Connect with us

Business

It’s time for Intel to go private, former board members say

Published

on



Despite years of troubled performance and failed strategies, the great icon of the semiconductor industry, Intel, has two new major shareholders that can give it new hope for recovery: the United States government, with a bit less than a 10% stake, and the most important design firm in the world, Nvidia, with about 5% ownership. 

The next step is for the government to arrange for Intel to go private. 

Without the pressure of delivering quarterly earnings for the stockholders of today, a private Intel could divide itself into parts that no longer make sense to be conjoined.  One new company should focus on manufacturing chips for all global firms with the goal of matching or exceeding performance levels that only TSMC can provide today. The other should commit to designing chips. These are two separate objective functions, markets, and missions. Ultimately, Intel should also sell its controlling stake in the autonomous driving firm, Mobileye, as well as the company’s venture capital arm. The strategic goal is to disaggregate the conglomerate that may have served Intel well in the past but no longer meets the country’s need for an American foundry nor delivers the most value for shareholders.

It is well understood that most conglomerates suffer from the so-called conglomerate discount.  General Electric, once an icon of American industry, recognized that breaking itself up would make its constituent pieces more valuable and competitive in one of the most salient recent examples that demonstrates the sum of the parts can be greater than the whole. 

Intel’s business model of vertical integration between design and manufacturing gave Intel tremendous market power when it was the world leader in both markets. That’s the past. Trying to recreate it, as some of Intel’s recent CEOs have done, is doomed.

Here’s the plan that seems right to us, admittedly from the perspective of outsiders who left Intel’s board some time ago.

First, the government, with support from a consortium of America’s world-leading design firms, should buy all of Intel’s public stock. Nvidia’s $5 billion investment and the subsequent surge in Intel’s stock price suggest that the capital markets would welcome such a move. Some combination of Nvidia, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Qualcomm, Broadcom, and Google — the best and biggest product design firms on the planet — could easily afford it.  

The creation of a successful foundry, drawn from Intel’s manufacturing assets and separated from the design businesses, would be a big win for the Trump administration. It would be even bigger win for the big semiconductor design firms that are otherwise totally dependent on TSMC.

Second, the government and that consortium should find new owners for Intel’s design businesses, including servers and personal computers.  Our back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest that Intel has left a lot of value locked behind its conglomerate structure. The foundry, for example, has a book value of about $70 billion, but is currently a huge money loser. It needs up to $100 billion in new capital over the next decade to compete with TSMC. The other businesses that could thrive on their own include (1) a microprocessor design business for personal computers, worth somewhere around $100 billion; (2) the design efforts for servers and data centers, also worth potentially $100 billion; (3) the autonomous driving firm, Mobileye, valued at roughly $15. billion; and (4) the extensive venture portfolio, invested in private firms around the world.  

Unlocking this value is extraordinarily difficult for a public firm filing quarterly reports. Even in private, the surgery is operationally complicated. Presumably, the board and management cannot see a way forward. Alone, the company cannot raise the money to take the firm private. By itself, it would struggle to obtain the financial, technical and commercial assistance needed to match TSMC. Only the U.S. government would be able to orchestrate the complex, critically important disaggregation of Intel with the necessary participation of the major American design firms. 

Third, by going private, Intel can attract the best and brightest talent. With Intel’s competitors flying high on the promise of AI, Intel is suffering from a massive brain drain. As it lays off thousands of employees, the best ones inevitably bail out. The existing public company cannot effectively compete for talent and without talent it is unlikely to succeed in matching TSMC in manufacturing nor make its other units more competitive. Private companies can offer very attractive compensation packages with the promise of a big day when the companies go public again.

The result is that the entire restructuring could be accomplished in roughly a year. That is about as long as the break-up of AT&T took in the 1980s. By 2028, the segments could be sold at handsome prices or taken public with significant returns to private shareholders. Taxpayers could make hundreds of billions of dollars. Not only that, in terms of job creation and national security, the value would be immeasurable. 

Naysayers will argue that this strategy is unnecessary.  Intel could do it all before, and it can do it all again.  But hope is not a strategy, and the world around Intel is not standing still.  Naysayers may also argue that Intel should be bought by one of its competitors.  Allow Broadcom, for example, to buy Intel and fix it, like it has done with numerous other semiconductor firms.  But in today’s environment, an acquisition like this would not fly:  China, where Intel sells more than 25% of its products, would never approve it. 

Right now, the United States government and Nvidia own a problem. By taking charge of the situation, they can create a tremendous opportunity to do good for the taxpayer. Even more importantly, the break-up of Intel will go a long way to giving the United States the semiconductor ecosystem that underpins every happy scenario for software breakthroughs that benefit the American people and the world.  

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.

Fortune Global Forum returns Oct. 26–27, 2025 in Riyadh. CEOs and global leaders will gather for a dynamic, invitation-only event shaping the future of business. Apply for an invitation.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Ford takes $19.5 billion hit, scraps some EV ambitions in pivot to more hybrid and gas models

Published

on



The Dearborn, Michigan-based automaker will make a series of changes to its line of vehicles and production facilities to focus on producing affordable vehicles that better align with customer desires, it announced Monday.

The company will also scrap production of certain larger EVs—including the F-150 Lightning, which it will retool as an electric vehicle with a gas-powered generator—as well as redouble development of smaller, lower-cost cars, including a midsize pickup truck in 2027.

“This is a customer-driven shift to create a stronger, more resilient and more profitable Ford,” Ford president and CEO Jim Farley said in a press release. “The operating reality has changed, and we are redeploying capital into higher-return growth opportunities: Ford Pro, our market-leading trucks and vans, hybrids and high-margin opportunities like our new battery energy storage business.”

As EV demand trends downward, particularly following the end of the federal tax credit in September, Ford had struggled to sustain demand for its Model E line. Farley warned in September the end of the tax credit would throttle EV demand, cutting sales to 5% of total auto volume from roughly 10% to 12% at the time. Earlier this month, the automaker reported it sold 164,925 vehicles in November, a 0.9% year-over-year decline, with EV sales tumbling 61% to 4,247. With $3.6 billion in losses in the first three quarters of this year alone, Ford’s Model E division has lost more than $13 billion in less than three years.

In addition to regulatory challenges, Ford attributed the need to produce smaller, more affordable EVs as well as gas and hybrid vehicles, to battery prices remaining stubbornly high and an affordability crisis shaking consumer brand loyalty. The company said on Monday it would launch five new “affordable” vehicles by the end of the decade, four of which would be assembled domestically. The automaker intends to have 50% of its global vehicle volumes be hybrids, extended-range EVs, and full EVs, by 2030, up from 17% this year.

As a result of the changes to its production focus, Ford will also repurpose some of its facilities, including revamping its Tennessee Electric Vehicle Center into the Tennessee Truck Plant, which will no longer produce EVs, but rather manufacture the new Built Ford Tough truck models beginning in 2029. Its Ohio plant will similarly assemble new gas and hybrid cars in 2029.

Ford said it will employ thousands of workers in the next few years to staff its American plants. After concluding production for the 2025 F-150 Lightning model, Ford will redeploy one-third of that workforce to production on a gas and hybrid model of the F-150.

Ford will book $19.5 billion in charges, most of which will occur in 2026, as a result of the pivot, including an $8.5 billion asset write-down for its Model E division. The automaker raised its EBIT guidance for 2025 to about $7 billion, up from $6 billion, and it reaffirmed its adjusted free cash flow range of between $2 billion and $3 billion.

Ford has struggled to get returns from its ever-growing investment in its EV models, even as it continues to toy with strategy changes. Monday’s announcement follows Ford’s decision in August to invest $2 billion in retooling a Kentucky factory in order to manufacture EVs, as well as rejig its production process to a “universal EV platform” to lower the cost of its models.

Ford said it expects its Model E to be profitable by 2029; in early 2023, it predicted profitability by 2026.

At the time of the Kentucky factory announcement, analysts were hesitant to laud the company, warning that if Ford did not make a compelling product, its billions of dollars poured into factory changes and fresh vehicle production would be for nought, particularly as EV demand stays hot and cold.

“If the vehicles don’t appeal due to being EVs, then billions will be wasted,” Morningstar equity strategist David Whiston told Fortunein August. “That’s why you need a great product, great range, and lower battery cost and vehicle manufacturing techniques.”

He added, “The challenge is, do you have a great product or not? [It’s] hard to get excited about a vehicle you can’t see yet.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Trump vows to fight ‘fraud’ in SNAP benefits for 42 million Americans

Published

on



President Donald Trump ’s administration is talking tough about SNAP, saying the government’s biggest food aid program is riddled with fraud that must be stopped.

His appointees are looking at Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program from an enforcement perspective, seeing fraud as a major and expensive problem, perpetrated by organized criminal organizations, individual recipients and retailers willing to break the laws for profit.

“We know there are instances of fraud committed by our friends and neighbors, but also transnational crime rings,” Jennifer Tiller, a senior advisor to U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, said in an interview.

Some experts agree that SNAP fraud is a major problem. But there is little publicly available data showing the extent of it, and others who study the program are skeptical about the scale.

“It you’re spending $100 billion on anything, you’re going to have some leakage,” said Christopher Bosso, a professor of public policy and politics at Northeastern University who published a book on SNAP.

The administration leans into fraud allegations

Of the $100 billion spent on SNAP a year, about $94 billion goes to benefits and the rest to administrative costs.

About 42 million people — or 1 in 8 Americans — receive SNAP benefits averaging about $190 per person per month. The number of recipients is in the same ballpark as the number of people in poverty — 36 million by the traditional measure and 43 million under a more nuanced one also used by the federal government.

Under federal law, most households must report their income and basic information every four to six months and be fully recertified for SNAP at least every 12 months.

The Trump administration has demanded that states turn over data on individual SNAP recipients including Social Security numbers, dates of birth and immigration status as part of its effort to root out fraud.

States with Republican governors, plus North Carolina, have complied. Most led by Democrats are pushing back in court, arguing that providing the data would violate recipients’ privacy.

The USDA says that from the records that have been shared, it found 186,000 deceased people — about 1% of participants in those states — receiving benefits and about 500,000 people — about 2.7% — receiving benefits in more than one jurisdiction.

The USDA has not made public detailed reports on the data and has not broken down the estimates by type of alleged fraud. The department also hasn’t answered questions about what portion of any improperly awarded benefits was actually spent and how much sat unclaimed on EBT cards after recipients moved or died.

The department estimated in a letter to the states that have refused to turn over data that the nationwide total combining fraud and undetected errors could be $9 billion a year or more. Democratic-led states responded in a letter last week that states already have systems to catch wrongdoing and that USDA isn’t explaining how it’s crunching the numbers.

Program participants can be perpetrators or victims of fraud

There are a lot of forms of wrongdoing.

SNAP benefits are put on EBT cards that recipients swipe in stores like debit cards. Organized crime groups put skimmers on EBT readers to get information used to make copies of the benefit cards and steal the allotments of recipients — or to use stolen identity information to apply for benefits for fictitious people. A Romanian man who was in the U.S. illegally pleaded guilty last year to skimming cards in California. Authorities say he took more than 36,000 numbers over three years.

A USDA employee pleaded guilty this year to accepting bribes in exchange for providing registration numbers for EBT card readers placed illegally in several New York delis. Authorities said more than $30 million passed through those terminals.

And three people were charged this year in Franklin County, Ohio, accused of using stolen benefits to order big quantities of energy drinks and candy — apparently to resell it.

Mark Haskins, who worked on USDA investigations from 2013 until leaving the department in August as branch chief of a special investigations unit, said there have been cases of retailers running similar operations. Several states are barring using SNAP for some junk food products with policies that kick in as soon as Jan. 1.

Haskins also says some legitimate recipients buy non-grocery items with SNAP benefits by persuading a store employee to ring up the wrong item — generally one that costs more than what’s being bought — or to sell benefit cards. He said he thinks those forms of fraud are more costly than the ones run by organized criminal groups.

Haskins and Haywood Talcove, CEO of LexisNexis Risk Solutions Government, which helps create fraud prevention strategies, both believe fraud costs significantly more than the USDA’s $9 billion estimate.

“The system is corrupt. It doesn’t need a fix here and there, it needs a complete overhaul,” said Haskins, who would like to see fewer retailers in the network and participants having to reapply, even if that makes it harder for qualified people to access benefits.

Advocates and researchers see a different system

The USDA last published a report on SNAP fraud in 2021. It covered what happened in from 2015 through 2017 and found that about 1.6% of benefits were stolen from recipients’ accounts.

The government replaced benefits that were stolen between Oct. 1, 2022 and Dec. 20, 2024. The value of replaced benefits over that time was $323 million — or about 24 cents for every $100 in SNAP benefits, though that’s believed to be an undercount.

It’s reports like those that lead advocates and academics who research SNAP to see fraud, while troublesome, as less than the massive problem the USDA makes it out to be.

Dartmouth College economist Patricia Anderson, who studies food insecurity, said in an email that the maximum benefits for a family of four are about $1,000 a month. “It really takes organized crime that is either stealing from the EBT cards or creating a lot of fake recipients out of whole cloth before the gain for the fraudster really starts to be worth it,” she said.

Jamal Brown, a 41-year-old food stamp participant who lives in Camden, New Jersey, said he’s witnessed people selling benefits to bodegas to get cash. And he’s had his benefits stolen by a skimmer.

He also said he had to deal with benefits being cut off after being told he missed an interview to recertify his need when a county welfare worker didn’t call him as planned.

“It’s always something that goes wrong,” Brown said, “unfortunately.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Small businesses say Trump tariffs are hurting consumers—here’s what is getting more expensive

Published

on



NEW YORK (AP) — The Ah Louis Store in San Luis Obispo, California, turns into a winter wonderland every holiday season.

Green garlands, giant nutcrackers, baubles and bows go up in early November on the historic downtown building that houses the gift shop. Inside, customers can choose from over 500 different types of ornaments and a variety of holiday gift baskets.

“We really just make it a magical spot,” co-owner Emily Butler said. “Whether you come in or not, we want to make sure that we’re spreading that holiday joy.”

But Butler says she and her twin sister-business partner had to work harder this year to turn browsers into buyers and to make a profit. Many of the decorations and stocking stuffers they sell are made overseas and either did not arrive or got more expensive when President Donald Trump imposed unusually high taxes on imported goods, she said.

In response, the sisters focused their selection on more profitable items like nutcrackers and gift baskets. They’ve also noticed customers cutting back, selecting a $100 gift basket over the $150 version, or buying one ornament instead of several, Butler said..

“We’re definitely seeing more cautious spending this year,” she said.

Along with the unpredictable tariffs, stubborn inflation and weak hiring have shaken consumer confidence in the U.S. economy. The vast majority of U.S. adults say they’ve noticed higher than usual prices for groceries, electricity and holiday gifts in recent months, according to a December poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.

A Gallup index that summarizes Americans’ assessments of current economic conditions fell to a 17-month low in November. Consumers also indicated less enthusiasm for spending money on holiday gifts; their estimated gift budgets decreased $229 between October and November, the largest drop Gallup has recorded at that point of the holiday shopping season. The survey was conducted in November, partially during the government shutdown, which might have tempered spending plans.

However, the worst-case impact on consumer prices that many economists foresaw from the Trump administration’s tariff policies hasn’t materialized. Some products have been affected more than others. Here’s a look at what has happened with supplies and prices in popular gifting categories.

Games and toys

Game and toys were particularly susceptible to tariff-related price increases since the majority of the ones sold in the U.S. are made in China, according to industry trade group The Toy Association. The tariff rate the Trump administration imposed on Chinese goods became a rollercoaster that started at an additional 10%, peaked at 145% and ended up at 47%.

The uncertainty made it hard for toy shops to decide what to order for the holidays. Dean Smith, who co-owns independent toy stores JaZams in Princeton, New Jersey, and Lahaska, Pennsylvania, said the manufacturers in China that he buys toys from did not pass on their tariff costs all at once but he has seen their prices inch higher with every reorder.

Smith estimated that wholesale prices for 80% of his inventory went up anywhere from 5% to 20%. Some shoppers who don’t buy toys regularly might be surprised by price increases he adopted in turn, Smith said. A doll that sold for $20 to $25 last year now costs $30 to $35 at JaZams, he said.

“For folks with marginal incomes, this is going to be a very difficult holiday,” Smith said.

Electronics

Consumer electronics are mostly made in China and other Asian countries. In 2023, China accounted for 78% of U.S. smartphone imports, and 79% of laptop and tablet imports, according to the Consumer Technology Association trade group.

Best Buy said in May that it was raising prices due to tariffs. But CEO Corie Barry said late last month that the consumer electronics chain made sure to stock computers, phones and other products at different price levels, a decision she credited with helping Best Buy attract more lower-income shoppers.

“The consumer is not a monolith,” Barry told reporters.

Game consoles are always a popular holiday item, and console makers made news earlier this year when they announced price increases. Sony raised the price of the PlayStation 5 by $50 to $550 in August, following Microsoft and Nintendo raising prices for their game consoles.

Jewelry

Jewelry shoppers will likely see higher prices, but that has more to do with the soaring price of gold than tariffs so far, according to David Bonaparte, president & CEO of trade group Jewelers of America.

The varying tax rates Trump set for countries that import American goods with a total value less than their exports to the U.S. affected jewelry in various ways. Watches from Switzerland, for example, were subject to a 39% tariff from July 31 until the country struck a deal with the Trump administration last month to lower the import tax rate on its products to 15%.

India, which refines many of the diamonds sold in the U.S., rushed in shipments of the gemstones before a 50% tariff on the country’s products took effect on Aug. 27. Higher prices for jewelry made with diamonds shipped from India will likely start to be felt in 2026, Bonaparte said.

“It’s really a matter of what happens after Jan. 1,” he said. “If these tariffs are still in place, then prices will probably increase.”

Holiday decor

Holiday decorations are yet another category that mostly comes from overseas, particularly China.

Jeremy Rice co-owns House, a home-décor shop in Lexington, Kentucky, that specializes in artificial flowers, wreaths and table decorations. He said the tariffs slowed down production of much of his fall stock and seasonal merchandise like ribbon. Some larger and more expensive items he didn’t order at all because they would have been too expensive to retail.

Rice raised prices on the products he did get. The popular red berry stems that House long has carried increased from $8.95 last year to $10.95 due to higher import costs, he said.

“We sell thousands of these berry stems, and every time we sold one, I flinched from knowing what it should have been, knowing that our supplier paid more for them, which made us pay more for them, which made our customer pay more for them,” Rice said.

Shopping strategically

For those looking to avoid tariff-related price increases, John Harmon, managing director of technology research at technology consulting company Coresight Resarch, recommends checking out secondhand stores and discount retailers like T.J. Maxx, Marshall’s and HomeGoods. The off-price chains buy much of their inventory from leftover stock that would have entered the U.S. before new tariffs kicked in.

Joe Adamski, senior director at procurement services company ProcureAbility, said books, food and beverages are some of the domestically produced goods that make good gifts.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.