I expect the real issue here is that Cotton doesn’t abide by having a non-white CEO at the helm of a good ol’ American company. That said, Cadence was caught with their pants down, and should be punished accordingly.
I expect the real issue here is that Cotton doesn’t abide by having a non-white CEO at the helm of a good ol’ American company. That said, Cadence was caught with their pants down, and should be punished accordingly.
He is refering to Intel spending large sums of money on stock buybacks instead investing it in their business.
Apple, Amazon, Google, Salesforce, Qualcomm, and Broadcom all did the same. Why is this unique to Intel in this situation?
If Apple (or another one of the companies you listed) massively collapsed from their leadership position, it would also be a point of discussion around whether stock buyback was justified.
Mind you, I don’t think nationalisation is likely to help Intel or that it is a desirable outcome, I am just sharing the reasoning.
What in the world are you talking about? Intel has not “collapsed”?
By all metrics (product performance, market share, capitalization/stock price) they are in free fall and have been for half a decade.
No need to be overly pedantic.
Who is being pedantic? I made a single statement of the fact that Intel hasn’t collapsed. Where are you getting your info from?
They still make more money than AMD.
They still make more chip income than Huawei.
How have they collapsed?
I am good man, think whatever you want.
Intel annual net income for 2024 was $-18.756B, a 1210.48% decline from 2023. Intel annual net income for 2023 was $1.689B, a 78.92% decline from 2022. Intel annual net income for 2022 was $8.014B, a 59.66% decline from 2021.
Stop asking dumbass chatbots for your info. This is wrong: https://m.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/INTC/intel/revenue
Even if you take one time write off out… Intel has not been profitable since 2023.
Because Intel was in a hole and has no business distributing so much capital they need, when their entire business is basically intense research and 10 year+ investments.
More specifically, none of those other companies are silicon fabs.
That’s just a small part TBH. They are like a poster child for corporate dysfunction and game of thrones-ish drama in the executive levels, and with Pat gone they are circling the drain.
Still making BILLIONS in profit. I’m not sure what you mean.
Then why is the US taxpyer funding their capex?
They aren’t?
What is the 2.5 billion in this case here then?