All three of the last Intel CEOs have been more reactive than strategic: Dartmouth's Paul Argenti

Intel's board, as you know by now, Alston CEO Pat Gelsinger, the chip maker, announces retirement. Effective December 1st, stocks down more than 60% during his tenure as CEO. It was also removed from the Dow. Joining us now, Paul Argenti, Dartmouth Tuck School of Business professor. And professor, it's good to see you. Do you think that this, I guess a little bit of both, the company wants someone else leading it into the future, but also looking at the past, I guess there was, I guess at this point, you would have to say that it wasn't a great legacy for him and they just needed to get rid of him. It wasn't. He seemed like the right guy at the time, obviously, because he had worked at Intel before, if you remember correctly, and he came in with some fanfare four years ago. And I think everybody thought he was the guy to really turn this company back around. But after spending $20 billion and getting all the help from the Biden administration that you could possibly imagine going on a spending spree, it just wasn't working. And I think at that point, the board had to remove him to put someone in that can actually get the job done, someone younger and more innovative. Because for the most part, I think you've had, in the last six years, you've had four different CEOs, and none of them have been able to do what needs to be done here. What needed to be done, in your view, Professor? I mean, it's easy in hindsight to say, well, AI should have seen that coming. Could it, was Intel too entrenched in the past as a company for anyone to have done any better? I don't know. I mean, I think someone more innovative might have seen the AI wave coming. And I would say the leadership, all three of the last CEOs have been more reactive than strategic. And now moving into the competitive space they're going in now, it's going to be even more difficult for whoever comes in because, you know, NVIDIA has such a lead. And as you said, they've now replaced them on the Dow, which is a punch in the gut to the company and to the shareholders, really. Was it not just a vision, a strategic vision where they're operating, operational issues? Well, I mean, I can't imagine what goes into designing and manufacturing these incredible, you know, microprocessors. So it's hard to even, you know, you want yield. You hear about all these things over the years that you can screw. It's a lot of ways you can screw up. Was it operational as well? I'm sure. And a lot of this, you know, Joe, is the market is not patient. And I think, you know, eventually Intel could probably come through this and be stronger, but it's going to take years for all of this to kick in, you know, building new factories and trying to get a lead on that. And then actually being able to compete in the space with NVIDIA. I mean, it involves a lot of turning around in the company and trying to get different people on board to get the job done. So I think they have an uphill battle no matter who gets in there. Should it be an independent company? Will it be? I mean, that's one of the ideas, right? I mean, they were being looked at as a takeover prospect. And I think that's something that could very well happen, but who would want to buy this company right now, given the amount of money that they've already spent and the uphill battle that they faced. I think it was Qualcomm that they were talking about, right? But I don't know. I mean, it's going to be a hard battle no matter who gets this job. And I think, you know, he did the best he could. I think he had the right ideas about trying to pivot and going back to building factories, but it's a slow burn and the market isn't going to put up with that. Clearly the shareholders were upset after losing 60%, as you said, more than half just this year alone. I mean, it's not going to be known as the Solyndra of the semiconductor world, but it does seem like another example of where the government just probably should stay out of things like, I mean, there are basic research that the government can fund in the private sector, obviously, but when it starts picking winners and losers in industrial policy, is this going to be another example of the government just should not be picking winners and losers? It hasn't had a very good track record so far. So I think you're right about that. And I think in this case, they must be really upset because, you know, I think they really relied on Intel to get the job done. And, you know, the billions of dollars they gave them have not produced any value going forward. I think you're right. I mean, I think for the most part, you know, the government should stay out of what's going on with business unless there are issues that are legal or issues that the government has an interest in. In this case, that was not the case. It was just Gromado trying to get chips back in the US, that kind of thing.