Skip to content
All holdings

Intel

INTCCommentary

Semiconductor manufacturer designing and producing CPUs, chips, and computing hardware.Yahoo Finance ↗intel.com

4 takes · first discussed Jan 25, 2025 · last Aug 29, 2025

Where they land
Commentary
Who's weighed in
SacksChamathGFriedberg
Takes
4
First discussed
Jan 25, 2025

Commentary only — they've discussed this name but haven't made a call on it, so we don't attribute any call return to it. The stock's price chart and the takes are below.

How the stock has moved

The price since they started discussing it. Click a mention to see where it stood — these are comments, not calls.

prices through Jul 13, 2026
0%$139.63$19.232 comments near Jan 25, 20252 comments near Aug 29, 2025+441.4%Jan 27, 2025Jul 10, 2026
click a chip for the quote + move since comment

The discussion

The hosts hold a mixed but broadly cautious view of Intel, with earlier commentary sharply negative and later discussion more constructive around government intervention. Friedberg and guest Thomas LaFont are both bearish, pointing to Intel's ~70% stock decline over five years — in stark contrast to Broadcom's and Nvidia's massive gains — and attributing the failure to structural corporate governance breakdowns at the board and CEO level rather than any cyclical downturn. Chamath and Sacks, speaking later in the context of CHIPS Act funding, take a more neutral stance, each expressing measured support for the U.S. government taking equity in Intel rather than providing free grants, arguing this better protects taxpayers, creates proper incentives, and mirrors a strategic-champion model while preserving capital market transparency. There is broad agreement that Intel's trajectory has been deeply problematic, but Chamath and Sacks see the revised government funding structure as a meaningful step toward a more defensible outcome.

How they got there

ChamathChamath1 mention since Aug 29, 2025
NeutralE241Aug 29, 2025

Chamath argues the US government taking equity in Intel (rather than giving free grants) is the right model — it gives taxpayers upside, mirrors China's strategic champion approach but without a golden vote, and allows capital markets to finance the business competitively.

I think that this approach is the much better approach, which is to say we can do exactly what China did with a couple of tweaks... have complete transparency, allow the capital markets to finance these businesses, but give them a chance40:50
SacksSacks1 mention since Aug 29, 2025
NeutralE241Aug 29, 2025

Sacks supports the government taking equity in Intel in exchange for CHIPS Act funding as a better deal for taxpayers than free grants, creating proper incentives and allowing possible upside recovery, given the national security imperative to onshore chip manufacturing.

If you are going to hand out billions of dollars to these companies, you're better off at least, again, getting something for it, having the taxpayers have some upside in it, allowing the government to recoup, and creating the right43:27
FriedbergFriedberg1 mention since Jan 25, 2025
NegativeE212Jan 25, 2025

Friedberg contrasts Intel's ~70% decline over 5 years with Broadcom's 8x and Nvidia's 20x gains, framing Intel's underperformance as a structural failure.

Intel over the last 5 years is what, down 70%? So, you know, I think there's a big divergence.1:46:59
GGuests1 mention since Jan 25, 2025
Thomas LaffontNegativeE212Jan 25, 2025

Thomas LaFont attributes Intel's massive underperformance to a complete failure of corporate governance at both the board and CEO level, framing it as a structural rather than cyclical problem.

I think Intel really missed. It's a complete abdication of corporate governance at the board level and the CEO level.1:47:34
iAbout these quotes
Quotes are machine-transcribed from the episode audio — use the Listen links to verify any take against the source, or the ⚑ link to report a problem. Takes marked unverified, low-conviction, or commentary-only never move stances, the index, or the funds.