Hacker News Reader

Comment by windexh8er | Hacker News Reader

This doesn't account for the fact that Gelsinger kicked off IDM 2.0 in 2021 and is this far in the hole already and the investments chosen have put them further behind TSMC before they even get started.

Gelsinger is trying to do too much in too short of a timeframe creating disarray at Intel, just like he left in his wake at VMware. I'm not sure that he has the landscape vision that's required in this market. I think he's likely better cut out in a more CTO type role at Intel rather than being at the helm.

And even if Intel is on a better long term path, Gelsinger didn't see the short term hurdles as he should have. These are the American taxpayer dollars being wasted in high executive pay and corporate greed under his leadership. Gelsinger should be held better accountable if Intel is looking for more handouts [0].

[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/20/intel-awarded-up-to-8point5-...

View on HN

> These are the American taxpayer dollars being wasted in high executive pay and corporate greed under his leadership.

Please elaborate how this is happening. Your link does not go into such details.

You could argue (and I would agree) that tax credits are not the same as cash handouts.

However, subsidized loans below market rate are a transfer from the taxpayer to Intel.

I think the point was about the wasting, not the loan (for which the GP helpfully provided a link).

This and the fact that the point is obvious that Intel is already behind schedule based on the fact there are cost overruns. Then let's ask if, because Intel is behind, are the executives still being paid as if Intel is on a positive outlook in the short term? They are. Gelsinger, for example, took no hit even though is salary was reduced. [0]

And even though there were cost cuts they're still off by $1.8B.

Also $8.5B is in direct funding and access to up to $11B in federally backed (and discounted) loans. [1]

[0] https://archive.is/nfURY [1] https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/newsroom/news/us-chi...

Executive comp and performance is interesting largely because it entirely depends on the counterfactual alternative, not actual outlook. There is bulletproof measure of impact, and it is subjective in the assessment of the BOD.

A CEO that oversees a loss of $1B could be doing a great job if you think the counterfactual was a loss of $2B.

A CEO that oversees a profit of $3B could be terrible if you think the counterfactual was a profit of $4B.

For the most part it is irrelevant to 3rd parties, because CEO compensation comes out of shareholder compensation, so it is their money to spend or throw away based on their assessment.

Intel's highest year of top-line revenue and gross profit was in 2018 @ at $22B. Their lowest, comparatively, was 2022 @ $11B. Most players of their size don't have that type of volatility. Your argument doesn't make much sense with imaginary numbers.

Gelsinger destroyed VMWare's focus and market prowess. His time at Intel looks unsurprisingly very similar.

My point is that is your opinion, and the opinion that matters is the BOD.

In my opinion, the interesting question and the only one with relevance is what the BOD thinks and why.

Does the board think Gelsinger is destroying the company?

Top line revenue and gross profit aren't my opinion.

You really think the BoD cares much about anything other than their profits? The board is the last place to look for an honest opinion. They're all friendlies of Gelsinger.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com