• Subscribe
  • Log In
  • Home
  • Daily Diary
  • Asset Class
    • U.S. Equity
    • Fixed Income
    • Global Equity
    • Commodities
    • Currencies
  • Sector
    • Basic Materials
    • Consumer Discretionary
    • Consumer Staples
    • Energy
    • Financial Services
    • Healthcare
    • Industrials
    • Real Estate
    • Technology
    • Telecom Services
    • Transportation
    • Utilities
  • Latest
    • Articles
    • Video
    • Columnist Conversations
    • Best Ideas
    • Stock of the Day
  • Street Notes
  • Authors
    • Bruce Kamich
    • Doug Kass
    • Jim "Rev Shark" DePorre
    • Helene Meisler
    • Jonathan Heller
    • - See All -
  • Options
  • RMPIA
  • Switch Product
    • Action Alerts PLUS
    • Quant Ratings
    • Real Money
    • Real Money Pro
    • Retirement
    • Stocks Under $10
    • TheStreet
    • Top Stocks
    • TheStreet Smarts
  1. Home
  2. / Investing
  3. / Technology

Intel Could Benefit from an Activist -- But There's No Silver Bullet Available

Intel's manufacturing setbacks likely mean that it has to choose between sacrificing market share and sacrificing margins.
By ERIC JHONSA
Dec 29, 2020 | 07:54 PM EST
Stocks quotes in this article: INTC, TSM, AMD, XLNX

Can the moves that activist investor Dan Loeb wants Intel (INTC) to explore unlock significant value for the chip giant? It's complicated.

Loeb's hedge fund, Third Point LLC has reportedly taken a $1 billion stake in Intel and wants the company, whose stock was down 21% on the year before news of Loeb's move sparked a 4.9% Tuesday gain, to consider a slew of strategic changes.

Among those changes: Spinning off Intel's manufacturing operations (possibly through a JV), divesting "failed acquisitions" and taking steps to halt the loss of technical talent that has happened in recent years.

Though I think Loeb's actions are on the whole good news for Intel investors, I also think there's no easy fix for the financial Catch-22 that Intel's manufacturing stumbles -- both related to delays for its next-gen, 7nm, manufacturing process node and the challenges it's facing as it develops CPUs relying on its current 10nm node -- have placed it in.

Outsourcing more CPU production to foundries (specifically, TSMC (TSM)  and/or Samsung) would reduce some of the competitive pressures Intel is facing as it deals with stiff competition from both AMD (AMD) and ARM CPU developers. Indeed, one of my 2021 tech predictions (No. 3) was that Intel would outline plans to have foundries handle some of its high-end CPU production in 2022 and 2023, as it contends with the fallout from its 7nm delay (the company has said it would share more about its outsourcing plans during its January earnings call).

But there is a large margin hit involved with outsourcing to foundries. While I think it's in Intel's interests to absorb that margin hit for certain products over the next 2-to-3 years (and perhaps longer) rather than put itself at a major competitive disadvantage, Intel's traditional 60%-plus gross margin would see a large haircut if it fully outsourced to foundries -- and that's assuming foundries can ramp up quickly enough to fully handle Intel's considerable needs.

What if Intel spun off its manufacturing operations into a separate business, and then subsequently relied on both the spun-off business and foundries for manufacturing? In that case, the margin hit would still be there, but in theory Intel could reap financial value from the equity it would have in the spun-off business, which could service both Intel and other chip developers in the coming years.

The trouble with this strategy is that it's far from clear that a spun-off Intel manufacturing unit would have a lot of success landing other clients, given that TSMC and to an extent Samsung have opened up process technology leads and Intel hasn't historically been seen as a manufacturing cost leader. One could also note here that Intel's last attempt to build a foundry business ended up falling flat.

Another option (one that Loeb seems to want Intel to consider) is for Intel to spin off its manufacturing ops into a JV that would be jointly owned with a foundry partner. In such an arrangement, the foundry partner (likely TSMC or Samsung) would make a capital investment and supply technology know-how to the JV, while Intel would supply its fabs and make purchase commitments.

However, the financial hit from such a move would be larger than the one from a standard spinoff, since the JV partner would presumably be given a large equity stake in the manufacturing business. Also, while it might be possible for Intel to strike a JV deal with Samsung, a deal with TSMC would probably be harder, both due to antitrust scrutiny (TSMC has a 50%-plus foundry share) and because TSMC might be reluctant to transfer technology to a JV that could then compete against it for business.

As for Loeb's call for Intel to divest "failed acquisitions," it's not clear which deals he's talking about. But in the event that he's talking about Intel's $16.7 billion, 2015 acquisition of FPGA developer Altera (a business that has admittedly been struggling lately), the case for unloading Intel's FPGA business is questionable given that AMD is set to buy the business' archrival (Xilinx (XLNX) ), with the goal of offering more comprehensive computing platforms in the data center and elsewhere.

And if Loeb is talking about Intel's $15.3 billion, 2017 purchase of Mobileye, the case for calling the acquisition a "failed" one is questionable, given that Mobileye (the #1 supplier of ADAS vision processors) was seeing healthy double-digit growth before COVID hit and returned to growth in Q3.

One area where I do strongly agree with Loeb: Intel needs to take steps to reduce brain drain, improve morale and otherwise make itself more appealing to A-level engineering talent. And on that note, it's worth wondering if (following the manufacturing and R&D leadership changes announced in July) additional management changes are needed, including possibly at the highest level.

Bob Swan is doubtlessly a capable exec in many respects. But unlike Lisa Su or Jensen Huang, he doesn't have an engineering background (he was Intel's CFO, and before that served as the CFO of several other companies, before being named Intel's CEO). And given where things stand today for Intel, one has to wonder if the 7nm setback would have happened, or if its recent engineering brain drain would have been as severe, under the oversight of a more technically-minded CEO.

Regardless of where one stands on that particular question, or on the question of what manufacturing strategy Intel should adopt, having an activist such as Loeb push Intel's leadership to make some tough decisions at this difficult juncture feels like something that will probably do more good than harm. And with Intel's stock having been beaten down to a rock-bottom valuation, it's hard to blame investors for bidding Intel's shares higher on news of Loeb's actions.

Just don't count on a silver bullet arriving that will quickly solve Intel's manufacturing and competitive challenges without incurring a meaningful financial hit.

Get an email alert each time I write an article for Real Money. Click the "+Follow" next to my byline to this article.
TAGS: Investing | Technology

More from Technology

3 High-Yield Dividend Tech Stocks for Income Investors

Bob Ciura
Jan 30, 2023 2:35 PM EST

Now could be a very good time to capitalize on sustainable income streams from a sector where dividend income is scarce.

Checking on AMD's Stock Charts Ahead of Tuesday's Earnings

Bruce Kamich
Jan 30, 2023 2:10 PM EST

Here's what to avoid for now.

That SoFi Technologies Improved So Quickly Is No Surprise: Here's What I'd Do

Stephen Guilfoyle
Jan 30, 2023 11:15 AM EST

Here's the most important thing we've heard from SOFI, maybe ever.

On the Risk Vs. Reward Pendulum, the Arm Is Swinging Back Toward Risk

Bob Byrne
Jan 30, 2023 8:30 AM EST

Dozens of individual stock charts indicate the issues behind them could run into resistance.

Bearish Bets: 3 Sagging Stocks You Should Think About Shorting This Week

Bob Lang
Jan 29, 2023 10:30 AM EST

These stocks are displaying bearish tendencies based on their technical patterns.

Real Money's message boards are strictly for the open exchange of investment ideas among registered users. Any discussions or subjects off that topic or that do not promote this goal will be removed at the discretion of the site's moderators. Abusive, insensitive or threatening comments will not be tolerated and will be deleted. Thank you for your cooperation. If you have questions, please contact us here.

Email

CANCEL
SUBMIT

Email sent

Thank you, your email to has been sent successfully.

DONE

Oops!

We're sorry. There was a problem trying to send your email to .
Please contact customer support to let us know.

DONE

Please Join or Log In to Email Our Authors.

Email Real Money's Wall Street Pros for further analysis and insight

Already a Subscriber? Login

Columnist Conversation

  • 12:27 PM EST REAL MONEY

    LIVE EVENT: Chris Versace and "Sarge" Guilfoyle Share Their Stock Market Insights

    This Monday, Jan. 30, at 12 p.m., our very own exp...
  • 11:48 AM EST REAL MONEY

    Watch Doug Kass on the Daily Rundown!

    In today's Action Alerts PLUS Daily Rundown, Doug ...
  • 11:03 AM EST JAMES "REV SHARK" DEPORRE

    This Weekend On Real Money

    It's time to start using this power to build great...
  • See More

COLUMNIST TWEETS

  • A Twitter List by realmoney
About Privacy Terms of Use

© 1996-2023 TheStreet, Inc., 225 Liberty Street, 27th Floor, New York, NY 10281

Need Help? Contact Customer Service

Except as otherwise indicated, quotes are delayed. Quotes delayed at least 20 minutes for all exchanges. Market Data & Company fundamental data provided by FactSet. Earnings and ratings provided by Zacks. Mutual fund data provided by Valueline. ETF data provided by Lipper. Powered and implemented by FactSet Digital Solutions Group.

TheStreet Ratings updates stock ratings daily. However, if no rating change occurs, the data on this page does not update. The data does update after 90 days if no rating change occurs within that time period.

FactSet calculates the Market Cap for the basic symbol to include common shares only. Year-to-date mutual fund returns are calculated on a monthly basis by Value Line and posted mid-month.

Compare Brokers

Please Join or Log In to manage and receive alerts.

Follow Real Money's Wall Street Pros to receive real-time investing alerts

Already a Subscriber? Login