I sometimes wonder how much time & energy it takes to be a board member. If he's also running IFS, it can't be very much ...unless he has staff that exist just to help him fulfill most of his board-related responsibilities.
You'd be surprised. The primary responsibility of installing your good ole boy buddy or private equity firm raider in the executive positions actually doesn't take too much time. You do have get their monstrous compensation package signed off though and ensure it in no way ties them to any company performance goals.
Actual corporate oversight does take quite a bit of time, but don't be ridiculous, no one does that anymore.
"You do have get their monstrous compensation package signed off "
not as difficult as one might surmise. turns out that 'compensation committees' are largely populated by Other Megacorp managements. one hand washes the other, and any 'director' that complains, much less votes against any 'monstrous compensation package' will get two things: 1 - their package will get torpedoed by those they offend, and those folks friends, and so on 2 - when their term is up, they'll lose the seat at each and every board they were on
CEOs and boards are a protection racket. Their paycheck is given in the hopes that they won’t completely pillage the company. Moussolini said: “Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”
The corollary is that corporations are inherently fascist.
The main exception I take is the idea that CEOs aren't accountable. I'm no defender of executive compensation, but we should also consider that the average tenure of a publicly-traded US corporate CEO is only about 18 months, last I heard. Sometimes, all it takes is a couple disappointing quarters and they're the one that takes a fall.
That doesn't justify their compensation levels, but it does go a little way towards explaining why they're so keen to get the loot while they can.
It doesn't take much time or energy to be a non-executive director. Usually only a couple of days a month, it is most definitely a part-time job. It is the CEO and other executives who do the day-to-day business of a company and who set strategic directions. The board just has to meet every now and then - about once a month or so - to approve that strategic direction and to convince themselves that the CxO's are doing their jobs.
The more in trouble a company is the more often the directors have to meet, e.g. on the verge of bankruptcy, making continual losses and so on. If the companys running fine, ticking over making huge profits - and despite recent problems Intel is still hugely profitable - then they don't have a lot to do. And also the smaller the company is, the more likley you are to have few non-executive directors, with most of the directors being executive directors (i.e. CxO's as well as being on the board). A small company may have a board of only 4 or 5 people, with most or all of them being executives as well. Big publicaly traded companies tend to have larger, boards, e.g. 12 people, which leads to most of them being non-executive, and appointed by large shareholders, e.g. PE firms, to keep an eye - but not day-to-day run - things, and to have a say in the appointment of executives.
There are people who all they do is be the non-executive directors of multiple companies. Especially someone employed - contracted really - by a big equity firm who may have a non-executive seat on a board, and use that person to represent them on the boards of several different companies. I've seen non-executive directors serve on the boards of six different companies at the same time.
Thanks. So, does the work ever involve any sort of fact-checking or keeping the executives honest and rooted in reality?
Also, can you comment on how common it is for one to be a board member or executive of companies within the same value chain? I get the sense that it happens more than it seems like it should.
Depends on Indian anti-competition law, I suppose. If he was transparent with Intel and they agreed on the basis of bringing in more business for their ISF business, then I don't see a problem for Intel. I think their main concerns would probably be around protecting sensitive IP.
The issue could be a little more tricky for Tata Electronics, since they should try to avoid undue influence in their selection of fab partners.
Boggles the mind to see just how much time Intel sat still doing almost nothing positive with the prodigious R&D expenditures it was reporting regularly, secure in the company-wide fantasy that no one was in a position to offer it any sort of competition in the server and consumer markets. All the while AMD was burning the midnight oil spending a comparative pittance on R&D right up until AMD zoomed past Intel like it was sitting still. Which it literally was. Intel's stock price is richly deserved--if anything, it should be less than what it is. Intel managed to lose the performance & process crown to AMD, and Apple as a customer, all at almost the same time. Now, all Intel can speak of is how much money it intends to spend to manufacture competitive products at some unknown point in the future. Intel has long self-organized as a monopoly business--it can no longer survive by doing so--its monopolist days are done. It is unknown if the company can make the long haul.
> Intel sat still doing almost nothing positive with the prodigious R&D > expenditures it was reporting regularly
They didn't. They had Ice Lake SP ready to go for probably a couple years before the 10 nm fabs could handle a chip that large.
Then, there was that whole Optane thing you might've heard about. That was not only R&D into hardware, but also the massive software overhauls needed to unleash the potential of NV DIMMs.
They also churned out Cooper Lake, for CPU-based deep learning workloads, which I just learned that even Sapphire Rapids doesn't fully catch up to (still no AVX-512 BFloat16 support). I think that says something about when Cooper Lake was started.
And, on the software side of things, they've been incredibly busy with oneAPI and deep learning software frameworks to support deep learning on CPUs, FPGAs, GPUs, and dedicated AI hardware.
They also tried a failed push into datacenter networking, in case you forgot. There was that OmniPath 100 Gbps interconnect that had a CPU-direct connection in their original Purley platform.
> Intel managed to lose ... Apple as a customer
That was probably just a matter of time. x86 can't match ARM in mobile, and Apple seems to really like moving its key strategic suppliers in-house. They're rumored even to be building their own workstation GPU, so they can also evict AMD from their Power Mac lineup.
> It is unknown if the company can make the long haul.
It won't go quietly. They have been adapting, like by buying a bunch of AI hardware companies, MobilEye, and building their own GPUs. And don't forget Altera. They were rumored to be interested in buying SiFive, which is a big RISC V player. And this IFS business is a big deal.
While I'm not sure they'll ever again be as dominant as they've been over the past decade, I'm sure they'll continue to be a force in shaping the computing industry.
The Dr. Randhir Thakur Tata Group situation simply looks like a pure strategic benefit to Intel’s longer term goals and objectives. It’s also a good alliance and footprint move about getting production away from our so-called other Asian friends. Among other things of course. Besides Thakur is extremely well liked by the Intel senior exec-team not only because of his exemplary earlier ‘supply chain’ achievements, but also because of his personality traits, well known hands-on innovation, integrity and high intelligence. He currently holds over 300 patents. All said and done Intel naturally loves Tata’s various already existing important business diversities and entities coinciding well with its own corporate culture. After 2030, India is expected to be the most populous country in the world. Life is good!
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
13 Comments
Back to Article
mode_13h - Saturday, August 14, 2021 - link
I sometimes wonder how much time & energy it takes to be a board member. If he's also running IFS, it can't be very much ...unless he has staff that exist just to help him fulfill most of his board-related responsibilities.flgt - Saturday, August 14, 2021 - link
You'd be surprised. The primary responsibility of installing your good ole boy buddy or private equity firm raider in the executive positions actually doesn't take too much time. You do have get their monstrous compensation package signed off though and ensure it in no way ties them to any company performance goals.Actual corporate oversight does take quite a bit of time, but don't be ridiculous, no one does that anymore.
FunBunny2 - Sunday, August 15, 2021 - link
"You do have get their monstrous compensation package signed off "not as difficult as one might surmise. turns out that 'compensation committees' are largely populated by Other Megacorp managements. one hand washes the other, and any 'director' that complains, much less votes against any 'monstrous compensation package' will get two things:
1 - their package will get torpedoed by those they offend, and those folks friends, and so on
2 - when their term is up, they'll lose the seat at each and every board they were on
nice work if you can get it.
Blastdoor - Monday, August 16, 2021 - link
CEOs and boards are a protection racket. Their paycheck is given in the hopes that they won’t completely pillage the company. Moussolini said:“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”
The corollary is that corporations are inherently fascist.
mode_13h - Tuesday, August 17, 2021 - link
The main exception I take is the idea that CEOs aren't accountable. I'm no defender of executive compensation, but we should also consider that the average tenure of a publicly-traded US corporate CEO is only about 18 months, last I heard. Sometimes, all it takes is a couple disappointing quarters and they're the one that takes a fall.That doesn't justify their compensation levels, but it does go a little way towards explaining why they're so keen to get the loot while they can.
eldakka - Sunday, August 15, 2021 - link
It doesn't take much time or energy to be a non-executive director. Usually only a couple of days a month, it is most definitely a part-time job. It is the CEO and other executives who do the day-to-day business of a company and who set strategic directions. The board just has to meet every now and then - about once a month or so - to approve that strategic direction and to convince themselves that the CxO's are doing their jobs.The more in trouble a company is the more often the directors have to meet, e.g. on the verge of bankruptcy, making continual losses and so on. If the companys running fine, ticking over making huge profits - and despite recent problems Intel is still hugely profitable - then they don't have a lot to do. And also the smaller the company is, the more likley you are to have few non-executive directors, with most of the directors being executive directors (i.e. CxO's as well as being on the board). A small company may have a board of only 4 or 5 people, with most or all of them being executives as well. Big publicaly traded companies tend to have larger, boards, e.g. 12 people, which leads to most of them being non-executive, and appointed by large shareholders, e.g. PE firms, to keep an eye - but not day-to-day run - things, and to have a say in the appointment of executives.
There are people who all they do is be the non-executive directors of multiple companies. Especially someone employed - contracted really - by a big equity firm who may have a non-executive seat on a board, and use that person to represent them on the boards of several different companies. I've seen non-executive directors serve on the boards of six different companies at the same time.
mode_13h - Monday, August 16, 2021 - link
Thanks. So, does the work ever involve any sort of fact-checking or keeping the executives honest and rooted in reality?Also, can you comment on how common it is for one to be a board member or executive of companies within the same value chain? I get the sense that it happens more than it seems like it should.
eastcoast_pete - Saturday, August 14, 2021 - link
I guess that's why Intel withdrew their offer - bummer! I guess I'll be staying put then....Gigathome - Sunday, August 15, 2021 - link
I wonder why it is legal for him to do so. Isn't it a conflict of interest as same profile in two different companies?mode_13h - Monday, August 16, 2021 - link
Depends on Indian anti-competition law, I suppose. If he was transparent with Intel and they agreed on the basis of bringing in more business for their ISF business, then I don't see a problem for Intel. I think their main concerns would probably be around protecting sensitive IP.The issue could be a little more tricky for Tata Electronics, since they should try to avoid undue influence in their selection of fab partners.
WaltC - Monday, August 16, 2021 - link
Boggles the mind to see just how much time Intel sat still doing almost nothing positive with the prodigious R&D expenditures it was reporting regularly, secure in the company-wide fantasy that no one was in a position to offer it any sort of competition in the server and consumer markets. All the while AMD was burning the midnight oil spending a comparative pittance on R&D right up until AMD zoomed past Intel like it was sitting still. Which it literally was. Intel's stock price is richly deserved--if anything, it should be less than what it is. Intel managed to lose the performance & process crown to AMD, and Apple as a customer, all at almost the same time. Now, all Intel can speak of is how much money it intends to spend to manufacture competitive products at some unknown point in the future. Intel has long self-organized as a monopoly business--it can no longer survive by doing so--its monopolist days are done. It is unknown if the company can make the long haul.mode_13h - Tuesday, August 17, 2021 - link
> Intel sat still doing almost nothing positive with the prodigious R&D> expenditures it was reporting regularly
They didn't. They had Ice Lake SP ready to go for probably a couple years before the 10 nm fabs could handle a chip that large.
Then, there was that whole Optane thing you might've heard about. That was not only R&D into hardware, but also the massive software overhauls needed to unleash the potential of NV DIMMs.
They also churned out Cooper Lake, for CPU-based deep learning workloads, which I just learned that even Sapphire Rapids doesn't fully catch up to (still no AVX-512 BFloat16 support). I think that says something about when Cooper Lake was started.
And, on the software side of things, they've been incredibly busy with oneAPI and deep learning software frameworks to support deep learning on CPUs, FPGAs, GPUs, and dedicated AI hardware.
They also tried a failed push into datacenter networking, in case you forgot. There was that OmniPath 100 Gbps interconnect that had a CPU-direct connection in their original Purley platform.
> Intel managed to lose ... Apple as a customer
That was probably just a matter of time. x86 can't match ARM in mobile, and Apple seems to really like moving its key strategic suppliers in-house. They're rumored even to be building their own workstation GPU, so they can also evict AMD from their Power Mac lineup.
> It is unknown if the company can make the long haul.
It won't go quietly. They have been adapting, like by buying a bunch of AI hardware companies, MobilEye, and building their own GPUs. And don't forget Altera. They were rumored to be interested in buying SiFive, which is a big RISC V player. And this IFS business is a big deal.
While I'm not sure they'll ever again be as dominant as they've been over the past decade, I'm sure they'll continue to be a force in shaping the computing industry.
Tom Sunday - Friday, September 3, 2021 - link
The Dr. Randhir Thakur Tata Group situation simply looks like a pure strategic benefit to Intel’s longer term goals and objectives. It’s also a good alliance and footprint move about getting production away from our so-called other Asian friends. Among other things of course. Besides Thakur is extremely well liked by the Intel senior exec-team not only because of his exemplary earlier ‘supply chain’ achievements, but also because of his personality traits, well known hands-on innovation, integrity and high intelligence. He currently holds over 300 patents. All said and done Intel naturally loves Tata’s various already existing important business diversities and entities coinciding well with its own corporate culture. After 2030, India is expected to be the most populous country in the world. Life is good!