Intel Reports Q2-2024 Financial Results; Announces $10 Billion Cost Reduction Plan, Shares Fall 20%+

[Jomale]

Realtime Intel Stock 21,35 Euro 12.45 O'clock/Fri

Intel Chart | Aktien-Chart | Intraday Chart - boerse.de

Intel (WKN 855681; ISIN: US4581401001): Großer Linienchart, Kerzenchart und Balkenchart über verschiedene Zeiträume.

www.boerse.de

Intel to layoff more than 15% of workforce — 15,000 or more employees — encountered Meteor Lake yield issues, suspends dividend

From bad to worse.

www.tomshardware.com

 

[64K]

Should be a nervous day for Intel investors when trading begins this morning. This is the biggest reason that I don't invest in individual stocks. I like being able to sleep good at night and not having stomach ulcers.

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

Anything about execs leading by example and taking a 90% cut

Typically, executives get a fairly nominal base salary, with stock as the primary bonus mechanism. Basically, if the company performs, the execs get "raises" in stock options that they can keep or sell. If they sell, that gets reported. For example:

Apple CEO Tim Cook Sells Shares Valued at About $88 Million

Apple CEO Tim Cook sold 511,000 shares of company stock worth about $88 million as the stock price has tumbled from its all-time high.

www.investopedia.com

CEOs aren't kings; they answer to the Board of Directors and shareholders, so when you hear stories about "CEOs giving themselves a raise," this is false, the Board has to approve that, and Board members are usually looking out for the owners of the company first. The CEO can always ask, but it's not up to him. Basically, Pat might still bring home a good salary, but if Intel's stocks tank, he's lost a lot of net worth. Honestly, I can understand why executives make big money--considering the number of livelihoods they are responsible for, you want to offer a really good salary to hopefully get a really good leader. Otherwise there could be the temptation to do something like Enron's execs did, screwing over employees, stockholders and customers.

All that said, even a big salary isn't a guarantee of good performance and ethical behavior. However, it can more often be corporate silos and in-fighting that can cause these big failures. Like at MS, for example, where the Windows and Office teams seem to never be on the same page. A good CEO knows that this ultimately falls on him, and he can only spin this stuff for so long before the truth comes out. Intel has been treading water for too long, and it looks like investors are finally taking notice. I actually wonder how much more runway Pat has with as many issues as we're seeing--Raptor Lake problems, node production issues, big losses in the GPU division. Much of that he inherited, but none of it has improved. I actually wonder if the GPU division is on the list of things to get cut. It doesn't look like it will be profitable any time soon.

 

[R0H1T]

But what if they're the cult of Musk?

 

[R0H1T]

It's not as simple as that, Intel's cross licensing x86-64 from AMD as well & without that they're stuck on 4GB ram.

 

[phanbuey]

Good job Pat, keep the good work!
Looking forward to the market opening
View attachment 357255

Oh my god these are gonna be spicy.

 

[64K]

Down around 28% so far today. For investors that bought in a few months ago at the highs have seen their investment get cut in half. Assuming they sell today. The loss is just on paper until they sell. I wonder how bad this train wreck will get before working through the defective CPU issue and the likely expensive class action lawsuit.

 

[phanbuey]

Down around 28% so far today. For investors that bought in a few months ago at the highs have seen their investment get cut in half. Assuming they sell today. The loss is just on paper until they sell. I wonder how bad this train wreck will get before working through the defective CPU issue and the likely expensive class action lawsuit.

They might hit the single digits, but in the long run IMO still a buy.

If China starts to move on Taiwan intel will be a $100 stock overnight.

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

They might hit the single digits, but in the long run IMO still a buy.

If China starts to move on Taiwan intel will be a $100 stock overnight.

They’ll turn it around I’m sure. It’s really just figuring out what the floor is, and right now they don’t have a lot of bright spots to showcase. Still, they make products that aren’t going away anytime soon, even if they are second-class products for the foreseeable future.

 

[R0H1T]

If that happens what do you think will be the fate of the 2-4(?) trillion dollars of goods that move through Indian/Pacific Ocean in that region?

Intel will be the last thing investors will have to worry about!

 

[z1n0x]

Pat's rear-view mirror appears to be malfunctioning.

 

[MaMoo]

What does DEI mean? For you to use it in such a negative light. Are you really suggesting that Intel is losing because they do not hire only White European people?

I assumed it meant the bloated admin body. I am not sure about Intel but places like Stanford and Yale have somehow a much larger admin body than academic staff. Yale has >5000 admins for 6000 students. Stanford has 18369 admins for 2323 academics. I assumed that Intel has a sizable DEI admin as well that were hired to meet specific DEI and ESG business objectives.

 

[GhostRyder]

This is a failure of leadership and a focus on the past instead of the future. Intel has been too stuck on its previous dominance that it has made them scrambling to keep up recently which is why we are seeing issues across the board. They need a leadership change just like AMD did back in the day to come back.

 

[Craptacular]

It's not as simple as that, Intel's cross licensing x86-64 from AMD as well & without that they're stuck on 4GB ram.

That is not true at all, Intel designed a 64-bit chip, it was called itanium and was a different design than x86-64. It was their attempt to get people to stop using x86 that way they would have a monopoly because they wouldn't be forced to license to AMD.

Intel did cross licensing so that they wouldn't have to reinvent the wheel to get the 64-bit extension for x86 and reduce the time AMD would have a 64-bit extension for x86 monopoly. Intel is and was more than capable of developing a 64-bit extension for x86. It was just faster to use AMD.