, it has been a challenging year. We have made some tough but necessary decisions in light of current market dynamics.” Following the announcement of his departure, Intel’s stock surged 5.8% on Monday—a sign that the market may widely view this leadership change as a potential turning point.

Industry analysts, such as Kunjan Sobhani and Oscar Hernandez Tejada, suggest that this turnover in leadership heightens the likelihood of asset divestiture. They argue that Gelsinger’s resolute commitment against breaking up the business may have cost Intel dearly, with irritable shareholders increasingly forcing the company's hand toward strategic reassessment.

At a board meeting held in September, Intel had analyzed several strategic options, including the possibility of splitting the company, yet opted for a less radical approach. This included suspending factory builds in Poland and Germany, cutting approximately 15,000 jobs, and halting decades-long dividend practices—measures reflecting the significant pressures the company is currently under.

If the new incoming CEO chooses to implement a more aggressive restructuring, Intel could explore five major options:

First, there’s the potential for a split of the manufacturing division, which would distinguish Intel’s manufacturing operations from its more lucrative product development segments. Under Gelsinger, the company sought to compete fiercely with foundry leader TSMC, positioning itself as a serious player in the contract manufacturing market.

Second, there’s the possibility of attracting renewed interest from Qualcomm and other pursuers. While Qualcomm had previously explored acquiring Intel, interest waned due to the complexities involved, which diluted the appeal of such a deal. However, a targeted acquisition of specific Intel business units, particularly in product segments, may still be on the table.

Third, Intel might consider divesting its Altera division, a programmable chip company purchased for approximately $17 billion in 2015. Talks have already been initiated with financial investors to offload portions of this business as a stepping stone toward potential IPO aspirations.

Fourth, there’s a chance Intel could welcome investments from Apollo Global Management. The private equity firm offered to inject up to $5 billion into Intel earlier this year and is already a partner at Intel's factory in Ireland.

Fifth, the sale of a portion of Intel’s stake in Mobileye could become a reality. After acquiring the self-driving tech firm in 2017, Intel still retains about 88% ownership post its 2022 IPO. Recent reports suggest that Intel may be exploring market options to sell shares either on the open market or directly to third parties.

Analysts from Raymond James highlight that Intel’s critical issue now rests on the potential to divisively restructure itself into two focused entities: one centered on chip design and the other on chip manufacturing. Alvin Nguyen, a senior analyst from Forrester, posits that Gelsinger’s exit could indeed increase the chances of Intel divesting its foundry operations—something investors have long been advocating.

However, as Nguyen notes, the recent push from the U.S. government to bolster domestic manufacturing could complicate these intentions. Just last week, the Department of Commerce finalized $7.865 billion in direct funding for Intel under the CHIPS Act—a slight drop from the previously announced $8.5 billion—reinforcing the significance of sustaining domestic manufacturing capabilities.

Chris Caso, an analyst from Wolfe Research, commented that this change in leadership could pave the way for a new strategic direction at Intel, expressing optimism for a fresh approach. Although Gelsinger has seen some successes in steering the company’s technology roadmap, the absence in the burgeoning AI market indicates a need for a larger scale to compete effectively.

Logan Purk, a senior research analyst from Edward Jones, evaluated Gelsinger's tenure as fundamentally rooted in establishing Intel’s leading chip manufacturing prowess—setting the bart for expectations. If the incoming CEO cannot effectively implement Intel's latest 18A process, the road ahead could be fraught with challenges.

Considering the slow pace of technological advancement and the fierce competition in the semiconductor landscape, Intel’s next CEO may find themselves facing an even steeper uphill battle than Gelsinger experienced. How Intel chooses to navigate these waters will be telling of its resilience and capability to adapt to an ever-evolving tech environment.