Pat Gelsinger Critiques CHIPS Act, Urges Action on Fabs
Pat Gelsinger's Take on the CHIPS Act
Pat Gelsinger, the former CEO of Intel Corp (NASDAQ: INTC) and currently a general partner at Playground Global, has recently expressed significant criticism regarding the rollout of the CHIPS Act. He argues that the U.S. government’s financial involvement in Intel is only beneficial if it ensures the construction and operational capability of semiconductor manufacturing facilities across the nation.
Investment and Impact Discussion
In an appearance on CNBC's Squawk Box, Gelsinger discussed the implications of the government's stake in Intel, valued at approximately $11.1 billion when considering previously available grants. While he acknowledged the market's positive response to this government investment, he firmly stated that true success hinges on whether this funding facilitates the growth of domestic chip manufacturing.
"The only measurement that truly matters is whether it leads to the building and filling of Intel fabs in America," Gelsinger asserted. If the outcome does not align with this goal, he believes the investment lacks merit.
Concerns About CHIPS Act Progress
Reflecting on the history of the CHIPS Act, which was initiated under the previous administration, Gelsinger indicated his disappointment regarding the delays in deploying these funds. He critiqued Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo for the lengthy process leading to no significant advancements over a critical period of two and a half years.
He voiced his frustration by saying, "It’s disappointing that the Department of Commerce took so long to allocate the funds, and to assert that they are addressing the problems now without adequate progress before is disheartening.”
Intel's Performance Amidst Sector Shifts
Gelsinger also shared insights about Intel's challenges in recent years, noting that even though the company's shares have improved by 58.79% over the past year, they have declined more than 31% over the last five years. He attributes this downturn to long-standing structural challenges and a failure to adapt to advancements in AI technology.
"Intel has made several poor choices over the last 15 years, leading to a loss of technical dominance. We were late to engage with AI advancements," he explained. He praised Intel’s recent 18A process milestone but cautioned that competitors like Nvidia Corp (NASDAQ: NVDA) dominate the emerging AI data center market.
Analyst Perspectives on Intel's Future
With an earnings report on the horizon, concerns regarding Intel's performance have surfaced. Bank of America analyst Vivek Arya downgraded the company to an underperform rating, setting a target price of $34. He highlighted ongoing weaknesses in the AI sector and the server CPU markets, despite Intel's robust financial position.
Arya pointed out that Intel’s product lineup for AI remains inadequate, limiting options for divesting from less profitable segments. However, he acknowledged that partnerships with Nvidia and possible U.S. funding could present new opportunities for Intel.
Despite the drop in stock value over the years, Intel shares saw a rise of 2.45% recently, contributing to an impressive year-to-date increase of more than 84%. This notable recovery has positioned Intel favorably within market performance rankings, a hopeful sign for existing investors.
Conclusion
As the semiconductor industry evolves, Gelsinger’s perspective sheds light on the critical need for substantial action to enhance domestic manufacturing. The recent investments made through the CHIPS Act present an opportunity, but only if they result in tangible outcomes such as new fabs being built and operational. The road ahead for Intel includes navigating these challenges effectively to regain lost ground in a rapidly changing tech landscape.
Frequently Asked Questions
What concerns did Pat Gelsinger raise about the CHIPS Act?
Gelsinger criticized the slow rollout of the CHIPS Act, stating its effectiveness hinges on the building and operational capacity of semiconductor fabs in the U.S.
What is the value of the government's stake in Intel?
The government’s investment in Intel is approximately $11.1 billion, combining both direct stock purchases and grants previously awarded.
How has Intel's stock performed recently?
Intel shares have increased by 2.45% recently, with an impressive rise of more than 84% year-to-date.
What long-term issues has Intel faced?
Gelsinger noted that Intel has been hindered by poor decisions over the last 15 years and has struggled to keep pace with AI technology advancements.
How has the analyst perspective changed regarding Intel?
Bank of America downgraded Intel to underperform with a $34 price target, citing weaknesses in key markets, but recognized potential upsides through partnerships and U.S. funding.
About The Author
Contact Lucas Young privately here. Or send an email with ATTN: Lucas Young as the subject to contact@investorshangout.com.
About Investors Hangout
Investors Hangout is a leading online stock forum for financial discussion and learning, offering a wide range of free tools and resources. It draws in traders of all levels, who exchange market knowledge, investigate trading tactics, and keep an eye on industry developments in real time. Featuring financial articles, stock message boards, quotes, charts, company profiles, and live news updates. Through cooperative learning and a wealth of informational resources, it helps users from novices creating their first portfolios to experts honing their techniques. Join Investors Hangout today: https://investorshangout.com/
The content of this article is based on factual, publicly available information and does not represent legal, financial, or investment advice. Investors Hangout does not offer financial advice, and the author is not a licensed financial advisor. Consult a qualified advisor before making any financial or investment decisions based on this article. This article should not be considered advice to purchase, sell, or hold any securities or other investments. If any of the material provided here is inaccurate, please contact us for corrections.