INTEL 3.0: It’s time for Intel to go private, former board members say

[user nl]

Charlene Barshefsky is a former U.S. Trade Representative. Reed Hundt is a former chair of the FCC. James Plummer is a former Dean of Engineering at Stanford. David B. Yoffie is a professor at Harvard Business School. Ambassador Barshefsky, Mr. Hundt, Professor Plummer, and Professor Yoffie all served as long-time directors on the Intel board.

September 19, 2025 at 4:22 PM EDT

.........................................................................................................................................
Here’s the plan that seems right to us, admittedly from the perspective of outsiders who left Intel’s board some time ago.

First, the government, with support from a consortium of America’s world-leading design firms, should buy all of Intel’s public stock. Nvidia’s $5 billion investment and the subsequent surge in Intel’s stock price suggest that the capital markets would welcome such a move. Some combination of Nvidia, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Qualcomm, Broadcom, and Google — the best and biggest product design firms on the planet — could easily afford it.

The creation of a successful foundry, drawn from Intel’s manufacturing assets and separated from the design businesses, would be a big win for the Trump administration. It would be even bigger win for the big semiconductor design firms that are otherwise totally dependent on TSMC.

Second, the government and that consortium should find new owners for Intel’s design businesses, including servers and personal computers. Our back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest that Intel has left a lot of value locked behind its conglomerate structure. The foundry, for example, has a book value of about $70 billion, but is currently a huge money loser. It needs up to $100 billion in new capital over the next decade to compete with TSMC. The other businesses that could thrive on their own include (1) a microprocessor design business for personal computers, worth somewhere around $100 billion; (2) the design efforts for servers and data centers, also worth potentially $100 billion; (3) the autonomous driving firm, Mobileye, valued at roughly $15. billion; and (4) the extensive venture portfolio, invested in private firms around the world.

Unlocking this value is extraordinarily difficult for a public firm filing quarterly reports. Even in private, the surgery is operationally complicated. Presumably, the board and management cannot see a way forward. Alone, the company cannot raise the money to take the firm private. By itself, it would struggle to obtain the financial, technical and commercial assistance needed to match TSMC. Only the U.S. government would be able to orchestrate the complex, critically important disaggregation of Intel with the necessary participation of the major American design firms.

Third, by going private, Intel can attract the best and brightest talent. With Intel’s competitors flying high on the promise of AI, Intel is suffering from a massive brain drain. As it lays off thousands of employees, the best ones inevitably bail out. The existing public company cannot effectively compete for talent and without talent it is unlikely to succeed in matching TSMC in manufacturing nor make its other units more competitive. Private companies can offer very attractive compensation packages with the promise of a big day when the companies go public again.

The result is that the entire restructuring could be accomplished in roughly a year. That is about as long as the break-up of AT&T took in the 1980s. By 2028, the segments could be sold at handsome prices or taken public with significant returns to private shareholders. Taxpayers could make hundreds of billions of dollars. Not only that, in terms of job creation and national security, the value would be immeasurable.

Naysayers will argue that this strategy is unnecessary. Intel could do it all before, and it can do it all again. But hope is not a strategy, and the world around Intel is not standing still. Naysayers may also argue that Intel should be bought by one of its competitors. Allow Broadcom, for example, to buy Intel and fix it, like it has done with numerous other semiconductor firms. But in today’s environment, an acquisition like this would not fly: China, where Intel sells more than 25% of its products, would never approve it.

Right now, the United States government and Nvidia own a problem. By taking charge of the situation, they can create a tremendous opportunity to do good for the taxpayer. Even more importantly, the break-up of Intel will go a long way to giving the United States the semiconductor ecosystem that underpins every happy scenario for software breakthroughs that benefit the American people and the world.

By Charlene Barshefsky
By Reed Hundt
By James Plummer
By David B. Yoffie

https://fortune.com/2025/09/19/time-for-intel-to-go-private-nvidia-government-trump/

 

[Xebec]

This is an interesting article (thank you for posting), but there's so much wrong with this I'm not sure where to begin? but just a simple one -- why would this be true: "by going private, Intel can attract the best and brightest talent". Somehow it's impossible for publicly traded companies to do this?

I also have to bite on "Presumably the board and management cannot see a way forward" - this may be true of Yeary, but LBT who invested his own money not having a plan? come on..

 

[Paul2]

Shareholders just want a way to salvage their investments

 

[siliconbruh999]

Are these the same board members who were responsible for Intel's decline?

 

[Daniel Nenni]

This is an interesting article (thank you for posting), but there's so much wrong with this I'm not sure where to begin? but just a simple one -- why would this be true: "by going private, Intel can attract the best and brightest talent". Somehow it's impossible for publicly traded companies to do this?

I also have to bite on "Presumably the board and management cannot see a way forward" - this may be true of Yeary, but LBT who invested his own money not having a plan? come on..

Equity is easier to attain when private. I think that is the point. LBT seems to be handling the Intel BoD fine thus far, no worries there.

 

[Xebec]

Equity is easier to attain when private. I think that is the point. LBT seems to be handling the Intel BoD fine thus far, no worries there.

Hmm... I struggle a little with this because when you see the lists of "top places engineering graduates want to work for", the vast majority of the list are publicly traded: Tesla (TSLA), Lockheed Martin (LMT) , Boeing (DON"T BUY), etc. Of course there are companies like SpaceX in there, but also government agencies like NASA with no equity (though maybe a pension).

Likewise, in the AI space - Meta and Google have no problem throwing around $$$ at employees either.

Though I will concede in Intel's case, the "not so spectacular" stock history makes equity look worthless for propsective future employees.

 

[siliconbruh999]

I wish we could overthrow couple of board members or maybe we can tell trump that they didn't vote for you seems to be the easiest way.

 

[Daniel Nenni]

Though I will concede in Intel's case, the "not so spectacular" stock history makes equity look worthless for propsective future employees.

In Silicon Valley a stock upside is a big deal. Other companies can pay big salaries and bonuses, Intel cannot.

If Intel goes private stock will be a big incentive. Today it is not unless you have $5B to invest.

 

[Daniel Nenni]

Yes Intel Should Go Private - Semiwiki

Lip-Bu Tan started as Intel CEO on March 18th of this year and some very impressive changes have already taken place. Intel started the year with more than 100,000 employees and will finish the year with around 75,000. Reporting structures have been flattened and the Intel culture is being...

semiwiki.com

 

[count]

I pretty much agree with this analysis.

I don't know if the government needs to get involved, but they basically already are involved as a major shareholder. NVidia already took a big stake. A few other big investors and Intel could be taken private pretty easily.

After that sell or spin out the design business.

 

[tooLongInEDA]

For some reason, the first law of thermodynamics comes to mind as I read this proposal. After an injection of a mere $100bn only 3 years later (actually less since "by 2028") we are led to expect that "Taxpayers could make hundreds of billions of dollars". This, of course, is in addition to the predicted (and required) large returns to private shareholders.

How much do these people expect Intel's sales and margins to increase over this 2 year period to create this sudden abundance of wealth ?

But suppose all these easy wins and huge returns are available (I note there is no mention of either market or execution risks in any of this - what if there's an AI bubble burst, etc ?), then why wouldn't Wall Street already be all over this. What special skills does the US government have that no one else does ?

The basic concept isn't necessarily wrong, but the numbers here are sheer fantasy and these people are not serious (and being amongst those who presided over Intel's downfall, why would we expect anything better from them ?).

 

[samwilde]

This reminds me of that talk of where if you want to make a million in the space sector you should start with a billion.

 

[hist78]

Are these the same board members who were responsible for Intel's decline?

They are all nice people, but they gave Intel poor guidance and approved some of its most serious missteps.

I am not sure whether they already had the wrong ideas and skills when they first joined Intel’s Board, or if serving on the Intel's Board turned them into ineffective directors. What is clear is that even after retiring, many still seem unable to see Intel’s problems accurately today.

 

[Daniel Nenni]

They are all nice people, but they gave Intel poor guidance and approved some of its most serious missteps.

I am not sure whether they already had the wrong ideas and skills when they first joined Intel’s Board, or if serving on the Intel's Board turned them into ineffective directors. What is clear is that even after retiring, many still seem unable to see Intel’s problems accurately today.

Still, I would not take anything they say seriously. For Intel to be successful Intel Foundry needs to be successful and these people have zero idea what that takes.

 

[hist78]

Still, I would not take anything they say seriously. For Intel to be successful Intel Foundry needs to be successful and these people have zero idea what that takes.

Semiconductor manufacturing requires massive and continuous capital spending every year, especially at the leading edge nodes. Can we really imagine Intel, if it were to go private, being able to spend $20, $30, or even $40 billion annually for a decade without making its private investors nervous? Nvidia, Google, Apple, Meta, Amazon, and Microsoft are not charities. If their multi billion dollar investments fail to deliver good returns within 5 to 10 years, it’s already bad. But if they couldn’t easily unload their Intel holdings on the open stock market, it would be even worse.

Many years ago, Goldman Sachs proposed that TSMC founder Morris Chang take the company private. He rejected the idea, reasoning that TSMC needed access to the public equity markets to sustain its heavy and continuous investments.

 

[hist78]

Hmm... I struggle a little with this because when you see the lists of "top places engineering graduates want to work for", the vast majority of the list are publicly traded: Tesla (TSLA), Lockheed Martin (LMT) , Boeing (DON"T BUY), etc. Of course there are companies like SpaceX in there, but also government agencies like NASA with no equity (though maybe a pension).

Likewise, in the AI space - Meta and Google have no problem throwing around $$$ at employees either.

Though I will concede in Intel's case, the "not so spectacular" stock history makes equity look worthless for propsective future employees.

Third, by going private, Intel can attract the best and brightest talent. With Intel’s competitors flying high on the promise of AI, Intel is suffering from a massive brain drain. As it lays off thousands of employees, the best ones inevitably bail out. The existing public company cannot effectively compete for talent and without talent it is unlikely to succeed in matching TSMC in manufacturing nor make its other units more competitive. Private companies can offer very attractive compensation packages with the promise of a big day when the companies go public again.

"Private companies can offer very attractive compensation packages with the promise of a big day when the companies go public again."

All those major semiconductor companies that compete with Intel and/or hire away Intel’s “brains” are public companies. Making compensation packages more attractive is an option available to both publicly and privately held companies. For example, although not semiconductor related jobs, Meta/Facebook allegedly offered $100 million packages to some new AI hires.

 

[Xebec]

"Private companies can offer very attractive compensation packages with the promise of a big day when the companies go public again."

All those major semiconductor companies that compete with Intel and/or hire away Intel’s “brains” are public companies. Making compensation packages more attractive is an option available to both publicly and privately held companies. For example, although not semiconductor related jobs, Meta/Facebook allegedly offered $100 million packages to some new AI hires.

Yes - that was my point; it's more about having healthy financials to be able to offer $$ than whether a company is publicly traded or private (or government). Of course you also need a good culture to keep them (example: see Jim Keller leaving Intel rather quickly under BK..)