5 ms·

- No serious hedge funds or other activists involved in this, ie no adults involved, check - Fully audited financials not being questioned, check - CEO and CF

- No serious hedge funds or other activists involved in this, ie no adults involved, check - Fully audited financials not being questioned, check - CEO and CFO constantly acknowledging the Foundary unit wasn't profitable in quarterly updates, check. The former CEO was brought in to to try and keep Intel a fully integrated business that designed and manufactured chips. He was very clear upfront about his plan to not divest the foundry and instead to try and build it back up. It didn't' work, that's not a crime. He left because his plan didn't work. That's what happens to CEO's who try and fail to implement a business plan. This is just an ambulance chaser lawsuit that doesn't look like it will go anywhere at all. If there was any merit at all then the board would also be involved in going after the former CEO and CFO.

yieldcrv 2y ago
If these guys cant use the SEC whistleblower bounty program then there isn't a case This is just something petty
- chollida1 2y ago
  > If these guys cant use the SEC whistleblower program then there isn't a case I think you are confusing a few things. The whistleblower program is for insiders. This lawsuit is being brought by outside shareholders. This has nothing at all to do with whistleblowers as there aren't insiders with insider knowledge. This suit is being brought by outsiders who are unhappy with Intel's performance. There is no insider here trying to expose anything.
  - sabbaticaldev 2y ago
    [dead]
  - yieldcrv 2y ago
    You don’t have to be an insider, independent researchers have pointed out irregularities, improperly disclosed things and won bounties
- ozim 2y ago
  Yeah good luck hiring next CEO to Intel.
arthurcolle 2y ago
up or down?
MoreMoore 2y ago
> It didn't' work, that's not a crime. He left because his plan didn't work. That's what happens to CEO's who try and fail to implement a business plan. We don't know that it didn't work. We also don't know that selling it off would've been significantly better, so it's weird to pretend that keeping the foundry part of Intel was this big failure. Intel is a cargo ship that doesn't turn on a dime. But the board and investors don't have the patience for long-term strategy that could get Intel out of its downward spiral. The CEO leaving is just another symptom of that, and a sign that Intel is just continuing to dig its own grave, damn the consequences. Just look at all the other projects Intel has tried and failed in the past 20ish years. Zero patience for anything that doesn't bring in billions and isn't immediately successful. We're all just waiting for Intel to give up on the Arc GPUs because of it.
- pantalaimon 2y ago
  > Zero patience for anything that doesn't bring in billions and isn't immediately successful. That reminds me a lot of Google
  - api 2y ago
    The explosive growth of so many tech companies has set the bar for everything in some investors minds. If it doesn’t go absolutely vertical it is a failure. Unfortunately this rules out everything that involves anything physical (factories, cars, planes, fabs, etc.) and anything requiring research. In the end it leads to an economy that chases fads and devolves into a pure casino.
    - lotsofpulp 2y ago
      The top businesses required many years, decades even, of heavy investments into physical infrastructure, including the things you listed plus data centers and global networking over land and under oceans. https://companiesmarketcap.com/ https://companiesmarketcap.com/ The only one that sort of went vertical was Meta, but even they had to build tons of data centers and networking infrastructure.
    - 2y ago
szundi 2y ago
Some investors made a wrong bet and trying to save face in front of their clients - spending even more money of those clients on lawsuits
- Almondsetat 2y ago
  Individual gains, collectivized losses
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    No, everyone got paid who was working there. But if it'd worked, the profits would've been taxed. As it is, the losses are kept private.
    - coliveira 2y ago
      Losses are always public, these investors will use the loss against gains and therefore will pay less taxes, reducing the amount of government revenue.
      - lupusreal 2y ago
        Collectivized or public losses come into play when the government bails out failing companies so that shareholders don't get hosed for a bad investment. Shareholders getting hosed is the opposite of that; private loses.
      - robertlagrant 2y ago
        Yes, the government doesn't get to take your money if you made a loss. That's not the same as what you're implying. The investors lost.
- bradleyjg 2y ago
  Nope, this isn’t being driven by any shareholders. The lawyers want a big payday and found a client of convenience. If they win they’ll ask the count for a percentage of the value of the judgment using an innumerate formula for value.
highcountess 2y ago
I don’t think it is accurate to think that the board must be involved for there to be merit. The board represents a totally different set of interests and priorities, many of which may even directly contradict and even clash with those of shareholders, even if they are shareholders themselves. The nepotistic, incestuous, little club of boards and CEOs is almost hostile to shareholder interests once forward momentum stalls, at which point divergent priorities emerge. If the board wants to remain in the board carousel club, they can’t be joining lawsuits against CEOs, when they often themselves are CEOs that frequent the same few exclusive clubs and triple gated communities and celebrate holidays at the same exclusive hotels. There is clearly a stratification there that you are either dismissing or are not aware of. Let me put it this way, the nobility will always hold to each other over any challenges from the merchant class, even if when everyone is making money, there is some mutually beneficial mingling.
Dalewyn 2y ago
>He left because his plan didn't work. He didn't leave, he was fired in the same way that a Drill Sergeant goes "I'm gonna need 10 volunteers..." and then orders 10 unlucky SOBs to gear up.
bboygravity 2y ago
Why not just invest in a company where the CEO and board take no salary to begin with? They exist.
- highwaylights 2y ago
  Wouldn’t be relevant here, as there are no CEOs anywhere who don’t take compensation. If they’d been taking their compensation as stock grants then they’d want that back instead.
  - spacebanana7 2y ago
    Many founder CEOs take little or no salary or direct compensation for their jobs. Owning a big percentage of the stock is enough motivation to make the company more valuable. Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs and Jack Dorsey have all at times taken $1 annual salaries.
    - ponector 2y ago
      But Zuckerberg still received more than 24 million in benefits from Meta. Another bluff. It is like saying you have 1$ salary while company is covering all your personal expenses. Actually it will be better, more transparent if he received 24M salary instead of using benefits and bragging about $1.
      - missedthecue 2y ago
        Wasn't that all security
        spacebanana7 2y ago
        It seems so, in so far as that it’s roughly the same as the number in this 2021 article. https://www.thetimes.com/article/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-security-travelling-at-home-xdjhb787q#:~:text=Mark%20Zuckerberg%20may%20have%20a,security,%20money%20appears%20no%20object https://www.thetimes.com/article/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-se.... Note that is a pretty comfortable form of security, including jets.
okasaki 2y ago
> It didn't' work, that's not a crime. He left because his plan didn't work. That's what happens to CEO's who try and fail to implement a business plan. Is this the famous risk that we keep hearing CEOs take that require such high compensation? Failing and leaving with 10s or 100s of M?
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  It is the risk that you won’t be able to convince one of the handful of people capable of understanding the most technologically advanced manufacturing processes in the world, having the right connections in the industry, to lead a culture change to right a ship. Also, Gelsinger did not get $100M+. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/pat-gelsinger-lost-massive-140-213723546.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/pat-gelsinger-lost-massive-14...
  - PittleyDunkin 2y ago
    Tbf most of this is out of the hands of the CEO, outside the delusions of MBAs
    - lotsofpulp 2y ago
      And outside the delusions of random internet commenters, businesses that fail to pay market prices for quality labor, especially at the cutting edge, do not succeed. Whether it be CEO or IC electrical engineer/software developer. That is one of the reasons Intel is where it is, overpaying for MBA talent and underpaying for engineering talent. A person capable of turning around Intel could easily get work at another tech company earn millions with far less risk and far less publicity. Intel needs some of the smartest people in the US working for them, it should have had the reputation of being among the highest paying employers.
      - PittleyDunkin 2y ago
        CEOs aren't paid for they're labor (as if they're even capable of labor!). They're paid to be a liable wad of meat.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

yieldcrv 2y ago

If these guys cant use the SEC whistleblower bounty program then there isn't a case This is just something petty

chollida1 2y ago
> If these guys cant use the SEC whistleblower program then there isn't a case I think you are confusing a few things. The whistleblower program is for insiders. This lawsuit is being brought by outside shareholders. This has nothing at all to do with whistleblowers as there aren't insiders with insider knowledge. This suit is being brought by outsiders who are unhappy with Intel's performance. There is no insider here trying to expose anything.
- sabbaticaldev 2y ago
  [dead]
- yieldcrv 2y ago
  You don’t have to be an insider, independent researchers have pointed out irregularities, improperly disclosed things and won bounties
ozim 2y ago
Yeah good luck hiring next CEO to Intel.

arthurcolle 2y ago

up or down?

MoreMoore 2y ago

> It didn't' work, that's not a crime. He left because his plan didn't work. That's what happens to CEO's who try and fail to implement a business plan. We don't know that it didn't work. We also don't know that selling it off would've been significantly better, so it's weird to pretend that keeping the foundry part of Intel was this big failure. Intel is a cargo ship that doesn't turn on a dime. But the board and investors don't have the patience for long-term strategy that could get Intel out of its downward spiral. The CEO leaving is just another symptom of that, and a sign that Intel is just continuing to dig its own grave, damn the consequences. Just look at all the other projects Intel has tried and failed in the past 20ish years. Zero patience for anything that doesn't bring in billions and isn't immediately successful. We're all just waiting for Intel to give up on the Arc GPUs because of it.

pantalaimon 2y ago
> Zero patience for anything that doesn't bring in billions and isn't immediately successful. That reminds me a lot of Google
- api 2y ago
  The explosive growth of so many tech companies has set the bar for everything in some investors minds. If it doesn’t go absolutely vertical it is a failure. Unfortunately this rules out everything that involves anything physical (factories, cars, planes, fabs, etc.) and anything requiring research. In the end it leads to an economy that chases fads and devolves into a pure casino.
  - lotsofpulp 2y ago
    The top businesses required many years, decades even, of heavy investments into physical infrastructure, including the things you listed plus data centers and global networking over land and under oceans. https://companiesmarketcap.com/ https://companiesmarketcap.com/ The only one that sort of went vertical was Meta, but even they had to build tons of data centers and networking infrastructure.
  - 2y ago

szundi 2y ago

Some investors made a wrong bet and trying to save face in front of their clients - spending even more money of those clients on lawsuits

Almondsetat 2y ago
Individual gains, collectivized losses
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  No, everyone got paid who was working there. But if it'd worked, the profits would've been taxed. As it is, the losses are kept private.
  - coliveira 2y ago
    Losses are always public, these investors will use the loss against gains and therefore will pay less taxes, reducing the amount of government revenue.
    - lupusreal 2y ago
      Collectivized or public losses come into play when the government bails out failing companies so that shareholders don't get hosed for a bad investment. Shareholders getting hosed is the opposite of that; private loses.
    - robertlagrant 2y ago
      Yes, the government doesn't get to take your money if you made a loss. That's not the same as what you're implying. The investors lost.
bradleyjg 2y ago
Nope, this isn’t being driven by any shareholders. The lawyers want a big payday and found a client of convenience. If they win they’ll ask the count for a percentage of the value of the judgment using an innumerate formula for value.

highcountess 2y ago

I don’t think it is accurate to think that the board must be involved for there to be merit. The board represents a totally different set of interests and priorities, many of which may even directly contradict and even clash with those of shareholders, even if they are shareholders themselves. The nepotistic, incestuous, little club of boards and CEOs is almost hostile to shareholder interests once forward momentum stalls, at which point divergent priorities emerge. If the board wants to remain in the board carousel club, they can’t be joining lawsuits against CEOs, when they often themselves are CEOs that frequent the same few exclusive clubs and triple gated communities and celebrate holidays at the same exclusive hotels. There is clearly a stratification there that you are either dismissing or are not aware of. Let me put it this way, the nobility will always hold to each other over any challenges from the merchant class, even if when everyone is making money, there is some mutually beneficial mingling.

Dalewyn 2y ago

>He left because his plan didn't work. He didn't leave, he was fired in the same way that a Drill Sergeant goes "I'm gonna need 10 volunteers..." and then orders 10 unlucky SOBs to gear up.

bboygravity 2y ago

Why not just invest in a company where the CEO and board take no salary to begin with? They exist.

highwaylights 2y ago
Wouldn’t be relevant here, as there are no CEOs anywhere who don’t take compensation. If they’d been taking their compensation as stock grants then they’d want that back instead.
- spacebanana7 2y ago
  Many founder CEOs take little or no salary or direct compensation for their jobs. Owning a big percentage of the stock is enough motivation to make the company more valuable. Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs and Jack Dorsey have all at times taken $1 annual salaries.
  - ponector 2y ago
    But Zuckerberg still received more than 24 million in benefits from Meta. Another bluff. It is like saying you have 1$ salary while company is covering all your personal expenses. Actually it will be better, more transparent if he received 24M salary instead of using benefits and bragging about $1.
    - missedthecue 2y ago
      Wasn't that all security
      - spacebanana7 2y ago
        It seems so, in so far as that it’s roughly the same as the number in this 2021 article. https://www.thetimes.com/article/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-security-travelling-at-home-xdjhb787q#:~:text=Mark%20Zuckerberg%20may%20have%20a,security,%20money%20appears%20no%20object https://www.thetimes.com/article/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-se.... Note that is a pretty comfortable form of security, including jets.

okasaki 2y ago

> It didn't' work, that's not a crime. He left because his plan didn't work. That's what happens to CEO's who try and fail to implement a business plan. Is this the famous risk that we keep hearing CEOs take that require such high compensation? Failing and leaving with 10s or 100s of M?

lotsofpulp 2y ago
It is the risk that you won’t be able to convince one of the handful of people capable of understanding the most technologically advanced manufacturing processes in the world, having the right connections in the industry, to lead a culture change to right a ship. Also, Gelsinger did not get $100M+. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/pat-gelsinger-lost-massive-140-213723546.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/pat-gelsinger-lost-massive-14...
- PittleyDunkin 2y ago
  Tbf most of this is out of the hands of the CEO, outside the delusions of MBAs
  - lotsofpulp 2y ago
    And outside the delusions of random internet commenters, businesses that fail to pay market prices for quality labor, especially at the cutting edge, do not succeed. Whether it be CEO or IC electrical engineer/software developer. That is one of the reasons Intel is where it is, overpaying for MBA talent and underpaying for engineering talent. A person capable of turning around Intel could easily get work at another tech company earn millions with far less risk and far less publicity. Intel needs some of the smartest people in the US working for them, it should have had the reputation of being among the highest paying employers.
    - PittleyDunkin 2y ago
      CEOs aren't paid for they're labor (as if they're even capable of labor!). They're paid to be a liable wad of meat.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]