Opinion: Could Broadcom buy Intel?

Jay Goldberg

Posts: 76   +1
Staff
What If...? Imagine your company has a supplier that has gone through some hard times. Management made some bad decisions years ago, the company struggled, lost its way in the market. Then that vendor got a new CEO who pledged to turn the company around, fix their operations, make their products more competitive. Nobody knows if they can really turn it around, but as a customer, you have better knowledge about how they are doing. Their sales people are calling regularly, showing off their latest products. Would you buy their stock? The SEC might have something to say about that, but what if instead of buying stock in the company you buy the whole company?

We thought of this the other day when speaking with an investor about Intel and the potential for someone to buy them. As we noted, Intel faces a dilemma right now – it looks to be turning the corner, but we will not see those results publicly for a few years.

Editor's Note:
Guest author Jonathan Goldberg is the founder of D2D Advisory, a multi-functional consulting firm. Jonathan has developed growth strategies and alliances for companies in the mobile, networking, gaming, and software industries.

In the interim, their stock is likely to remain under pressure, especially if they continue communicating the way they have been. The key question for the company is its ability to close the gap with TSMC in its manufacturing process. That is an incredibly expensive proposition, and no one is likely to acquire them until this is de-risked.

The trick here is that Intel is out there trying to gin up business for Intel Foundry, and so all those potential customers will be able to see for themselves how good Intel's manufacturing actually is. And they will likely know this a year before the investing public does. If Intel's stock remains depressed during that time, they might be vulnerable to a takeover.

Of course we are just wildly speculating here. Intel remains a massive company, requiring massive amounts of capital to keep moving. There are very few companies large enough to be able to afford it, even at depressed levels.

We think it is unlikely that Broadcom would buy Intel, but they could. And they will know before any of us how sustainable Intel's turnaround is.

That being said, there is one company that could pull it off – Broadcom, the industry's arch-acquirer. The math seems to work. Broadcom last year generated $28 billion in semis revenue, at what we estimate is about 70% gross margins (!!!).

That works out to about $8 billion in cost of goods sold. Assuming that most of that goes to TSMC and their ~50% gross margins, if Broadcom could transition all of its products to an internal fab, that would mean about $4 billion in savings, which gets us a long way towards a 10% return on investment for Broadcom.

There are other complexities, of course. The obvious one is, can Broadcom afford a deal of this size? And the equally obvious answer is, yes. It would be their biggest deal, but this is a company built on the premise of ever-larger acquisitions.

We have not run the credit metrics on the deal, but we are pretty sure Hock Tan is good for it. Another reality is that moving everything from TSMC to Intel is not a trivial process, it would take years, but that falls under the category of post-merger acquisition and Broadcom has a pretty rigorous process for aligning everyone's incentives really quickly.

Also read: What has Broadcom become?

And yes, there will be regulatory scrutiny, but the overlap between the two is fairly small and Broadcom is now a US company. We can also hear many people arguing that "Broadcom is done with semis, they are a software company now," but this misses the fundamental point that Broadcom is neither a semis company nor a software company, it is a private equity fund.

The biggest problem with the deal is that cost savings only go part of the way in delivering a return.

Broadcom only wants to buy businesses that throw off a lot of cash, and Intel has been burning operating cash for a while now. Which brings us back to where we began. If (when) Intel turns the corner, it should enjoy massive operating leverage. They are investing heavily right now, but when (if) their manufacturing process kicks into gear, they should start to throw off a lot of cash. Broadcom will know well before any of us how likely that is to happen.

Granted, this is all conjecture, but we think it highlights a good reason for Intel to become more circumspect in how it communicates to the Street. This scenario may not be likely, but it is definitely possible.

Permalink to story:

 
The obvious one is, can Broadcom afford a deal of this size? And the equally obvious answer is, yes
Sorry Jay, but this isn't 2021 any longer. Have you checked interest rates lately? The M&A climate in 2023 was pretty much all 'M' and no 'A', just for this very reason.


We need more competition, not less...so if that ever was to be even considered I hope the government would step in.
What the economy needs most of all is well-managed firms growing and turning profits. And Broadcom primarily supplies connectivity chips and enterprise software; they compete with Intel directly on very few points.
 
They could buy it.. I work for broadcom and they have the relationships to pull it off.

But it would leave us spread too thin after the VMWARE buy

And Hock does not want that kind of regulatory nightmare dragging down the stock prices.

If Hock was going to buy a architecture it would be ARM, something with a future and not a declining market share.

 
More likely for Nvidia to buy Intel than any other company.
I was thinking that, I'm admittedly not "in-the-know" but to me, I could see Nvidia trying to buy Intel more than Broadcom. Then again, they tried to buy ARM and that was stopped by government.

Broadcom's purchase of VMware hasn't hit their books properly yet, I know A LOT of companies now looking to move away from VMware when they next replace their hardware, the new licensing system sucks for everyone other than those already buying everything from VMware anyway. They've basically made VMware enterprise only.

Plus on a personal level, removing the free ESXi SKU just says to me they don't want anything other than Enterprise, which is fine, they can do that, surely it'll overall shrink their client base though.
 
Doubtful that Intel would sell out to anyone. Their management is too entrenched and they seem to love the competition .... but, I've been wrong before so only time will tell ......
 
Speculative, far-fetched and devoid of business reasons to actually do so. It would only serve Broadcom if they intended to kill off Intel for some reason. Wouldn't be worth the aggravation from the Dept. of Trade, SEC, and other federal orgs.

Buy Intel.
Own a money burning machine that has failed to keep a product roadmap for over 10 years.
Lose local and federal subsidies as it is now a different legal entity altogether.
Burn more money.

Unless Intel has a serious breakthrough that would keep the company afloat, I don't see how this will happen.

I'd rather have seen a speculative piece on the future of x86, why there are just 3 companies (Intel, VIA and DMP) who own licenses, apart from the Intel-AMD cross-licensing agreement for x86-64.
 
I was thinking that, I'm admittedly not "in-the-know" but to me, I could see Nvidia trying to buy Intel more than Broadcom. Then again, they tried to buy ARM and that was stopped by government.
But in this case it wouldn be stopped. Nvidia buying Intel ( or parts of it ), would have CPU and GPU offerings like AMD... and Nvidia really wants a CPU division in their portfolio.

Intel could never accept the Broadcom not because of money, but because would destroy Intel legacy, like MS did with Nokia.
Intel still has some active responsabilities with governments... thats why isn't "for sale".
 
Nvidia has CPUs. They use ARMs, and to good result. The only reason any more to have any interest in Intel-compatible CPUs is strictly for running Windows. And the AI market doesn't give a care about running Windows. If they were going to buy any CPU vendor, I could see them buying Ampere -- those 32 to 192 core ARMs seem like a good match for use in those $250,000 deskside supercomputers; and there are some like 96 or 128-core workstations for sale which have quite impressive specifications.

Someone asked them "So, ARMs don't usually have very good GPUs. What did you do about that?" "It's a workstation, it has all these PCIe slots in it so we put an RTX4090 in it. Nvidia has had ARM Linux drivers for a very long time." (And then they noted it'd take the high-dollar cards and listed a few it'd accept, whatever they call the Quadro-level cards these days.) Mesa Gallium is also fully functional on non x86/x86-64 systems so you could even have the seemingly perverse setup of an ARM CPU system with an AMD or Intel GPU if you wanted.

Those people who DO run Windows for training models, running large language models, etc., fire up Windows then run Windows Subsystem for Linux anyway. So at that point there's zero reason to not just run that on Linux directly, at which point there's also no reason to worry about what CPU is in there other than worrying about it's raw performance, and performance per watt.

Running a Linux desktop (let alone server version where there's fewer packages needed to have a full system...) on a non-x86/x86-64 system, it's not like Windows on ARM where there's all these compromises. Like they have Ubuntu desktop for ARM, IBM POWER (and PowerPC, if you have a vintage G3/G4/G5 with enough RAM in it...), and a few other CPUs, and they have 95-99% package coverage. It's just like running a desktop on x86-64. And of course in modern era, there's an excellent x86/x86-64 emulator for cases where you need to run an Intel-only Linux app, or run Wine to run some x86/x86-64 Windows apps, or steam for that matter. I mean, the have that in Windows for ARM, but Linux has that 99% app coverage so it'll be an occasional use thing, if you need it at all, versus in Windows where my understanding is that even some of the "built-in" Windows components run under emulation. (There is also a native ARM version of Wine for running Windows for ARM apps.. just in case enough Windows ARM apps come out to make that useful.)

(Why is this called WSL anyway? It's not running Windows stuff in Linux -- that's what Wine is for. Should this be Linux Subsystem for Windows? Anyway...)

Edit: I realized I did overlook the possibility of Nvidia wanting the Intel Foundry business. No comment, maybe they would buy it for that, or at least make noise like they are going to in order to get better rates from TSMC etc.
 
Last edited:
Doubtful that Intel would sell out to anyone. Their management is too entrenched and they seem to love the competition ..
Do you understand how public corporations work? Intel executives don't own Intel -- they work for the shareholders, who DO own Intel.
 
Do you understand how public corporations work? Intel executives don't own Intel -- they work for the shareholders, who DO own Intel.


Do you? Pretty sure Broadcom would have to force a hostile takeover if they wanted to bypass management and there are all sorts of ways for management to make such an acquisition as painful as possible. Far better to have management enthusiastically agreeing to a merger
 
Sure, but most takeovers are hostile. What upper management wants to all lose their jobs? The takeovers still happen.

They might be making a comeback but are hardly common or "most" of mergers/acquisitions

"For example, last year, there were less than 15 hostile takeover offers for U.S. companies." and that was just offers, just even include the ones that succeed.
 
"For example, last year, there were less than 15 hostile takeover offers for U.S. companies." and that was just offers...
Your quote is from 2020, when there were very few takeovers of *any* kind. And the article in question states the reasons for the dearth:

"...one reason in particular stands out: the previous 11-year bull market in the U.S., which until March of this year drove the share prices of public companies every upward, making potential target companies too expensive for their competitors....."

The article continues to explain that dry spell is ending as conditions return to normal:

"...At the time of this article, more than a dozen unsolicited takeover bids are already underway...."

And yes, if you ignore mergers in which both companies retain a substantial amount of board power and executive representation, then hostile acquisitions do represent the bulk of the "A" side of M&A.
 
Your quote is from 2020, when there were very few takeovers of *any* kind. And the article in question states the reasons for the dearth:

"...one reason in particular stands out: the previous 11-year bull market in the U.S., which until March of this year drove the share prices of public companies every upward, making potential target companies too expensive for their competitors....."

The article continues to explain that dry spell is ending as conditions return to normal:

"...At the time of this article, more than a dozen unsolicited takeover bids are already underway...."

And yes, if you ignore mergers in which both companies retain a substantial amount of board power and executive representation, then hostile acquisitions do represent the bulk of the "A" side of M&A.
I could very well be wrong, but I don't see much press about hostile takeovers. Got any reading for me? Because I just don't see the evidence for hostile takeovers being that prevalent. I could be wrong but I'd like to read more, google wasn't helpful
 
More likely for Nvidia to buy Intel than any other company.
The deal would never pass. They couldn`t even buy ARM, so Intel is out of the picture.

Same with AMD. AMD, by market cap, could literally fusion with Intel, but the markets would never allow it.
 
Do you? Pretty sure Broadcom would have to force a hostile takeover if they wanted to bypass management and there are all sorts of ways for management to make such an acquisition as painful as possible. Far better to have management enthusiastically agreeing to a merger

Yeah and equally, that management would (or could) remain in place, meaning however entrenched they are is not necessarily relevant.
 
Of the potential candidates for an intel buyout, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, nvidia. Broadcom would be the least likely.

Even worse, after the failed ARM buyout I don't think anyone would venture to buy intel.
 
Back