Intel CEO Announces Targeted Job Cuts in Wake of Lower Margins

Intel Gelsinger
(Image credit: Intel)

Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger said on Thursday announced that the company would soon undergo a round of "targeted cuts." As reported by Oregon Live, the CEO took to a video conference with company employees where he described the cuts as necessary in the wake of high costs and low margins on the myriad of products Intel develops, manufactures and distributes. 

The cutbacks aim to reduce Intel's operational expenses to and unlock a way back to profitability. This is happening just months after Intel and other semiconductor companies were awarded a cool $52 billion in government subsidies in the U.S. alone.

Word on the wire estimates Intel may be looking to cut as much as 20% of its workforce in certain divisions, including sales and marketing - equating to thousands of employees out of the company's ~121 thousand employed in 53 countries around the globe. The need to rationalize its operational costs likely stems from the utter beating of Intel shares in just a year, with the company's stock valuation dropping by 50% on the back of a particularly intense macroeconomic pressure. The decline happened even as Intel sought more and more governmental funding - something Pat Gelsinger himself said might have negatively impacted the company's execution.

That impact on execution and the worldwide demand decline for Intel's products was plain to see on the company's Q2 earning reports, where Intel posted a $454 million loss against a clean $5 billion profit during Q2 2021. And considering the current state of the global semiconductor market, Intel's revenue for Q3 2022 could see a further 15% decline.

However, Intel isn't the only tech giant grappling with these issues. AMD recently corrected its revenue projections with an expected $1.1 billion decline for Q3, Nvidia revised its estimates with a $1.4 billion reduction of its own, and Apple reportedly cut component orders for its latest iPhone 14 product by as much as 90%. But while Intel has now confirmed it's going the layoff route, AMD and Nvidia - two companies left out of the U.S. government's $52 billion subsidy and equally affected by the market turmoil - still haven't announced anything to that effect.

Francisco Pires
Freelance News Writer

Francisco Pires is a freelance news writer for Tom's Hardware with a soft side for quantum computing.

  • TechieTwo
    Why is it they never eliminate the CEO or other execs' salaries to reduce overhead? In many cases these folks actually receive multi-million dollar annual bonuses on top of their multi-million base salary even when their mismanagement has caused the company financial loses. Why should anyone be rewarded for incompetence?
    Reply
  • peachpuff
    TechieTwo said:
    Why is it they never eliminate the CEO or other execs' salaries to reduce overhead? In many cases these folks actually receive multi-million dollar annual bonuses on top of their multi-million base salary even when their mismanagement has caused the company financial loses. Why should anyone be rewarded for incompetence?
    It's his first year, he's innocent...
    But damn 20%? That's insane 🤯
    Reply
  • DougMcC
    TechieTwo said:
    Why is it they never eliminate the CEO or other execs' salaries to reduce overhead? In many cases these folks actually receive multi-million dollar annual bonuses on top of their multi-million base salary even when their mismanagement has caused the company financial loses. Why should anyone be rewarded for incompetence?

    Because boards and CXOs are a team game playing against companies to siphon money. CXOs serve on boards of other companies, who serve as CXOs in turn. And it works because shareholder revolts are difficult to coordinate. A rational system would realize Pat has done a terrible job for Intel and that there are probably a dozen internal candidates (let alone external) who could replace him and do a better job.
    Reply
  • A Stoner
    Higher prices, lower margins. Better hope AMD does not lower prices on current and then release the 3D stacked versions...
    Reply
  • Kamen Rider Blade
    DougMcC said:
    Because boards and CXOs are a team game playing against companies to siphon money. CXOs serve on boards of other companies, who serve as CXOs in turn. And it works because shareholder revolts are difficult to coordinate. A rational system would realize Pat has done a terrible job for Intel and that there are probably a dozen internal candidates (let alone external) who could replace him and do a better job.
    Maybe there should be new regulations in place to outlaw such Cross Pollination that encourages this type of protectionism / fraternization / collusion.
    Also outlaw "Golden Parachute" clauses.

    Adopt a more Japanese style regulation where Pay gets cut from the top first before it goes down to the bottom.
    Reply
  • ikernelpro4
    TechieTwo said:
    Why is it they never eliminate the CEO or other execs' salaries to reduce overhead? In many cases these folks actually receive multi-million dollar annual bonuses on top of their multi-million base salary even when their mismanagement has caused the company financial loses. Why should anyone be rewarded for incompetence?
    Maybe you don't want your folks in high positions earning pennies like everyone else, suddenly receiving job offers for 2-3x of the wage from competitors?

    The worst thing that can happen is competitors snatching your clever folks away like other car manufacturers do with Tesla software engineers...
    Reply
  • prtskg
    This gives an entirely different spin to AMD, Nvidia and Intel's current price. While it's good Intel's processors are relatively cheap but to loose 20% of jobs due to that. I'm not sure which company's step is right.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    peachpuff said:
    It's his first year, he's innocent...
    Yeah, probably even if he weren't distracted courting politicians in the US and Europe, he might've had an impact at the margins, but there really wasn't much Intel could do about the revenue declines.

    peachpuff said:
    But damn 20%? That's insane 🤯
    Depends on how targeted it is, as they said only certain divisions would be affected that much. If it were across-the-board, then that would indeed be a dire move.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    DougMcC said:
    Because boards and CXOs are a team game playing against companies to siphon money. CXOs serve on boards of other companies, who serve as CXOs in turn.
    Whatever you think of executive compensation, it doesn't cost nearly as much money as dividends and share buybacks. I agree that we need corporate governance reform, but we also should have higher taxation on these non-productive activities to discourage investors draining the lifeblood of the main engines of our economy. That would definitely help with international competitiveness.

    DougMcC said:
    A rational system would realize Pat has done a terrible job for Intel and that there are probably a dozen internal candidates (let alone external) who could replace him and do a better job.
    Due to the extremely long lead times, in this business, I think it's too early to reach a verdict on his performance. In a couple more years, we'll begin to know whether he made the right strategic calls or not. However, some of the things he's been up to (i.e. fab plans & the foundry business) will have an even longer-term payoff than that.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    ikernelpro4 said:
    Maybe you don't want your folks in high positions earning pennies like everyone else, suddenly receiving job offers for 2-3x of the wage from competitors?
    That's why the change needs to come from SEC regulations, so that it equally affects all companies.

    ikernelpro4 said:
    The worst thing that can happen is competitors snatching your clever folks away like other car manufacturers do with Tesla software engineers...
    I don't know too much about Tesla, but I've heard they have a culture of present-ism and overwork. Maybe they should treat their employees right, pay them fairly, and they won't have such a problem with losing talent.
    Reply