In recent months, Intel has been facing significant turbulence and challengesAmidst the struggles surrounding AI transformation, operational losses, and mounting pressure from competitors, the company's CEO, Pat Gelsinger, was initially optimistic about the company's trajectory, boldly stating last month that Intel was making progressHowever, a shocking turn of events unfolded as Gelsinger abruptly announced his resignation on December 1st.

Intel's announcement on December 3 revealed that Gelsinger had stepped down and relinquished his board seatsIn light of this sudden departure, Intel has appointed David Zinsner, the Chief Financial Officer, and Michelle Johnston Holthaus, the new Chief Product Officer, as interim co-CEOs while the board searches for a permanent replacement.

Gelsinger, a veteran with over 40 years at Intel, returned to the company in 2021 after a brief hiatus during which the company saw a decline in its market dominance

His ambitious plans, dubbed "all in on advanced manufacturing," were aimed at reinvigorating Intel's foundry business and restoring its status as a leader in chip manufacturingWhile Gelsinger's era at Intel is marked by significant technological advancements, the business performance and stock price have steadily declined, leading to questions about his effectiveness as a leader.

The board reportedly lost faith in Gelsinger's ability to turn around the company's fortunes, favoring a strategy that focuses more on product-centric initiatives rather than Gelsinger's emphasis on manufacturing technologiesThis divergence in strategy may have contributed to the CEO's sudden exit.

Analysts believe that Gelsinger's resignation signifies a critical turning point for Intel's strategic directionThe fate of his legacy, particularly the ambitious 18A manufacturing process, hangs in the balance, and there are concerns about whether Intel can navigate a potential breakup as it seeks a sustainable path forward.

Having spent more than four decades with Intel, Gelsinger's departure marks the end of a significant chapter for the company

• Alibaba Sells HighLuck Retail for HKD 13.138 Billion
• Offline Retail: A Once-in-Two-Decade Opportunity?
• The Biggest Risks in Financial Markets for 2025
• Dollar Rises Despite Fed Rate Cut: Here's Why
• Lincoln in China: Merger Fears Resurface

His return in 2021 came at a critical juncture when Intel's reputation was waning, and the market was increasingly dominated by competitors like TSMC and AMDUpon his ascension to the CEO position, he was hailed as the potential savior of Intel, vowing to rescue its foundry business and regain the title of industry leader.

Throughout his tenure, Gelsinger focused on pushing Intel towards advanced manufacturing processes and advocating for subsidies under the CHIPS ActDespite these efforts, Intel struggled to keep pace with its rivals, facing disappointments in securing funding and achieving expected sales figuresThe lack of success culminated in the announcement last week that the Commerce Department would be providing only $7.865 billion in subsidies, below the initially announced $8.5 billion.

In addition to the challenges posed by competitors gaining ground on Intel's core business, the company's alarming second-quarter financial report unveiled unexpected losses and grim sales forecasts

This led Intel to suspend dividends that had been paid consistently since 1992 and announce layoffs of over 15%. Investors watched with concern as Intel's stock plunged, leading to a significant loss in market value—over half its worth in recent years.

The flurry of signs pointed towards a company still in dire straits, further complicated by reports of conflicts between Gelsinger and the board regarding market share recovery strategiesAs tensions escalated, Gelsinger was presented with a choice: retire or be dismissedUltimately, he opted to exit the company he had served for so long.

Analysts now speculate that this departure might signal a substantial strategy shift for IntelThe emphasis on "advanced manufacturing" may be sidelined in favor of a "product-first" approach, as articulated by Frank Yeary, the board's independent chairmanYeary noted that the board's primary objective moving forward must be to place products at the center of their operations.

Chris Caso, a Wolfe Research analyst, argues that this new direction might open the company up to a more profitable approach

Although Gelsinger successfully advanced Intel's technical roadmap, the competition, especially in the AI domain, puts pressure on Intel to come up with an executable strategyCitigroup analysts also emphasized that while the short-term implications of Gelsinger's retirement might present opportunities, a long-term viewpoint captures the realities posed by the lack of technical leadership.

The uncertainty about the future of the legacy Gelsinger had committed to—especially concerning the critical 18A manufacturing process—adds another layer of complexityGelsinger had notably staked his reputation on the success of this technology, forecasting its market entry by the second half of 2025.

With the transition to new leadership, attention now turns to whether the company can effectively execute this ambitious planDaniel Newman, CEO of Futurum Group, articulates that emphasizing the return of manufacturing capabilities in-house will ultimately define the future of the company and the viability of Gelsinger's legacy.

Vivek Arya, an analyst at Bank of America, cautioned that achieving the development targets for the 18A process could incur escalating costs and require substantial validation from significant fabless customers

This, he notes, is crucial for positioning Intel as a valued partner in the competitive landscape featuring companies like NVIDIA.

Logan Purk, a senior research analyst at Edward Jones, remarks on the precariousness of Intel's situation; if the company cannot deliver on the 18A promises, optimism will be replaced with despair, especially given the gap in technological advancement versus competitors.

Furthermore, Intel's recent decision to appoint two interim co-CEOs, Zinsner and Holthaus, has sparked speculation about a potential corporate split in the futureAnalysts perceive this organizational change as a hint towards creating operating and financial independence among its foundry and product divisionsWhile a split may provide a focused approach—allowing the foundry to seek new clients, including competitors—it poses its own set of inherent challenges and necessitates strategic alignment with market demands.

Regardless of the outcome, the new leadership at Intel must tackle formidable hurdles