By Mike Markowitz

Trust.

It is the Cornerstone of Business, Geopolitics, and Global Stability.

In commerce, geopolitics, and everyday life, trust is the invisible currency that underpins all relationships. It must be painstakingly built over years, sometimes decades, through consistent actions, adherence to commitments, and a mutual understanding of facts and the belief that agreements, policies, and expectations will not be arbitrarily upended. Yet, trust is uniquely fragile — it can be shattered in an instant by an act of bad faith, policy reversals, or unpredictability in governance. Today, we find ourselves in an era where that trust is being tested like never before.

The Value of Trust in Business

For senior executives in the electronics industry, trust is not just a philosophical concept; it is the bedrock of operations, investments, and supply chains. Companies rely on a stable regulatory environment, enforceable contracts, and predictable market conditions. Businesses make capital investments based on long-term projections of policies, taxation, and trade agreements. Without trust in these foundational elements, decision-making becomes fraught with uncertainty, increasing risk and reducing innovation.

Read More »What’s Cooking at OYR (and at my house): A Growing Trust Deficit

By Peter Clarke

What’s at Stake:

STMicroelectronics’ persistent focus on sustainability matters because the stakes have never been higher. Once-rare “100-year” weather events now occur with alarming frequency, while global climate policy swings — such as the U.S. repeatedly joining, withdrawing from, and re-joining the Paris Agreement — create uncertainty for businesses trying to plan for a low-carbon future. By staying committed to long-term environmental responsibility despite financial and market fluctuations, ST sets an example of corporate resilience in an era where short-term thinking could have catastrophic consequences.

In November 2000, I attended STMicroelectronics’ traditional customer and media party at the Bayerischer Hof hotel in Munich during the Electronica exhibition. As the evening unfolded, I was unexpectedly offered a 10-minute interview with the company’s CEO, Pasquale Pistorio.

Notebook in hand, I was escorted to an executive suite. There, in subdued lighting, sat the great man. At the time, ST – born from the merger of Italy’s SGS and France’s Thomson – was thriving. The company was led by Pistorio, who was widely recognized as one of the most engaging and affable executives in the semiconductor industry.

On this occasion, however, Pistorio was in an uncharacteristically sombre mood. Surprisingly, rather than discussing technology, products, or ST’s impressive business growth, Pistorio wanted to talk about something different. It was a topic rarely reported on: Sustainability.

Read More »ST and the Persistence of a Green Legacy

By Bolaji Ojo

What’s at stake:

STMicroelectronics has had an interim revenue goal of $20 billion in focus for some time. It had hoped to reach this number quickly after clocking record sales of $17.3 billion in 2023. The company concedes this objective may not be achievable until the end of the decade due to a drastic sales slump in 2024 and amidst fears this will continue at least through 2025. What will happen to manufacturing plans, capex, R&D, and the workforce as the company struggles to climb back uphill?

STMicroelectronics NV had its plans nicely laid out. It was going to become a $20 billion semiconductor behemoth by mid-decade and march aggressively towards even higher revenue, larger operating margins, and much fatter profits by 2030.

Halfway through the decade, though, ST’s management, bewildered, is headed back to the drawing board. The lofty plans are in tatters, shredded by massive disruptions in several key markets, including automotive, its largest segment, industrial and personal electronics. The disruptions have forced ST to push out the timeline for its $20 billion revenue goal to 2030, a target that even now appears doubtful.

How Europe’s second-largest semiconductor company navigates its way through the debris of its shattered ambitions over the next years will determine whether it will be anywhere close to its sales and margins objectives by the end of the decade. Manufacturing plans, R&D, capital expenditure, product development, investments, and product portfolios must be overhauled, some even pruned. Expansion goals for new markets may have to be curtailed due to reduced cash flow and some senior executives may be shown the door, their briefs merged with those of survivors’.

Read More »Whither STMicroelectronics after Annus Horribilis?

Jochen Hanebeck of lnfineon is pointing out a dangerous anti-democracy and anti-immigrant tilt in our world. His call for the protection of fundamental human rights globally is critical and earns our full support.

By Peter Clarke

What’s at stake:

The future of the technology-based society and the world’s super-power landscape hang in the balance. A belief that control of AI development could determine winners and losers for decades has driven US bureaucrats to lay down an interim final rule (IFR) that seeks to control global access to AI technology. But in a globalized era, it is not clear that such measures will work. They may even be counterproductive.

One of the last acts of the Biden Administration was to issue yet another export control ruling – an interim final rule (IFR) – on AI chips, published on January 13, just days before the inauguration of President Trump.

This has not been debated in the US Congress, as the Department of Commerce has the authority to issue and enforce export control regulations under existing laws.

Read More »Has US Export Control Lurched Towards AI Tyranny?

By Bolaji Ojo

Soon, the electronics world will be treated to a special news conference to be hosted by Intel Corp. When this event will take place is uncertain, but it will hopefully occur soon. What we are certain about is that it will be more consequential and involve more than what the semiconductor supplier announced this week.

Intel Capital is being set free, the company said. As an independent firm, Intel Capital “will have the flexibility to attract external capital,” the press statement noted.

That wasn’t the news anyone was expecting to hear from Intel, hence the flaccid market response.  However, “this step supports our broader strategy to maximize the value of our assets while driving greater focus and efficiency across the business,” David Zinsner, interim co-CEO and CFO of Intel said, in a statement.

Read More »Intel: The Market Awaits Bigger News