The turbulent saga at Intel reached a climactic juncture last weekend as the company made the surprising decision to part ways with its long-time CEO, Pat Gelsinger. His tenure, which began nearly four years ago, is marked by a mix of ambitious visions and mounting setbacks, culminating in a significant drop in both stock prices and market share. This bold move signals a potential shift in the direction of one of America’s foremost semiconductor manufacturers, which has faced fierce competition from rivals such as Nvidia.

Early Monday, news surrounding Gelsinger’s departure emerged, illuminating the underlying tensions within Intel’s upper management. Insiders suggested that a contentious board meeting had occurred the previous week, culminating in the board's lack of confidence in Gelsinger's strategies to counteract Nvidia's growing influence in the industry. Dismissing him was a decision rooted in a lack of belief in his turnaround plan for the struggling company.

In the wake of Gelsinger's exit, Intel appointed David Zinsner, the Chief Financial Officer, and MJ Johnson Holthaus, CEO of Product, as interim co-CEOs. Frank Jury, a seasoned member of the board, took on the role of interim executive chairman. However, Gelsinger’s departure did not bolster confidence in the market, as Intel’s stock price dropped by 2% that very afternoon.

Advertisement

Reflecting on the company's future, Jury expressed a commitment to crafting a more streamlined and responsive Intel. Sources conveyed that it was Jury’s growing discontent with Gelsinger’s effectiveness that significantly influenced the decision to part ways with the CEO. Requests for commentary from Intel regarding the board meeting and Gelsinger's dismissal have gone unanswered thus far.

At 63, Gelsinger holds a storied legacy at Intel. He first joined the company at the turn of the century as its inaugural Chief Technology Officer and then spent time as a high-ranking executive at EMC before being lured back to Intel as CEO in 2021, succeeding Bob Swan. Not only did Gelsinger aim to stabilize the firm, but he also unveiled sweeping plans aimed at revamping the company that had encountered significant challenges over the years.

In a public statement, Gelsinger noted, “This year has been challenging for all of us as we made tough but necessary choices to position Intel in response to the current market dynamics.” He recognized the complexities of steering a technology giant through fierce competition and evolving market demands.

Bloomberg first broke the news surrounding the meeting that led to Gelsinger's ousting, highlighting the immediate need for decisive action within the tech giant. Facing an escalating crisis, Gelsinger’s agenda to emerge as a leader within the semiconductor sector involved a bold restructuring aimed at revitalizing Intel. His ambition to level the playing field with formidable players like Samsung and TSMC resulted in a substantial increase in expenditures. While aimed at expanding the company’s reach, these aggressive ventures placed an enormous strain on Intel’s cash flow and augmented its debt burden.

Gelsinger also sought substantial government investment, positioning Intel as a beneficiary of pressing national needs under the U.S. CHIPS and Science Act. Recent developments indicated that the government had begun disbursing funds to assist Intel in growing its facilities in places like Arizona and Ohio. Just ahead of Gelsinger’s departure, Intel secured an impressive $7.86 billion in grants linked to the chip and science legislation.

By aligning Intel with strategic national security interests, Gelsinger garnered significant contracts from the Department of Defense for semiconductor production, underscoring the necessity of a domestic player in national defense and reassuring stakeholders of Intel's role as a trusted government partner.

However, all of Gelsinger's initiatives failed to appease an increasingly anxious investor base. Scrutiny grew around Intel's spending habits, seen by many as reckless, especially in light of a dramatic shift in the industry landscape fueled by a relentless push towards artificial intelligence, which saw competitors like Nvidia pull ahead.

Investor skepticism intensified as Intel's market capitalization dwindled to less than half of its valuation recorded in 2021, briefly dipping below $100 billion earlier this year. For 2023, the company's share prices plummeted an astonishing 52%, marking a stark nervousness surrounding its future viability.

In August of this year, Intel disclosed its underwhelming quarterly results, leading to the most significant stock sell-off the company had seen in half a century, along with an announced layoff of over 15% of its workforce as part of a gargantuan effort to curtail costs by $10 billion. Reports from CNBC revealed that Intel even enlisted consultants to strategically defend against aggressive investors looking to tilt the board’s dynamics.

Despite a landscape of uncertainty, there have not been overt signs that activist investors acquired significant holdings in Intel's shares or made concerted efforts to influence the board's direction. As things stand, the nature of any forthcoming changes in company policy under potential activist pressure remains unclear.

In September, Intel disclosed plans to spin off its foundry business as a separate subsidiary, a move seen as a strategy to potentially attract external financing. Coincidentally, Qualcomm also entertained acquisition proposals regarding Intel at that time, further piquing interest in the company’s future.

The individual selected to succeed Gelsinger will undoubtedly encounter an embattled company trying to navigate a complex array of challenges. Many of the issues plaguing Intel are not new but have been inherited from previous leadership; these include the pivotal decision not to manufacture chips for Apple’s mobile devices and the missed opportunity to acquire Nvidia—strategic blunders viewed with hindsight as detrimental to Intel’s competitive position.

These key decisions, made by former executives and before Gelsinger’s tenure, have raised questions about the efficacy of Intel's governance structures. Just prior to Gelsinger's departure, Lip Bu Tan, an influential figure on the board with semiconductor expertise, left Intel’s board of directors, heightening concerns that the company lacked sufficient semiconductor acumen at the governance level. A cascade of coverage addressing dysfunction in past acquisition strategies and the presence of board tensions emerged soon after, positioning Intel under an unflattering spotlight.