[HN Gopher] Intel Financialized and Lost Leadership in Semicondu... ___________________________________________________________________ Intel Financialized and Lost Leadership in Semiconductor Fabrication Author : kloch Score : 124 points Date : 2022-03-17 19:59 UTC (3 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.ineteconomics.org) (TXT) w3m dump (www.ineteconomics.org) | Afforess wrote: | Fun fact, Stock buybacks were largely illegal until 1982: | | https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2020/10/23/the-dangers-of-bu.... | ls612 wrote: | Stock buybacks are economically equivalent to dividends, with | the one exception that they don't trigger a taxable event. | bin_bash wrote: | ...isn't that the reason they were illegal? It seems you're | implying not triggering a taxable event isn't important. | sokoloff wrote: | They don't trigger a taxable event for shareholders who | continue to hold the shares. They (obviously) trigger a | taxable event (and a more concentrated one) for the sellers | of the shares which were bought back. | mortehu wrote: | They also offset shares created for stock based | compensation. It's common for the number of outstanding | shares to increase even in quarters companies do buybacks, | because stock based compensation is bigger than the | buybacks. | | Since newly issued shares are not tax deductible for the | owners, you'd basically be paying tax even if net zero | capital is returned. | mywittyname wrote: | I think the primary concern was stock price manipulation. | There are some safeguards in place that prevent that from | being too big of an issue. | | The tax-free dividend is more of a modern discovery, I | think. Which is why the loophole hasn't been closed yet. | gok wrote: | (2021) | | In general you can tell someone is full of shit if they use the | term "financialize" and this article is certainly no exception. | xadhominemx wrote: | Exactly. Ctrl-F "EUV" in the article and notice nothing comes | up. | | Intel made a couple very bad engineering decisions and fell | behind on process technology. That's it. Share repurchases have | nothing to do with it. | doctor_eval wrote: | I take it to mean that financial gain is priority one. | | All other considerations secondary. | | Crew expendable. | klelatti wrote: | Whilst having a degree of sympathy with the point being made here | I think that the underlying issue is mainly with Intel's failure | to establish attractive propositions in mobile and GPUs whilst | they had process leadership - and these failures aren't really as | a result of low spend on R&D or Capex. | randomsilence wrote: | This reads as if innovation can simply be bought. Why should | Intel be able to buy back leadership when China is trying the | same without much success? | chmod600 wrote: | Give profits to investors, or reinvest? That seems like the main | issue, more so than "manipulation". | | Of course if you give profits to investors, that allows room for | others to out-invest you. | | But the assumption throughout the article is that, if Intel had | reinvested, it would have been a good investment. That's far from | clear, given that we know how wasteful organizations can get when | they are top dog and flush with cash. | gleenn wrote: | And this is why AMD and Apple are eating their lunch now. I'm | super happy Intel is going to build a next gen fab though, mostly | because I'm concerned about the imminent threat of China taking | over Taiwan and TSMC with it. | bin_bash wrote: | It seems both Intel and Boeing had similar paths. They were | engineering-first companies that were transformed into profit | seeking and while they made a lot of money initially, eventually | it failed for both of them. | | My takeaway is that working hard to build quality products is | more likely to be profitable than working hard to make money. | ww520 wrote: | GE is another example. | Melatonic wrote: | I see you also watched a certain Netflix documentary recently | :-D | bckr wrote: | Which documentary talks about this? | RC_ITR wrote: | That ignores the fact that older businesses tend to | financialize to drive growth in equity value once revenue has | stopped growing _and_ older companies tend to be the most prone | to disruption /failure. | | Intel's downfall can be tied back to an org structure that made | up for bad gate-level architecture choices with proprietary | fabrication techniques. All that customization crushed intel's | ability to compete with TSMC in foundry and the lack of | architectural discipline prevented them from even coming close | to fast-following QCOM SoCs or NVDA GPUs. | | Keep in mind, for all the talk of Intel's bad management and | over-financialization, BK was a foundry engineer and he oversaw | the worst period of decline. | sokoloff wrote: | Older companies are more likely to be disrupted, but younger | companies are more prone to failure (per unit time). | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect | bsder wrote: | > My takeaway is that working hard to build quality products is | more likely to be profitable than working hard to make money. | | Except that it isn't. | | "Manufacturing" has known limits. You need this many people to | make this many things and your things sell for this much. There | is growth, but the values are limited. And, if the company is | dying, it is a very slow process and can still generate a | remarkable amount of cash while doing so. | | "Financialization" has no such limits. The sky is the limit and | can do so really quickly. So, it looks great. Your gains can be | close to infinite. | | Unfortunately, quick and infinite can also describe your | _losses_ from "financialization". | | This killed Westinghouse. It also crippled GE quite heavily. | There are many other examples. | doctor_eval wrote: | I'm not sure I follow your argument because you appear to | disagree, but then support, the premise :) So I'm probably | misreading. | | But ISTM that the thing with constrained environments like | manufacturing is that the constraints are physical, so | _everyone_ is constrained, which means that in a highly | competitive environment, all viable players should be | optimising and striving to work on the edge of what's | possible, in order to maximise competitiveness and | profitability. | | So in such an environment, it's absolutely necessary to "work | hard to build quality products", just to remain in the game. | If you instead direct your resources to something else (like | financialisation) at the expense of building great products | then you will fall behind the leading edge and become | uncompetitive or, perhaps worse, a commodity player. | | This certainly seems to be what happened at Intel, and also | Boeing, both of whom appear to have fallen well back from the | edge of what's possible. | | I think the main reason financialisation is easier to do than | engineering, is because money is a universal language, and | Verilog is most certainly not. Shareholders seem to invest in | order to make money from transactions, rather than dividends, | and this seems to be a structural flaw in the financial | system. | danuker wrote: | > You need this many people to make this many things and your | things sell for this much. | | Speaking with no manufacturing experience, but having read | some books (Diamandis' Abundance). | | You can reduce long-term costs by automating. If each week | you buy a robot replacing a human, your operational costs go | down permanently. That is because robots are fundamentally | cheaper than human time. | | Of course, you have to foresee the demand that would make it | possible to recoup the costs. | [deleted] | marcodiego wrote: | Money is not a good motivator: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc | teej wrote: | Seems like we haven't learned from the downfall of General | Electric. | threatripper wrote: | Investors can take Intel dividends now and invest them in AMD | stocks for future profit and be better off in the end. The only | people losing are those who expect a secure job until | retirement at Intel. | ska wrote: | > working hard to build quality products is more likely to be | profitable than working hard to make money. | | This seems like a short-term vs long-term thing. You are often | going make more money in the short term by chasing the money | (e.g. financialization); but if you aren't careful you will | undermine the core value of your company. | | It's pretty clear that people have made many companies more | profitable by this sort of approach, at least for a while. | Melatonic wrote: | Especially when your core business is making airplanes! | api wrote: | Financialization has done this to the entire country to varying | degrees. | amelius wrote: | > My takeaway is that working hard to build quality products is | more likely to be profitable than working hard to make money. | | For big companies. For individuals it might not be the case. | Hence why we see this happening. | whatshisface wrote: | Boeing won't have failed until someone starts a competing | company that stands a chance of replacing it. (Airbus is the | same thing, very corporate, very closely tied to governments, | but in Europe). | speed_spread wrote: | Because of regulatory capture, any competitor will have to be | even _more_ subsidized than Boeing is. | | A few years ago, Bombardier introduced a new plane, the | C-Series. Even though it did not immediately compete with | Boeing's own offering, Boeing successfully lobbied for an | extravagant 300% import tariffs to be be applied which killed | the primary market (US) for it. Canadian government folded | and essentially gave the otherwise technically successful | project to Airbus in the hope of salvaging any industrial | returns on eventual mass production. The airplane is now | known as the A220. | | Any would-be competitor will not only be fighting Boeing, but | the whole US government. | acchow wrote: | > Boeing successfully lobbied for an extravagant 300% | import tariffs to be be applied | | Doesn't this violate NAFTA? | speed_spread wrote: | Not just NAFTA. From Wikipedia: | | > On 10 January 2018, the Canadian government filed a | complaint at the World Trade Organization against the US. | | > On 26 January 2018, the four USITC commissioners | unanimously determined that US industry is not threatened | and no duty orders will be issued, overturning the | imposed duties. The Commission public report was made | available by February 2018. On March 22, Boeing declined | to appeal the ruling. While the USITC had determined | there was no threat, the ruling came too late for | Bombardier, as the dumping petition by Boeing had already | paved the way for Bombardier to relinquish a controlling | interest in the CSeries to Airbus in October 2017. | | This is just a repeat of the Avro Arrow story. US | demanding free trade from everyone and then just bullying | its weight around when someone comes along with a better | deal than what they can manage. | doctor_eval wrote: | Free trade, free speech, free markets... but we're free | to change the rules when it suits us, too. | acchow wrote: | Canada is already experiencing a constant brain drain to | the US - there just not enough Canadian success stories | to stay around for. And finally this Bombardier success | comes along and the US kills it. Why aren't Canadians | more mad? | xxpor wrote: | Because if the US stopped buying Canadian oil they'd be | screwed. | imglorp wrote: | There's a raft of product failures across the board. Not | making saleable product is kind of a problem. Boeing's been | working on Starliner since 2010 and it has yet to carry | anyone to the ISS. Then there's MAX. And the SLS (which | hasn't failed yet but /will/ be a 4 billion disposable | program, at best.) | | Maybe true, it's business profitable, successfully extracting | money from airlines and government contracts. | mywittyname wrote: | In the past 15 years, it's been demonstrated that startups | can successfully build cars at scale and commercial rocket | ships. | | No company is safe. Boeing is exactly the type of company | that won't know they're dying until they are dead. | echelon wrote: | > No company is safe. Boeing is exactly the type of company | that won't know they're dying until they are dead. | | Yes, but they're in a sufficiently protected region of | state space guarded by landscape difficulty, moats, massive | contracts and cash flows, the government, you name it. | | You can't just build a better plane from zero and | immediately start taking orders. You have to start with | something small, tangential, and then grow into that | market. That's still very hard to do in aerospace because | the requirement is "don't kill people" yet the problem | involves putting people in mortal danger. | | I don't doubt that it could happen, but I think it's a very | tall order. | Melatonic wrote: | A certain car and spaceship building entrepreneur I could | see taking a pretty big chunk of Boeings pie if they | wanted to expand or split off in that direction | miketery wrote: | Bombardier had a superior product and had a massive sale to | Delta lined up. Boeing came in with the government and added | 300% tariff. Talk about "free market." | speed_spread wrote: | Yeah, fuck the new Boeing. Now everytime I'm forced to sit | in a 737 I try to fart as much as possible. | jonnycoder wrote: | thanks | p1necone wrote: | Part of the cause is that the people doing this still benefited | - if you can cut a bunch of costs and bump profits for the next | few years it doesn't matter to you as an executive whether | those changes ultimately lead to significantly worse outcomes | for the company in the longer term. | | Brand loyalty takes a while to fade, there seems to be a cycle | with a large number of successful companies that goes | | work honestly to build a good product | | -> generate brand loyalty | | -> people with integrity get replaced by people who would have | had no chance of building that successful product/company in | the first place | | -> cut as many corners as possible while riding the brand | loyalty to more short term profits | | -> eventually, on the scale of decades sometimes (because | people take a /long/ time to realize that 'well known brand' | !== quality), get out-competed by a small company building the | same thing as you with integrity | | -> return to step one with new company. | Pxtl wrote: | How many folks out there got burned by HP products when they | were hip-deep in that step 3 step 4 zone of "strip-mine your | own brand reputation selling cheap crap"? | civilized wrote: | Maybe I'm revealing my youth here, but... when was HP good? | dhdc wrote: | Before the 2000s or the Agilent spin-off, HP was the | undisputed king in electronics test equipments. Their | flagship multimeter HP3458a, launched more than 30 years | ago, is still the standard in metrology. And Keysight | (spin-off from Agilent) is still making them with little | to no significant modifications over the years. | | They also made some great RPN calculators. | tigershark wrote: | Do you have any non HP printer from 20 years ago still | working as expected? | roland35 wrote: | Not 20, but my 10 year old HP color laser is working as | well as new! | gh02t wrote: | HP was legendary in electronic test equipment and early | computers, calculators etc. Look on Ebay for HP branded | power supplies or multimeters, for instance, and you'll | see that they still command very high prices. And it's | not collectors buying them AFAIK, it's mostly people | _using_ them-- even 30 or 40 year old gear. They spun off | the test equipment division as Agilent (which still | exists and is highly respected under then name Keysight) | around the time their computing division started to go | downhill. | WWLink wrote: | This is all true. I always hated their deskjet printers, | though. The First one I had was a Deskjet 500 and that | thing was a massive turd with very expensive ink | cartridges, and no matter how many times I cleaned the | rollers, it'd still have issues not being able to feed | paper. Shit design. | jdkee wrote: | LaserJet III. | tigershark wrote: | I don't feel burned honestly.. A HP printer that I have is | probably 8 years old, another one is about 20 years old and | they are both still working as expected. (The 20 years old | now feels slower than my grandmother drawing, but it was | expected at the time) | cheriot wrote: | This is why I think we need to figure out executive | compensation. Boards just rubber stamp whatever the CEO | wants. | | Tie their compensation to real goals and require them to hold | for the next 10 years. | kQq9oHeAz6wLLS wrote: | What do you mean "we"? Like government intervention? These | are private companies, if they don't want to change this | aspect, there's not a lot you can do aside from getting on | the board... | bckr wrote: | > What do you mean "we"? | | Perhaps people who are interested in building great | companies, like the regulars of a tech startup-centric | forum | zozbot234 wrote: | The real defense against this dynamic is the takeover bid. | If you think the existing board and CEO are doing a poor | job of running the company by neglecting growth | opportunities, you can literally buy out the existing | shareholders' position and be in charge. If you're right, | you'll reap the gain in the form of increased valuation for | the shares you bought. | sidewndr46 wrote: | My understanding is that both Boeing and Intel have received | significant subsidies and bailouts from the federal government | when it became apparent the companies had issues. So I'd argue | that this an indication of a management success, not a failure. | They've been able to externalize some of their costs to the | federal government, thus increasing their profits. | mrtesthah wrote: | It just demonstrates why nationalization should have been | done instead. It was the right solution in 2008, too. | ZoomerCretin wrote: | Exactly. Governments shouldn't bail out any corporation | without a hefty share of ownership in exchange. We did it | for Sallie Mae, and we can do it for Intel, Boeing, and the | airlines. | clairity wrote: | no, we the people via our governmental apparatus should | essentially force bankruptcy early enough (like the FDIC | does for failing banks) and sell the assets in a widely- | held auction (for fair price discovery), so that a | competitor can keep customers from facing undue | externalized risk, and creditors and employees can be | made whole, while owners take a bath on their equity. the | fundamental downside of taking risk has to exist for | economies to keep moving towards efficiency (which our | economy is frustratingly not because of said | financializations and the like). | brokencode wrote: | I agree with this sentiment. And if you let companies | fail, then you open the market for leaner, meaner | companies to acquire their assets and build better | products. | | As it is, we keep some of these giant companies on life | support for years or decades, allowing them to crowd out | competition with their sheer size, while also failing to | really produce good products that serve their customers. | sidewndr46 wrote: | The thing is the downside of risk taking still exists. It | just shifts from an individual risk(the corporation) to | an existential risk(a big chunk of the economy). | | The only way to prohibit this would be to cap the maximum | size of a corporation. My guess is lawyers would just | come up with some legal novelty to work around this in no | time at all. | brokencode wrote: | We need to enforce antitrust laws, or make new laws if | those aren't sufficient. Large companies have insane | levels of control over our lives, and it's not healthy | for society. Just look at Facebook and Google's | stranglehold on information, or Apple's 30% fees on most | iOS app revenue. | clairity wrote: | "...It just shifts from an individual risk(the | corporation) to an existential risk(a big chunk of the | economy)." | | but that's the point of the early-enough forced | bankruptcy - to salvage value and re-internalize the | downside risk to owners only. | | i'm totally down with limiting corporate size, not via a | direct statute to that effect, but via a high-functioning | antitrust department along with severely progressive | taxes. you can get as big as you want, as long as you can | internalize all the downside risk of being 'too big to | fail'. | gumby wrote: | It is a success, but merely a short term success. Boeing, | Intel, GM, and GE went from being blue chips suitable as buy- | and-hold for a retirement account to being simply high priced | penny stocks. | yywwbbn wrote: | On paper Intel is still a very solid company in a dominant | market position (albeit that market is not necessarily a | growing one). It still has great margins and 6-7x higher | net income compared to AMD. And has arguably caught up with | AMDs CPUs this year. Despite that it's market cap is almost | the same as AMD's. So if you believe Intel can successfully | reform itself (maybe not an easy sell, but not totally | inconceivable they have all the tools they need for that) | it's a great stock which is criminally undervalued. | vkou wrote: | In a world where TSLA's (P/E 177) market cap is 15 times | that of GM (P/E 6), despite GM selling 6 times more cars, | I'm not sure that I'd piss on GM as the 'overpriced penny | stock'. | | There are supply chains disruptions. Some car manufacturers | have been heavily affected by them. Some have not. Unless | you think that these supply chain disruptions will continue | for the next 20 years, it's bit too early to declare the | firms hit by them dead in the water. | rr808 wrote: | Intel is doing badly recently, but it still generates a lot of | cash and lives in a world with chip shortages everywhere. It says | its going to invest in new fabs, surely it can catch up with TSM | and SEC if it tried. It seems like an industry with so much | potential, how can it fail? | acchow wrote: | Remember Nokia? | mlindner wrote: | Nokia had it's business area erased. Nokia is closer to what | happened to IBM, not Intel. It wasn't outcompeted by | companies doing the exact same thing. | bin_bash wrote: | My understanding as an outsider to chipmaking is that Intel's | model involved repurposing old fabs so they could make new ones | out of the old. TSMC's model is to keep using the same fab for | years and years. | | Because the chip shortage is largely for older, cheaper | silicon, Intel's model doesn't allow for building the chips | that are actually needed right now. | Melatonic wrote: | I think the other elephant in the room that not many are | talking about is that we have reached a point where most | people do not need the latest and great CPU anymore - many | can still get by with something 5 years+ old. In the old days | stagnation like this could have been a death sentence for | Intel but modern times are much more forgiving if they can | still play catchup eventually. | michaelt wrote: | Isn't that just a sign that Intel hasn't managed to make | any compelling products? | erichocean wrote: | The adoption of financial capitalism has been a disaster for the | United States of America. | kurthr wrote: | It's a good point, but a little old in the tooth and not really | fair apples-apples comparison Foundry to IDM. Intel's transistor | density at "10nm" is closer to industry "7nm". Really, I think it | was the desire to continue multi-patterning rather than go with | ASML's expensive EUV equipment for a last generation. Bad bet! | throwaway81523 wrote: | July 2021 | morganslaw wrote: | I think financialization is something you do in the later stages | of a company's lifecycle. It is how you extract the most value | out of the company as money, rather than potential. | | I think companies have pretty clear life cycles. First they | start, they grow, then the plateau, and then fall. Sometimes you | may get a few bumps in the road, but generally this is the long- | term cycle. | | Financialization makes the most sense to engage when when you are | plateaued and possibly falling. You can still extract value. | | I think that the fall of Sears was a great example of the | financialization and extraction of value of a dying company. | | Financialization is trading off future potential growth or even | long-term staying power for $$$. | asah wrote: | Yyy - see Microsoft starting in the late 90s... | acchow wrote: | How does a company like Apple even fit into this? Grow, | plateau, fall, rise from the dead? | vishnugupta wrote: | > fall | | Presumably what we saw as "fall" from the outside was Apple | pouring hundreds of millions of $$$ into building M1, fixing | design flaws in newer MacBook Pro lines etc., | acchow wrote: | err I was referring to the 1980s and 90s long after the | wild success of the Apple II | vishnugupta wrote: | Heh sorry. | | Reading various accounts it indeed was a precarious | situation for Apple which could have gone either way. | ayngg wrote: | I think it is the fate of companies that got big on innovation, | but lost their edge because they got too far ahead and | priorities shifted. They lose their ability to be innovative as | others catch up so they have to find other ways to give | shareholders value. | zwieback wrote: | Generally I agree, but: | | > I think companies have pretty clear life cycles | | I think it's not that clear. Where I work (hp) you could argue | we're like Intel: large public company, shareholder oriented, | buybacks, etc. However, we've also gone through a series of | consolidations, split-ups, spin-offs and so on. At this point | our own company and all our cousins and step-children all have | bits and pieces of a whole bunch of different companies. | | Also, I'm not sure why a blue-chip company can't just keep on | existing. We pay a lot of dividends to keep our investors | happy, which means less is available for R&D. That doesn't mean | there's no R&D, though, the challenge for a CEO managing a | company like this is to balance the two competing demands. | Competitors that aren't focussed on crowd-sourced shareholder | demands can make disastrous decisions more easily. | mywittyname wrote: | Blue chip companies need to get better at spinning off | internal units into startups. | | Every blue chip that I've worked at had internal products | that someone eventually founds a startup to copy. Sometimes, | it's even an internal employee that leaves to start the new | business. | doctor_eval wrote: | I might be misremembering my history but I sn't that how | Intel started? As a spin off from disgruntled Fairchild | employees? | narush wrote: | Doesn't this feel like a self-fulfilling prophecy? It's like | saying "if things are going bad, then just try and extract | value." | | But if extracting value makes things go bad, then it pretty | much leads to a death spiral. | | I feel like a more helpful framework is: if you're giving up on | competing, then financialize, while recognizing that a) it's | probably gonna kill your company, and b) value extraction from | users [especially those who have little choice in using your | products!] is no fun for anyone! | mywittyname wrote: | Sometimes there's not much you can do. It can be the case | that, you know business as you know it will end and that no | level of investment into a replacement will yield a | competitive product (i.e., tube tvs to LED/Plasma, movie | rental places, etc). | | Even innovation powerhouses can eventually fall. Those that | stick around often shed the business units that made them | successful initially (GE). One good way to extend the life of | a company is to acquire your eventual replacements before | they get a shot at you. | | Business is hard, and most profitable businesses have a shelf | life. | jart wrote: | Death spiral? Their stock looks OK. My Core i9 still goes so | fast. But for the past few years, if you only read Internet | comments, you'd think Intel is about to go belly up tomorrow. | This same thing happened twenty years ago. For example: | | > NYTimes - Nov 29, 2004 -- The Disco Ball of Failed Hopes - | Intel, giant computer chip maker, seems to have lost its way | lately; has publicly ... including the 25 percent decline in | Intel's stock price this year | | As far as I can tell, things are pretty good for the | Intel/AMD duopoly. AMD's stock is up 1000% in the last five | years. Right now AMD is on top. Just like how AMD was on top | around 2004. Then after a few years of AMD winning, Intel | turned it around and became on top again. It's like democrats | and republicans. | nimish wrote: | You could see this happen in real-time as Intel sold essentially | the same processor between 2015 and 2020 stuck on 14nm while | increasing prices and lowering quality -- replacing solder with | thermal paste, sticking with 4 cores as long as possible to | maximize $. | | You can see the rather large change under Gelsinger: | https://ycharts.com/companies/INTC/stock_buyback | Melatonic wrote: | Those 2015 processors were some damn good processors though - | at that point they were quite far ahead. I haven't counted | Intel out of the game just yet like many here seem to - they | have definitely hit a stumble though for sure. | morelish wrote: | This is interesting to wonder why Intel stumbled so much and has | lost so much ground. I suspect the basic premise of this article | - that C-level were focused on share price rather than innovation | - probably explains it as well as any one thing can. | adfgadfgaery wrote: | I have always been confused by these issues of corporate | governance. All these things seem like they should be owned by | _real human beings_ , but it is impossible for me to understand | who actually owns and controls these companies. They are | simultaneously treated as their own entities that make their own | decisions while also being completely controlled by a few big | shareholders. And often these shareholders are themselves | companies, perhaps owned by other companies. And then you get | weird stuff like Porsche's attempt to purchase VW, which wound up | with VW purchasing its own largest shareholder. It's all | incomprehensibly far removed from what the goods and services | that are the real purpose of our economy. | | Also, the CPU in the picture is upside down. Maybe this is a | shallow criticism (especially since the picture was probably | chosen by an editor), but I am reluctant to listen to people who | would make such a basic mistake. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-03-17 23:00 UTC)