Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 765 posts

Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel

#291

Post by etempleton »

cuttothechase wrote: post #18

Genuine 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?

They are the only US company that can produce cutting edge chips now and realistically within the next 15+ years. It doesn’t matter that TSMC produces chips in the US. That is nice for the short term but doesn’t do much for the US in the long term if TSMC falls under China’s influence.

Intel is in the midst of a dramatic turnaround and huge shift in strategy. It might fail. But if they succeed it puts Intel and the US in a much stronger position in terms of technology and military leadership.

Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel

#292

Post by xyst »

ch4s3 wrote: post #273
jjcm wrote: post #199

In general I would rather the government take a stake in corporations they're bailing out. I think the "too big to fail" bailouts in the past should have come with more of a cost for the business, so on one hand I'm glad this is finally happening. On the other hand, I wish it were a more formalized process rather than this politicized "our president made a deal to save america!" / "Intel is back and the government is…

I’d really rather we didn’t bail out these companies at all. It clearly creates moral hazard and makes it hard for better run companies to enter markets.

Why is this so hard for people to understand? Intel for years had a massive lead in the market. Instead of investing in the business the clevel suite instead opted for idiotic stock buybacks.

The only good news is that C-level suite can continue to do the same shit over and over again.

Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel

#293

Post by CoastalCoder »

echoangle wrote: post #125
CoastalCoder wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but in this case the restaurant was already empty of customers on most evenings.

So then it’s fine?

My point was that Intel is already in need of rescue investment all on its own.

I'm just pointing out a limitation of the Mafia analogy.

Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel

#294

Post by coldpie »

edot wrote: post #85
bilsbie wrote: post #51

This sounds bad. Can someone steelman this for me so I can understand the good?

If you’re going to give taxpayer money to a for-profit company, taxpayers should receive a share of the company in return. I generally don’t like 90% of the policies we’ve got going on right now, but I actually feel okay about this one.

Doesn't this create an incentive for the US Gov't to boost Intel and harm their competitors? That seems not great to me from a competition & healthy markets standpoint.

Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel

#295

Post by Nevermark »

llllm wrote: post #192
lugu wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can this be any good for Intel? Why is the stock value bumping 6%?

It means Intel is far worse off than publicly acknowledged, and without this it might be worthless.

It doesn't mean that.

Sometimes, there are returns on investments beyond what an accountant would calculate, but the investment only costs the same. Making stock priced only for normal returns a buy for beneficiaries of said additional returns.

In this case, reducing the risk associated with the imported chip supply.

Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel

#296

Post by charliea0 »

jjcm wrote: post #199

In general I would rather the government take a stake in corporations they're bailing out. I think the "too big to fail" bailouts in the past should have come with more of a cost for the business, so on one hand I'm glad this is finally happening. On the other hand, I wish it were a more formalized process rather than this politicized "our president made a deal to save america!" / "Intel is back and the government is…

The government should avoid bailing out big, uncompetitive corporations. If the government is acting as lender-of-last-resort in some crisis, then it should demand senior debt to that it gets paid back before any shareholder.

Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel

#297

Post by JustExAWS »

FollowingTheDao wrote: post #277
jjcm wrote: post #199

In general I would rather the government take a stake in corporations they're bailing out. I think the "too big to fail" bailouts in the past should have come with more of a cost for the business, so on one hand I'm glad this is finally happening. On the other hand, I wish it were a more formalized process rather than this politicized "our president made a deal to save america!" / "Intel is back and the government is…

I agree. In fact, I think the government should own all utilities like they do in more socialist countries. It gets rid of price gouging, and the stabilizes the market in things that are necessary for human life. The natural resources of the country should belong to all of us. Not just a select few.

Utilities are already strictly regulated by cities including prices. There is no price gouging when it comes to utilities.

Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel

#298

Post by llllm »

righthand wrote: post #130

Trying to ignore the politicking on this so it can be clear on what exactly is “happening”. As far as I understand, all Trump did was alter Biden admin’s original plan. Trump swapped a 10% stake in Intel for Biden’s profit sharing for participating in the grants[0] (anyone who participates in the CHIPS Act gets this deal currently, I guess Intel is renegotiating). Not necessarily better or worse because Intel is a lo…

I don’t think people are conflicted over the math. The nature of this, the manner in which it went down, and the implications for the future are what people seem to care much more about.

Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel

#299

Post by sethev »

jjcm wrote: post #199

In general I would rather the government take a stake in corporations they're bailing out. I think the "too big to fail" bailouts in the past should have come with more of a cost for the business, so on one hand I'm glad this is finally happening. On the other hand, I wish it were a more formalized process rather than this politicized "our president made a deal to save america!" / "Intel is back and the government is…

The government took 79.9% of AIG in that bailout - which was the biggest of the "too big to fail" bailouts from the past. People seem to forget that the owners of these companies that were bailed out got almost completely wiped out and instead focus on management compensation (which famously stayed high).

Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel

#300

Post by [deleted] »

tbrownaw wrote: post #235
chneu wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GF is a few nodes behind. Micron doesn't make semiconductors, they mostly make flash and whatnot. TI doesn't have the capacity or knowledge to expand to Intel's size/capacity

> doesn't make semiconductors, they mostly make flash and whatnot Um. All that stuff is still semiconductors, just with different patterns printed on them.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN