Array
(
    [content] => 
    [params] => Array
        (
            [0] => /forum/threads/jim-keller-says-a-great-intel-is-worth-1-trillion-company-would-be-sold-at-fire-sale-pricing-if-sold-now.22132/
        )

    [addOns] => Array
        (
            [DL6/MLTP] => 13
            [Hampel/TimeZoneDebug] => 1000070
            [SV/ChangePostDate] => 2010200
            [SemiWiki/Newsletter] => 1000010
            [SemiWiki/WPMenu] => 1000010
            [SemiWiki/XPressExtend] => 1000010
            [ThemeHouse/XLink] => 1000970
            [ThemeHouse/XPress] => 1010570
            [XF] => 2021770
            [XFI] => 1050270
        )

    [wordpress] => /var/www/html
)

Jim Keller says a 'great Intel' is worth $1 trillion, company would be sold at fire sale pricing if sold now

Daniel Nenni

Admin
Staff member
 Tenstorrent.

Credit: Tenstorrent

Ex-Intel lead silicon engineer Jim Keller says Intel may not make as much money as it used to earn historically, but selling the company or some of its businesses is not a way to unlock shareholder value, but rather a fire sale of a company that has high chances to prosper. Jim Keller, a legendary chip designer and now the chief executive officer of Tenstorrent, a promising AI processor developer, took to Twitter to express his views on the latest news of a potential split or sale of Intel.

"You build value by having a great goal and a team that loves working to the goal," Keller wrote in an X post. "Intel built the fastest CPUs on the best process [technologies]. This [Handling Intel's businesses to third parties] is not unlocking shareholder value, it is a fire sale. It makes me sad."

"[…] I think a great Intel is worth $1 trillion. Seems a little careless to throw it away," he added later.

The latest rumors indicate that Broadcom could be interested in taking over Intel's products business, whereas the Intel Foundry unit could form a joint venture with TSMC or even with a conglomerate involving TSMC, Broadcom, Qualcomm, and other companies that would inject money into a new independent chipmaker.

One commenter in the thread suggested that a better outcome for Intel would be to become a private company with the help of American investors, fire the current board of directors, and then take the time to reinvent Intel.

"It would be hard but doable," Keller wrote in another post. "Humans are amazing when they have a great goal and a team they believe in."

The current U.S. government will unlikely support Intel's fabs being run by TSMC or other foreign entities, even though the Trump administration encourages domestic manufacturing. However, if Intel gives up its own manufacturing, it will not only cease to be an integrated device manufacturer (IDM) but also lose one of its strong points: complete control over products and their manufacturing. Also, it's unlikely that TSMC and other potential investors will be tremendously interested in investing in Intel Foundry, which bleeds money as it has yet to land orders from major companies.

However, companies with deep pockets, such as Broadcom, could take over Intel's products division to gain CPU capability and world-class product design teams. However, a change of Intel ownership automatically terminates the company's broad cross-licensing agreement with AMD. This means the new entity could lose access to innovations developed by AMD and shared between companies as part of their broad cross-license agreement unless a new agreement is inked.

 
However, companies with deep pockets, such as Broadcom, could take over Intel's products division to gain CPU capability and world-class product design teams. However, a change of Intel ownership automatically terminates the company's broad cross-licensing agreement with AMD. This means the new entity could lose access to innovations developed by AMD and shared between companies as part of their broad cross-license agreement unless a new agreement is inked.
Intel's product design teams are good, no doubt about it - but are they really worth that much? Historically, when Intel design and process were good, Intel hit the ball out of the park - but they often relied on their foundry process nodes to stay ahead - so how good are they actually, especially based upon more recent designs?

Definitely good - but Apple, AMD, Amazon, Microsoft, Meta, and Google all seem to have built good design teams as well. Is a company's money better spent on building a new team from the ground up instead of buying the Intel team, especially if the acquisition would terminate the x86 cross-licensing?
 
Intel's product design teams are good, no doubt about it - but are they really worth that much? Historically, when Intel design and process were good, Intel hit the ball out of the park - but they often relied on their foundry process nodes to stay ahead - so how good are they actually, especially based upon more recent designs?

Definitely good - but Apple, AMD, Amazon, Microsoft, Meta, and Google all seem to have built good design teams as well. Is a company's money better spent on building a new team from the ground up instead of buying the Intel team, especially if the acquisition would terminate the x86 cross-licensing?

NvIdia valued at what?
 
And from the man who was co-in charge of Intel's design side (2018-2020) when the calls were made to extend outsourcing too. For him to say breaking up intel is a bad idea is certainly a statement.
Intel's product design teams are good, no doubt about it - but are they really worth that much? Historically, when Intel design and process were good, Intel hit the ball out of the park - but they often relied on their foundry process nodes to stay ahead - so how good are they actually, especially based upon more recent designs?
Intel in the 2010s was at 240B. In the current overinflated conditions I suspect that an identical Intel would be worth like 400B (after all AMD was sitting over 200B with way lower revenue and margins than 2010s Intel). TSMC is a 1T company and pre pandemic they were like a 300B one. Leading edge foundry seems to carry a premium and TSMC has geo political concerns greatly dragging down their stock. A 20% share Intel foundry might be worth like 100-200B business alone relative to pre pandemic TSMC. But "Wall Street math" might inflate 200B to over 400B in valuation. How you get the rest of the way to 1T maybe a rapid revenue growth from foundry to justify a higher P/E, a strong "AI story", or NEX just starts dominating edge/telco and or networking? 1T also just sounds sexier than something like 804.27B. I'm sure there was some rounding up or just throwing out a big number because of the platform he was talking on (Twitter).
Definitely good - but Apple, AMD, Amazon, Microsoft, Meta, and Google all seem to have built good design teams as well. Is a company's money better spent on building a new team from the ground up instead of buying the Intel team, especially if the acquisition would terminate the x86 cross-licensing?
I thought the acquisition clause only applied to AMD because when the deal was signed, AMD was the only one that would feasibility ever be in a position to be acquired and Intel held most of the chips (pun very much intended)?
 
And from the man who was co-in charge of Intel's design side (2018-2020) when the calls were made to extend outsourcing too. For him to say breaking up intel is a bad idea is certainly a statement.

Intel in the 2010s was at 240B. In the current overinflated conditions I suspect that an identical Intel would be worth like 400B (after all AMD was sitting over 200B with way lower revenue and margins than 2010s Intel). TSMC is a 1T company and pre pandemic they were like a 300B one. Leading edge foundry seems to carry a premium and TSMC has geo political concerns greatly dragging down their stock. A 20% share Intel foundry might be worth like 100-200B business alone relative to pre pandemic TSMC. But "Wall Street math" might inflate 200B to over 400B in valuation. How you get the rest of the way to 1T maybe a rapid revenue growth from foundry to justify a higher P/E, a strong "AI story", or NEX just starts dominating edge/telco and or networking? 1T also just sounds sexier than something like 804.27B. I'm sure there was some rounding up or just throwing out a big number because of the platform he was talking on (Twitter).

I thought the acquisition clause only applied to AMD because when the deal was signed, AMD was the only one that would feasibility ever be in a position to be acquired and Intel held most of the chips (pun very much intended)?

At this moment the most important thing for Intel is to hire a capable CEO, either a turnaround master or a spinoff expert. But the chaotic situations and dramatic proposals we saw recently may discourage any CEO candidates to join Intel.

In terms of Intel's valuation, it is really not important right now.
 

At least put him on the BoD to make something happen. Or as I said before, Intel can buy Tenstorrent and solve many leadership problems:

 
I think Intel is worth 200-300B if
1) Eliminate the losses and the money pit of foundry.
2) gain back market share is DC and Client
3) achieve 5% market share in DC AI accelerators. They are currently below 1%.

Trillion dollar companies need to be leaders and growing and successful. Intel goal should be to be worth more than AMD to investors someday.

In situations like this, where the company is beat down, I would expect a total offer price to be in the $40 share range to get it done. If the board and stockholders reject the deals, then it could get uglier

If Jim and other optimists can put together a investment team, they are free to buy Intel stock and show that 1T market cap. Everyone would be willing to sell to them.
 
Jim is right though. The focus on "shareholder value" means everything is about market cap, assets, and valuations, instead of on growth investments and longevity. Taking a strategic asset like Intel and scrutinizing it quarter by quarter isn't the right approach but it's exactly what's been happening.

If Intel is to be "fixed", it needs to be taken private (as a whole) so a CEO like Pat can execute these changes. As long as people (including Intel's board) are fixated on share value, then the private equity approach of breaking up and selling for parts is going to prevail.
 
Jim is right though. The focus on "shareholder value" means everything is about market cap, assets, and valuations, instead of on growth investments and longevity. Taking a strategic asset like Intel and scrutinizing it quarter by quarter isn't the right approach but it's exactly what's been happening.

If Intel is to be "fixed", it needs to be taken private (as a whole) so a CEO like Pat can execute these changes. As long as people (including Intel's board) are fixated on share value, then the private equity approach of breaking up and selling for parts is going to prevail.
Going Private would be great. But the issue isnt short sightedness or quarter by quarter. The choice made on how to fix in 2021 was incorrect, the company now has serious financial issues, and 4 years of declining results was enough. The new options for "how to fix" are likely to lead to success for Intel (After the initial write offs are complete).
 
At least put him on the BoD to make something happen. Or as I said before, Intel can buy Tenstorrent and solve many leadership problems:

Having relevant people on the board should help.

I also think Intel should bring back Raja Koduri to lead GPU/accelerator efforts. He is very knowledgeable in this field. But he needs to be dedicated to this effort at least 100% as Nvidia/Jensen is very competitive.
 
the product group is pretty good. in this inflated market it might be worth double that (like AMD)

the book value for foundry is more problematic, since it loses 8B per year at least. Also they will be writing down more assets so the book value will drop. That is part of the current valuations challenge ... a company buying IFS would immediately add billions in losses per year. I believe the SCIP agreements anticipated a sell off so I assume they just transfer.
 
the product group is pretty good. in this inflated market it might be worth double that (like AMD)

the book value for foundry is more problematic, since it loses 8B per year at least. Also they will be writing down more assets so the book value will drop. That is part of the current valuations challenge ... a company buying IFS would immediately add billions in losses per year. I believe the SCIP agreements anticipated a sell off so I assume they just transfer.
A company buying could be due to anti-trust concerns. But capital infusion in IFS should be positive for the valuation on the asset side.

The end capital structure for IFS could be something like:
Intel 40%
TSM: 30%
Rest: 30%
According to the latest analyst research from Taiwan.
 
Back
Top