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

Intel might be too big to fail

tomshardware.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 253 posts

Re: Intel might be too big to fail

#111

Post by xhkkffbf »

ta1243 wrote: post #95
from-nibly wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the fact that you can get profit by removing waste. Without profit there is no reason to remove waste. Waste isn't a thing you add intentionally if you have a reason. Waste is entropy it happens unless you continually clean it out. If you don't HAVE to clean out the waste it doesn't get cleaned out.

Your definition of waste is likely different to other peoples.

Seems like a good one to me. I suppose there are more blatant forms of waste and raw corruption, but the entropy kind seems like one of the most important for a society to tackle.

Re: Intel might be too big to fail

#112

Post by bluecalm »

catlikesshrimp wrote: post #37
stego-tech wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Literally my same conclusion since 2008. Hundreds of thousands of people without jobs? Let it fail. No more domestic semiconductor company? Let it fail. No more domestic aerospace company? LET IT FAIL. We keep avoiding making the hard policy decisions by funneling taxpayer money into the hands of the already-wealthy who promise that this time it’ll be different, this time they won’t give it to shareholders and payout…

You don't want this (likely) scenario: -Intel Fails -Production stops worldwide. (Not just development) -US scrambling to sort out the supply chains -China invades Taiwan -US Fails Intel must be replaced domestically. At least wait until there is another fab within the US mainland.

The important strategic part of Intel is the foundry business. You can spin it off. It will keep making CPUs designed by multiple other competent US companies. You can let the rest fail.

Re: Intel might be too big to fail

#113

Post by basiccalendar74 »

kyrra wrote: post #96
jessfyi wrote: post #8

Any part of "saving" Intel should include a mechanism barring them from putting any more money that should be spent on R&D towards stock buybacks ($152B since 1990 as of September.) That said quoting the former Intel CEO (who still owns 3,245,986 shares) as "[one of the] expert[s] who says breaking up Intel won't do any good" seems like journalist malpractice--and makes me all the more certain it should be subsumed b…

Most companies do stock buybacks as a way to pay out bonuses to employees and execs with a lower tax rate. Since RSUs are taxed lower (I think), companies pay employees with those. But those grants are given by creating new shares. To not dilute the value of these shares, the company needs to keep buying back shares.

RSUs are treated as cash income at vest and taxed at same rates.

Stock buybacks benefit general shareholders (i.e. beyond employees) since they push up stock value without causing a taxable event. The alternative is dividends which are immediately taxed.

Re: Intel might be too big to fail

#114

Post by exabrial »

_heimdall wrote: post #16
exabrial wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Competing against state backed cheap labor, with little environmental oversight is incredibly hard. We've had pockets of success using automation; but a lot of the problems we create for ourselves too.

I do believe that's where tariffs would come into play. They're a politically heated topic these days, but tariffs are meant to help manage exactly such a situation.

They also have been successful in pockets, but in my mind they're a blunt instrument and its rarely worked.

And you're right about politically heated, thats probably the biggest problem.

Not to sound like a Trumper, b/c I'm not: The media crucified Trump for installing a tariff on Chinese solar centers, which were being produced below cost with state sponsored material and labor. The Chinese intent was to keep Americans from developing the mass manufacturing capability, but this played into the hands of the US Media who painted it as "anti climate change". We are our own worst enemy.

Re: Intel might be too big to fail

#115

Post by toast0 »

talldayo wrote: post #28
stego-tech wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Literally my same conclusion since 2008. Hundreds of thousands of people without jobs? Let it fail. No more domestic semiconductor company? Let it fail. No more domestic aerospace company? LET IT FAIL. We keep avoiding making the hard policy decisions by funneling taxpayer money into the hands of the already-wealthy who promise that this time it’ll be different, this time they won’t give it to shareholders and payout…

At least in Intel's case, I can see why the US government wouldn't want to get rid of them. For one, Intel is a defense asset and there will generally be apprehension of letting them slip under without the feds gutting what they want out of it. For two, I kinda think Intel did everything right from a US nationalism perspective even if their customers ditched them for it. Intel was never going to keep their Apple cont…

> Intel was never going to keep their Apple contract unless they outsourced to TSMC, abandoned any form of profitable margins and gave up on domestic chipmaking.

Intel switching to TSMC probably would have sidestepped their 10nm fab failures, and the resulting design pipeline bubble that meant a lot of stagnation after Kaby Lake instead of the tick/tock(/tock) cycle of sort of annual improvements.

But, even if Intel was still doing its thing right, Apple prefers to vertically integrate, and Apple has a niche where their cpu requirements are different enough, that a custom solution is better. AFAIK, Intel hasn't been willing to make really custom CPUs. The Apple cpus target a lower clockspeed, and that enables a smaller chip, and makes wider execution more feasible, and generates less heat. Intel probably wasn't willing to make a high performance but clock limited design. And Apple might not have wanted to have people compare their laptops with an Intel CPU that only runs at say 3GHz when everyone else is using chips that turbo to 4.5Ghz.

Re: Intel might be too big to fail

#116

Post by gruez »

tonyarkles wrote: post #107
gruez wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How dare they "manipulate our society by"... reducing malaria and fighting climate change. We'd be far better off if we relied on our ineffectual and corrupt (in case of malaria) governments to do it instead.

If all charities were net-good I would tend to agree with you, but they’re not.

How do you define "net-good"? One man's YIMBY charity to make housing more affordable is another's astroturf operation to destroy neighborhoods so real estate developers can make a quick buck.

Re: Intel might be too big to fail

#118

Post by tester756 »

exabrial wrote: post #9

Awesome, I can't wait for me the taxpayer to breathe life into the smoldering shell of a company where the executives and unlimited layers of useless middle management used financial engineering to fool investors about the internal situation while extracting as much money as possible and then bailing out on golden parachutes and landing in soft thick piles of bonuses. Remember when we did this in 2008 under the Obama…

>Awesome, I can't wait for me the taxpayer to breathe life into the smoldering shell of a company where the executives and unlimited layers of useless middle management used financial engineering to fool investors about the internal situation while extracting as much money as possible and then bailing out on golden parachutes and landing in soft thick piles of bonuses.

What are you even talking about?

>Just let it fail. If you're really paranoid, pass a law preventing and foreign buyers from snapping up the ip or fabs and we'll just fine, but that's probably not even needed.

Yea, competitors like China will definitely respect your IP laws

Re: Intel might be too big to fail

#119

Post by tester756 »

PopePompus wrote: post #100
commandar wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The option is not a binary between "let it fail" and "no strings attached bailout." If things get bad enough for Intel, the precedent that makes the most sense is to follow the model that was used with GM: the company enters bankruptcy, existing investors and creditors are wiped out, and a new corporate entity backed by the fed.gov steps in and assumes the assets and operations of the company. Once things have suffic…

It's not just the investors and creditors that need to be wiped out. Above all else the managers need to be fired, with no bonuses or golden parachutes.

Which manager receives golden parachute? wtf?

Re: Intel might be too big to fail

#120

Post by coredog64 »

exabrial wrote: post #9

Awesome, I can't wait for me the taxpayer to breathe life into the smoldering shell of a company where the executives and unlimited layers of useless middle management used financial engineering to fool investors about the internal situation while extracting as much money as possible and then bailing out on golden parachutes and landing in soft thick piles of bonuses. Remember when we did this in 2008 under the Obama…

> On December 19, 2014, the U.S. Treasury sold its remaining holdings of Ally Financial, essentially ending the program. Through the Treasury, the US Government actually booked $15.3 billion in profit, as it earned $441.7 billion on the $426.4 billion invested.

There was a second Treasury program where they forced all the banks to participate so that there wouldn’t be a negative stigma attached to the banks that actually needed the assistance.

Post reply on HN