Pat Gelsinger supportive of Lip-Bu Tan, warns him about 'the short-termism of Wall Street'
Good luck with the challenges that I faced, Gelsinger tells his successor.

Pat Gelsinger became chief executive of Intel back in 2021 with the aim to turn the company around and regain process technology and product leadership over several years. He was ousted in late 2024 before the job was done, but he remains strongly supportive of the company's mission, so he wants to see the new CEO — Lip-Bu Tan — to finish what he started, he said in an interview with CNBC.
"I was committed to and wanting to finish that story on the revitalization of Intel and with the board, the company, and now with Lip-Bu's leadership, you are really cheering them on to finish, because the role that Intel plays in the semiconductor industry is critical and one that's important not just for the industry but for the U.S., so I could not be more supportive of the team and Lip-Bu to finishing their journey," said Pat Gelsinger.
The challenges Intel faced, particularly around funding and market expectations, made the transformation extremely difficult. Gelsinger pointed out that one of the biggest obstacles was the financial burden of building a next-generation fabrication network. He noted that his IDM 2.0 strategy — under which Intel remains a vertically integrated maker of its own chips and a contract chipmaker with third party clients — was still the correct one, but acknowledged how capital-intensive and demanding it is for any company.
As Intel's core business declined faster than expected, it became clear that external capital was needed to fund the initiative.
"It is a heavy assignment, and for any company to carry the financial requirements of building next-generation technology fab network, it is very heavy in terms of capital returns required and the investments required to go accomplish that," Gelsinger acknowledged. "As Intel's core business was challenged and deteriorated more quickly than many people expected, there was just such a need for capital to come from elsewhere."
The former CEO of Intel also criticized the short-term focus of financial markets, which he said clashed with the long-term nature of the transformation Intel was undergoing. He described the tension of trying to execute a multi-year strategic shift while meeting quarterly financial expectations, emphasizing that such balancing was extremely difficult. He noted that this is exactly what Lip-Bu Tan will face in the coming quarters.
"As I have spoken about, the short-termism of Wall Street makes that very challenging and why, yet again, I would say my very best to Intel and Lip-Bu in finishing that seminally important journey," said Gelsinger. "Being a CEO for a transforming public company I truly think is one of the hardest jobs available, because you are trying to do a five-plus-year transformation on a 90-day shot clock, with heavy financial expectation — that is hard."
In summary, Pat Gelsinger made it clear that despite leaving, he wants Intel — the company that he spent decades in — to succeed and believes in the path the company is on. He reiterated his full support for both the board and Lip-Bu Tan as they continue forward with the IDM 2.0 vision.
Stay On the Cutting Edge: Get the Tom's Hardware Newsletter
Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.

Anton Shilov is a contributing writer at Tom’s Hardware. Over the past couple of decades, he has covered everything from CPUs and GPUs to supercomputers and from modern process technologies and latest fab tools to high-tech industry trends.
-
-Fran- "The former CEO of Intel also criticized the short-term focus of financial markets, which he said clashed with the long-term nature of the transformation Intel was undergoing."Reply
Ding, ding, ding, ding.
We can't have nice things because of venture capitalists being vultures in the worst of ways. Where are the incentives to keep companies thriving when you can just short them for instant big margins. Makes no sense there's no stricter regulation for it.
Regards. -
jp7189
I wouldnt put all VCs in that camp. There are definitely some long thinkers amoung them. I think the big problem are the casual investors and fund managers that are hunting quick profits and dont care to look deeper in the business.-Fran- said:"The former CEO of Intel also criticized the short-term focus of financial markets, which he said clashed with the long-term nature of the transformation Intel was undergoing."
Ding, ding, ding, ding.
We can't have nice things because of venture capitalists being vultures in the worst of ways. Where are the incentives to keep companies thriving when you can just short them for instant big margins. Makes no sense there's no stricter regulation for it.
Regards.
Running a public company gives you that influx of funding, but exposes you to the expectations of the wankers. That's the tradeoff, and one of the reasons why many large companies stay private and some public companies privatize. Intel isn't in a position to do that.. so wankers it is. -
DS426
Many companies are of national security interests in the U.S. and profitable, such as Northrup-Grumman, Lockheed Martin, *scratch this one off for now* Boeing, and other Defense contractors and organizations in those supply chain webs and support providers. Intel just probably needs to get a little more in bed with Uncle Sam like those companies to lock in more lucrative contracts.phead128 said:Intel should be partially state owned if it's truly a national security asset.
I say that as DOGE is cleaning house, so actually too late for that, lololol. -
DS426 Oh and thank you author for not using the same photo of Pat G. on the excavator as it's been used a million times now.Reply -
TheSecondPower
Venture capitalist are by definition people who invest in startups, which is an investment that usually returns no profit at all for the first few years. Intel isn't a startup and therefore has no venture capitalist investors. The problem is the stockholders: billionares, 401k managers, and stock speculators. If you have a 401k plan your 401k manager might be pressuring Intel to make short-term gains.-Fran- said:We can't have nice things because of venture capitalists being vultures in the worst of ways. Where are the incentives to keep companies thriving when you can just short them for instant big margins. Makes no sense there's no stricter regulation for it. -
jg.millirem ‘He reiterated his full support for both the board and Lip-Bu Tan as they continue forward with the IDM 2.0 vision.’Reply
Aw gee whiz, I’m all choked up. One big corporate family. -
parkerthon
Correct. And for people that think going private is better, let me introduce you to our friend Private Equity who is even more notrious for buying up middling privately held companies, burying them in debt to the hilt, charging lucrative management fees, and stripping them for parts after they don't track for a 300% ROI after 3 years. Capitalism is a brutal world. Intel is simply horribly underperforming for a company with a market cap north of 100 billion, so it's understandable they are harshly criticized for their mistakes.TheSecondPower said:Venture capitalist are by definition people who invest in startups, which is an investment that usually returns no profit at all for the first few years. Intel isn't a startup and therefore has no venture capitalist investors. The problem is the stockholders: billionares, 401k managers, and stock speculators. If you have a 401k plan your 401k manager might be pressuring Intel to make short-term gains.
As an American chip maker, I wantIntel to succeed and rise from the ashes. More recently though, I can't just dismiss the defective products, massive PR screw ups, and huge losses. Looking back historically too, they have missed so many busses(e.g. GPUs, mobile, ARM), that they are clearly where they are today due to a lack of vision by their leaders. If I'm being brutally honest, I believe they got fat and happy in the late 90's and abused their market brand dominance ever since until competition finally caught up with them. Took about 15-20 years, so when it happened, why was anyone surprised?
I don't think companies should be supported by investor money forever because of their brand or being some country's crown jewel. Using Intel as an example of how investors conspire to short a company and push it down is not a very good example. Intel has many challenges, and many of them have been there for a long time. As much as I want Intel to turn it around, it seems foolish at this point to invest in them. Forget the big money or the dumb money, it's right there on the wall. Their numbers suck and nothing about their outlook inspires great confidence. I don't think this is capitalist vultures as much as the market recognizing how bleak things look. -
bit_user I clicked on the article with a cynical mindset, thinking that his "advice" was really just a transparent attempt to rehabilitate his image. I still think that, but I don't really disagree with any of the remarks attributed to him. I do like his analogy of the "90-day shot clock", which is a basketball metaphor (for those who didn't know).Reply -
bit_user
It's not the venture capitalists, but rather the market traders. VCs actually will invest in a company with a multi-year RoI timescale, but mostly in startups and with an eye towards getting a multiple return on their investment. Once a company is publicly traded, then you have to worry about folks like day traders and those on Wall St. (i.e. big fund managers).-Fran- said:We can't have nice things because of venture capitalists being vultures in the worst of ways.
I think part of the problem is that we no longer penalize short-term capital gains like we used to. That removed the disincentive for traders to try and make a quick buck, then dump a stock and move on.-Fran- said:Where are the incentives to keep companies thriving when you can just short them for instant big margins. Makes no sense there's no stricter regulation for it.
It's politically unpopular to bring it back, but I think it's one of the easier & cheaper ways to improve the long-term health of US companies.