Intel’s once dominant position in the semiconductor industry has eroded into a cautionary tale. Does the current situation make the company vulnerable to a breakup or an acquisition bid?
While AMD and NVIDIA sprinted ahead, capturing market share, mindshare, and the AI growth narrative, Intel stalled. Its inability to execute on next-gen chip rollouts, capitalize on the foundry business, or maintain architectural leadership has left the company trailing in nearly every performance metric that matters.
In a prior Forbes piece, I made it clear: this decline isn’t just a case of bad timing. The issue lies in cultural inertia, poor leadership choices, and a lack of visionary strategy, which have transformed Intel from a bellwether into a bloated, reactive giant. Its current leadership, while vocal about transformation, hasn’t shown credible evidence of regaining the offensive.
The result? On paper, the stock appears inexpensive, but patience makes it feel costly. Investors have been clinging to the unfulfilled promise of a turnaround for years. It’s not that Intel lacks valuable assets. The strategy to unlock these assets has been either muddled or entirely absent.
The Foundry Jewel In The Crown Opportunity
Intel’s foundry ambition was bold: to challenge TSMC and Samsung by becoming a full-service manufacturer for the world’s chip designers. The logic was sound: own the infrastructure, capture margin, and secure Western chip sovereignty, but execution has been, at best, uneven. Capital costs have soared, returns remain distant, and Intel’s credibility with major customers is still catching up after years of overpromising and underdelivering.
The Street has largely discounted this effort, and it shows in the stock’s multiple. But that may be a mistake.
Here’s the twist: in today’s geopolitical climate, where semiconductors are national security assets, Intel’s U.S.-based foundry operations are not just valuable, they’re strategic. Governments want sovereign supply chains. Major chip designers want a domestic alternative to Asia. Intel is sitting on an asset uniquely positioned to benefit from this trend.
Intel is no longer a single entity; it now encompasses two distinct narratives within its sprawling structure.
On one side: a legacy chip business that’s lost ground to AMD and Nvidia, plagued by inconsistent execution and a more reactive culture than visionary. On the other: a capital-heavy, misunderstood foundry business that, despite its growing pains, sits at the center of global chip sovereignty conversations.
As the U.S. and EU pour billions into domestic semiconductor production, Intel’s foundry arm has inadvertently become a geopolitical asset. Defense contractors seeking to secure supply chains, sovereign wealth funds with national mandates, and even Asian players seeking U.S. credibility are aware of this. While Intel’s sheer scale and capital expenditure requirements may deter private equity, a consortium or strategic carve-out remains a viable option.
What’s actually at stake? That foundry value is trapped, held back by Intel’s cumbersome structure, slow decision-making, and internal conflicts of interest. Split out, the foundry could pursue its customers, define its strategy, and attract the valuation it deserves.
What will happen if Intel’s leadership doesn’t unlock that value? You can be sure someone else will try.
Today’s market quickly uncovers undervalued strategic assets.
Intel Breakup?
Intel doesn’t need another engineer at the helm. Intel requires a visionary leader who can simplify the story and establish clarity where bureaucracy has obscured the boundaries.
A bold CEO would shrink the chip bloat, confront the underperformance head-on, and redirect capital into what matters: the foundry. They’d monetize low-value, non-core businesses, create clean segment reporting, and reframe Intel not as a legacy chipmaker but as a national platform for advanced semiconductor manufacturing.
Think of Microsoft under Nadella or IBM’s pivot to services, only with sharper execution. The right leadership would embrace partnerships (even former rivals), tap government tailwinds, and focus the street’s attention on the structural upside buried in the foundry.
For an activist investor, the roadmap isn’t complicated. Demand transparency between business units. Push for timeline clarity on unlocking foundry value, whether via partial spin, joint venture, or strategic equity participation. Pressure the board to explore structural separation. And above all, instill urgency.
Because what Intel lacks is not capital, talent, or assets, it’s the courage to act decisively. It’s up to time whether this courage originates internally or is externally imposed. The real question is who will get there first and who’ll profit from the move.
Breakup or Buyout?
The biggest mispricing in Intel today isn’t its margin compression or lagging revenue growth; it’s the way the foundry is still being treated like a side project. Wall Street views it as a cost center rather than a strategic asset. That’s the blind spot.
Investors won’t see a true earnings re-rating until they understand who is driving the company or who is about to take over. If the foundry sits buried beneath Intel’s bloated structure, the market will continue to misread its upside.
But that’s starting to shift. Smart investors are watching for clues: insider buying, activist stake-building, tighter segment disclosure, JV chatter, and the sudden alignment of political and industrial interests around domestic chip sovereignty.
As I recently stated, “Intel’s execution is subpar, yet its foundry presents a valuable asset.” Breakup or buyout feels more plausible than the market’s pricing in.”
Pay attention—not just to the earnings, but to the structure. Once the market gains confidence in the foundry’s independence or ownership, the valuation will not simply rebound. It will re-rate. Fast.
Intel Breaking Up Is Hard To Do
The longer Intel delays meaningful change, the more compelling the breakup case or bid opportunity becomes. The company is not a turnaround stock but rather a hidden restructuring opportunity.
Investors who are astute should not wait for Intel to resolve its issues. What is the more advantageous option? That pressure, whether from activists, strategic buyers, or visionary CEOs, forces change from the outside in. The roadmap is clear. The foundry is in control. The rest is just capital, courage, and timing.
The real question isn’t if someone moves to secure an Intel bid or a breakup. The real question is not if someone makes a move on Intel, but rather who gets there first and whether you were already in a position when they did.
Read the full article here