Former Intel Board Members Push for Private Ownership Amid Troubled Performance

Intel's Future Hangs in the Balance as Former Board Members Call for Private Ownership A group of former Intel board members has come forward to advocate for the semiconductor giant to go private, citing years of troubled performance and failed strategies. The proposal, put forth by Charlene Barshefsky, Reed Hundt, James Plummer, and David B. Yoffie, suggests that a private Intel could shed its quarterly earnings pressure and focus on long-term innovation. According to the former board members, Intel's current public ownership structure has hindered the company's ability to adapt to changing market conditions. "As a publicly traded company, Intel is beholden to short-term shareholder expectations," said Barshefsky, a former U.S. Trade Representative. "This can lead to a focus on quarterly earnings rather than investing in research and development." The proposal comes as Intel faces increased competition from rival chipmakers, including Nvidia, which has acquired a 5% stake in the company. The United States government also holds a significant stake, with around 10%. However, the former board members argue that even with these new shareholders on board, Intel's public ownership structure remains a major obstacle to its recovery. Intel's struggles have been well-documented, with the company facing declining market share and struggling to keep pace with emerging technologies. In recent years, Intel has attempted to pivot towards new areas such as artificial intelligence (AI) and autonomous vehicles, but these efforts have yet to yield significant returns. The idea of taking Intel private is not without precedent. Companies like Dell and HP have successfully transitioned from public to private ownership in the past, allowing them to focus on long-term growth rather than quarterly earnings. While some analysts have expressed skepticism about the proposal, others see it as a viable solution for Intel's woes. "Taking Intel private could give the company the freedom to invest in research and development without the pressure of meeting short-term earnings expectations," said James Plummer, a former Dean of Engineering at Stanford. The next step would be for the government to facilitate a private takeover or acquisition of Intel, potentially paving the way for a new era of innovation and growth. As the semiconductor industry continues to evolve, one thing is clear: Intel's future hangs in the balance. Background Intel has been a dominant force in the semiconductor industry for decades, but its recent struggles have raised questions about its ability to adapt to changing market conditions. The company's attempts to pivot towards new areas such as AI and autonomous vehicles have yet to yield significant returns, leading some to wonder if it's time for Intel to rethink its business model. Additional Perspectives Industry experts point out that taking Intel private would not be without challenges. "Private ownership can provide more flexibility, but it also means giving up the transparency and accountability that comes with public ownership," said David B. Yoffie, a professor at Harvard Business School. Others argue that Intel's struggles are symptomatic of broader issues in the semiconductor industry, including intense competition and rapidly changing market conditions. "Intel's problems are not unique to the company itself, but rather reflect the challenges facing the entire industry," said Reed Hundt, a former chair of the FCC. Current Status and Next Developments As Intel continues to navigate its current struggles, the proposal for private ownership remains on the table. While it's unclear what the future holds for the semiconductor giant, one thing is certain: the company's fate will be closely watched by industry observers and investors alike. *Reporting by Fortune.*