Intel CEO Otellini Retiring In May

Tyler Durden's picture

One by one, everyone is quietly heading for the exits.

From the press release:

Intel Corporation today announced that the company’s president and CEO, Paul Otellini, has decided to retire as an officer and director at the company’s annual stockholders’ meeting in May, starting an orderly leadership transition over the next six months. Otellini’s decision to retire will bring to a close a remarkable career of nearly 40 years of continuous service to the company and its stockholders.

 “Paul Otellini has been a very strong leader, only the fifth CEO in the company’s great 45-year history, and one who has managed the company through challenging times and market transitions,” said Andy Bryant, chairman of the board. “The board is grateful for his innumerable contributions to the company and his distinguished tenure as CEO over the last eight years.”

“I’ve been privileged to lead one of the world’s greatest companies,” Otellini said. “After almost four decades with the company and eight years as CEO, it’s time to move on and transfer Intel’s helm to a new generation of leadership. I look forward to working with Andy, the board and the management team during the six-month transition period, and to being available as an advisor to management after retiring as CEO.”

The board of directors will conduct the process to choose Otellini’s successor and will consider internal and external candidates for the job.

In addition, the company also announced that the board has approved the promotion of three senior leaders to the position of executive vice president: Renee James, head of Intel’s software business; Brian Krzanich, chief operating officer and head of worldwide manufacturing; and Stacy Smith, chief financial officer and director of corporate strategy.

During Otellini’s tenure as CEO -- from the second quarter of 2005 through the third quarter of 2012 -- Intel:

    Generated cash from operations of $107 billion
    Made $23.5 billion in dividend payments
    Increased the quarterly dividend 181 percent from $0.08 to $0.225

From the end of 2005 through the end of 2011, Intel achieved record revenue and net income. During this period, annual revenue grew from $38.8 billion to $54 billion, while annual earnings-per-share grew from $1.40 to $2.39.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
orangegeek's picture

Yep - it's that time - retire if you can and sell your stock - all of it in the case of Intel.


Should see a bounce this week, followed by euphoric media, followed by a continued downturn that will exceed that of the one in 2007/2008.

GetZeeGold's picture



Bullish for AAPL.....just sayin.

Popo's picture

Sorry for my ignorance:  But is there an increase in CEO's retiring?  Who else?  I haven't noticed it happening any faster than usual.

The Wizard of Oz's picture


Gordon Freeman's picture

Now TD sees TEOTWAWKI in a long-expected corporate retirement.  ZH is continuing its ever-steepening slide into irrelevance...

Hammerabi's picture

Give it time Gordon. Soon you'll see the light.

The Master's picture

Forgive Gordon for he knows not what he does

JohnG's picture

Otellini didn't build that.

j0nx's picture

Wrong. It is the fault of those stymieing Republicans who block our dear leader from being able to implement his plans for recovery. Or at least that's how it will be spun by the MSM and the majority of the people will lap it up. It will NEVER be the fault of Obama until the MSM is disbanded and all of its owners and employees are blackballed from the industry for life and relegated to asking me if I want fries with my burger.

Death and Gravity's picture

Yep, jus as Intel won the CPU wars against AMD, now Intel is taking a beating by the ARM multitudes.

Jumbotron's picture

Yep, jus as Intel won the CPU wars against AMD, now Intel is taking a beating by the ARM multitudes.


Dead bang on.  Intel will never....NEVER....make a chip as power effecient as an ARM chip simply because of the x-86 legacy.  They wed themselves to Windows and they will slide into ever increasing amounts of irelevency as time and energy constraints go on.

Jumbotron's picture

This just in......AMD is on their way out of the x-86 market.  They just killed off their entire line of big core x-86 chips and are turning into an ARM server company.....



Matt's picture

AMd fell way behind on x86, went in the wrong direction, their newer chips are slower than previous generations.

As for Intel, they can certainly make more efficient chips than ARM manufcaturers, because they are way ahead on die-shrinks. Even if they use twice as many transistors as a compareable ARM chip, they will soon be making chips on 14 nm process. Inside the United States, at that!

Meanwhile, ARM chips are rolling out at 28 nm. So the Intel chips could still use half the power, and have a lower manufacturing cost, even with all the legacy inefficiencies. I would not count Intel out. The bigger issue is the market as a whole.

Jumbotron's picture's not just about die size.  It's about the instruction set that is used.  X-86 is still primarily CISC based instruciton coding (Complex Instruction Set Computing) ARM is a RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computing) design.


While these distinctions are leveling off over time, it is much easier to ramp up the compute power of a RISC chip by adding additional instructions than it is to retask a CISC chip into a more RISC like chip.  Plus...many of you....including you, I would assume do not know the history of the ARM chip.  The designers actually found out how effecient the chip was when it continued to operate on trickle power left over in the transistors and other parts of the motherboard.  This from an article on the history of ARM.....

The power test tools they were using were unreliable and approximate, but good enough to ensure this rule of thumb power requirement. When the first test chips came back from the lab on the 26 April 1985, Furber plugged one into a development board, and was happy to see it working perfectly first time.

Deeply puzzling, though, was the reading on the multimeter connected in series with the power supply. The needle was at zero: the processor seemed to be consuming no power whatsoever.

As Wilson tells it: “The development board plugged the chip into had a fault: there was no current being sent down the power supply lines at all. The processor was actually running on leakage from the logic circuits. So the low-power big thing that the ARM is most valued for today, the reason that it's on all your mobile phones, was a complete accident."

Wilson had, it turned out, designed a powerful 32-bit processor that consumed no more than a tenth of a Watt.


Intel has never made anything like that nor will they.

awakening's picture

Updated 11/19/2012@10:15am: AMD contacted us with an official denial of the story and stated that Kaveri and the big cores are still on track.

Rather odd also that comments have been disabled on that site =/

Eireann go Brach's picture

Who did he bang is the question?

kaiserhoff's picture

Run, Forest, Run!

LawsofPhysics's picture

"One by one, everyone is quietly heading for the exits."


Unless they are heading to Mars, it really doesn't matter.

Everybodys All American's picture

Paul Otellini was on Obama's jobs council and endorsed Romney this year. Elections have consequences. I can't blame him for stepping out of the way of this mess coming.

rtalcott's picture

Who cares...he wasn't much better than Barrett who was an 'effing disaster.

Atlantis Consigliore's picture

Run Canada is the place to run to.; 

kito's picture

@atlantis---why canada?

is it the

1) really low taxes?

2) the lax gun laws?

3) the safe unleveraged banking system?

4) the debt free government?

5) their staunch soveriegn independent streak that would prevent them from acceding to u.s. demands?

explain, please...............

Dismal Scientist's picture

"One by one, everyone is quietly heading for the exits."


Or he's just retiring. End of story. No conspiracy, hidden agenda or suspicious motive...but how dull is that, and certainly not of interest to the 99% that read this site...

Rainman's picture

Otellini said Windows 8 wasn't ready pre-release. Intel says the claim was "unsubstantiated".,2817,2410253,00.asp

KidHorn's picture

He's just an old guy retiring. End of story.

Whiner's picture

Get rid of the pop-up ads. They are like cockroaches.try a subscription service, a low one.

JohnG's picture


Lost Wages's picture

This happened soon after Apple said they were going to stop using Intel chips.

Matt's picture

Is AAPL seriously going to ARM for desktops and workstations?

bugs_'s picture

it may not mean TEOTWAWKI but it certainly means I'll finally get more registers to do assembly programming with.  it may also mean a renaissance in compiler optimization technology.  blow the dust off those books.

dark_matter's picture

And for the first time there is no heir apparent. Maybe nobody wants the job.

Matt's picture

FTA: "I look forward to working with Andy ..."

It sounds like Andy is being groomed as the replacement over the next 6 months?

dvfco's picture

I read somewhere that over 20,000 Wall Street related higher-ups (in the US and financial institutions around the world) had voluntarily retired and jumped ship within the past few years.  I am not speaking of the tens of thousands that lost their jobs.  These are people who could have stayed, but left.   One example included the 2nd and 3rd at Goldman Sachs who retired on the same day last year and one was reported as saying he did it because he would never have wanted to be the one stuck running the company in the coming years. One guy was David Heller (who also owns part of the 76ers and the other was Eisler - both in their early 40s). It was when I read an article about their retirement that I saw the reference to mass retirements by basically anyone who had struck it rich on Wall Street. Those two, for example, were among the last remaining partners from when the firm went public.  They have to each be worth over $100,000,000 and why the hell would they want to risk being there when their firm goes bust, gets brought up on charges, or otherwise gets jerked around by the greedy whores in D.C. and every state government?

After the Internet Bubble burst, I had a friend who was a trader quit. He said, "Do I really want to do this job for $250,000 a year? I don't need the stress." He was about 34 and now takes care of his kids and his wife works. He said, "I know how obnoxious that sounds because 95% of America would love the job, but it just isn't the same when I've been pulling in $250,000 per month for the past several years."

In one way, you can't blame him. If I had enough money, I wouldn't work another day in my life. I'd buy gold, bury it, keep some cash in different banks and safe deposit boxes, and spend time working for charities and traveling (before the all hell breaks loose and you won't want to leave the farm).

But, Ayn Rand appears to have been a true genius. Look at Hostess - "You want how much to bake the fucking Donettes? You're going to tell me how when you will and won't work? Wait, you think you can force me to keep bread products delivered in different trucks that those with sweets? FUUUUUUCK YOU! I've got a better idea - why don't I liquidate the company, sell the recipes and make more in a month than I could make in the next 50 years with you fucking greedy union pigs. You think you've got the leverage? OK"

I think we'll see more and more of this. The brinksmanship in the Hostess bankruptcy was truly bizarre. Imagine one union crushing the whole business when they represented less than 1/3rd of the workforce. Honestly, I have to complement the owners stance in 'not negotiating with terrorists." I'm sure they felt terrible about 17,000 of the 18,000 people that were going to lose a job. But, when you can do what Entemenn's did as well as numerous other bakeries and sell out to a Mexican bakery for hundreds of millions, why take the stress of dealing with asshole union heads, paying Obamacare, and feeding the beast. As in "Atlas Shrugged", the copper miner saw collapse was inevitable sooner than others and jumped ship first. He also realized it was better to try to convince others to collapse the system, because only then could they start rebuilding. We, unfortunately, are in the same boat. Make sure you've got a life raft and you're wearing your life vest. It's going to be a rough ride. Noah's storm will look like a rough month and a half after what we are going to experience in the next 20 years.

Then, maybe, true unbridled and unfettered capitalism will be permitted to thrive somewhere on earth and people will beat down the doors to be allowed entry. No Central Bankers, no government control of all media and means of production, etc. will lead the world back to a place that the US was at some point in my childhood or before that. We have either invented or perfected just about everything mankind uses and we've let it all slip away. Like the crack addict, we've got to hit rock-bottom before we can rebuild.