Shakedown list:
Nvidia 15% of revenue
AMD 15% of revenue
Intel 10% of capital
Who else is next?
U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel
181–190 of 765 posts
Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel
#182My first thought, how many Trump people just front ran this?
As of last week: https://bsky.app/profile/unusualwhales.bsky.social/post/3lwf...
Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel
#183Any reason to think that Trump didn't just buy a bunch of options before demanding this?
Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel
#184Ironic, Western politicians thought opening up to trade with China would lead to it adopting a Western model of government. Instead it's lead to the USA adopting the Chinese one.
It somewhat makes sense in terms of industries which are deemed strategically important. Intel needs to start thinking long term instead of short term profits.
The CHIPS act founded the National Semiconductor Technology Center for this purpose. As for Intel, they aren't even achieving short term profits…
Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel
#185The hammer is right here, now where did I put that sickle?
Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel
#186Unless the descriptions of the deal I've seen are wrong, this seems random and pointless. No new money. A lot of the support for Intel foundry, and a lot of the people in that are gone now. So what's the national strategic interest in Intel? Pat Gelsinger must be happy he didn't stick around for this shitshow.
Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel
#187Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is only 1 winner and 1 loser: Intel. It's the only chip manufacturer "left" in the US. The argument is national security: the US expects China to invade Taiwan and this will kill TSMC in the process. Whether this will happen or not can be debated, but this is what the government expects.
> the US expects China to invade Taiwan and this will kill TSMC in the process. Would it though? The TSMC foundries are pretty much in every continent. Are they just going to stop operating if this happens? Because that seems akin to killing a golden goose. Also what is up with Global Foundries? I don’t hear a peep about them.
Global Foundries is on 12nm. TSMC is at 3.
Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel
#188Genuine question- How does Govt picking winners and losers going to help? Intel is no Too big to fail Bank. Why save Intel of all chip manufacturers? Wouldnt it be like 25 years too late, with Intel and its heydays !? Would Govt now ensure parity by investing in "marquee" entities across different industrial domains?
x86
Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel
#189Ironic, Western politicians thought opening up to trade with China would lead to it adopting a Western model of government. Instead it's lead to the USA adopting the Chinese one.
It somewhat makes sense in terms of industries which are deemed strategically important. Intel needs to start thinking long term instead of short term profits.
OP didn’t make a value judgement about which model is better or makes more sense!
Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel
#190Earlier quoted context omitted.
The answer is in the paragraph in between the two you quoted from. The money for the purchase has already been appropriated by Congress and awarded to Intel. The awards didn't previously have this giant string attached where Intel gives stock in return. But now they do. And it makes sense that Intel is spinning it as a generous investment from the gov't, but the gov't is spinning it as a free gift from Intel. Neither…
Isn't that pretty bad, Darth Vader style changing of previously agreed on deals ? Not sure how anyone can believe anything that was agreed will hold in such an environment. :P
Yes, but its semiconductor industry so its complicated.
Intel got money via grants from the chip act and via other governments. Part of the reason they got that money was to help them build the chip fans in the USA and funding research and workforce in other nations. The fact Intel has claimed its slowing construction basically is a full 180° spin and will set them back in manufacturing ability.
Previous CEO strategy was focused on heavy investment in catching up on manufacturing ability. But once you get stuck on a node it becomes expensive to catch up.
New CEO is clearly trying to shed weight. They have let go of a significant % of workforce, stopped certain projects all together, and seem to be basically selling off parts of their technology and assets to keep cashflow positive.
Given the current CEO and his history and connections, plus the US government involvement it looks like a rocky situation.