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

261–270 of 765 posts

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

#261

Post by hangonhn »

ac29 wrote: post #84
miohtama wrote: post #66

Earlier 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.

> It's the only chip manufacturer "left" in the US Global Foundries, Micron, and Texas Instruments all come to mind

re: Micron - Memory is very different from logic chips. You vast number of repeating cells in memory. If any of them are bad you can just turn them off and bin them as lower capacity. You can do that to some extend with logic chips but not nearly as much as memory.

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

#262

Post by skybrian »

cvoss wrote: post #70
MyOutfitIsVague wrote: post #44

> the government made an $8.9 billion investment in Intel common stock, purchasing 433.3 million shares at a price of $20.47 per share, giving it a 10% stake in the company > The United States paid nothing for these Shares, and the Shares are now valued at approximately $11 Billion Dollars I don't understand. Can somebody explain to me how the government made an investement, bought shares, but paid nothing?

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…

What does Intel get? I suppose it ensures that the grants aren't cancelled.

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

#263

Post by sergiomattei »

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…

What bothers me is the double standard.

When the public asks for fully publicly-owned railways, universal healthcare, or any basic social safety assurances—“socialism”.

When a megacorporation struggles, immediately to the rescue.

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

#265

Post by delfinom »

legitster wrote: post #243
andsoitis wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Western governments have taken a stake in, nationalised, or owned / operated corporations for a very long time! Some examples: VOC, BBC, national airlines, etc. List across countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government-owned_compa... US specific: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-owned_enterprises_of_the...

Most of these were done under duress or specifically for public goods (BBC, for example). Taking an ownership stake in broad daylight for political favors is very much unprecedented in the modern economy.

It's not if you now live in a (if not soon) dictatorship.

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

#266

Post by WalterBright »

JackYoustra wrote: post #248
torginus wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, this so weird coming from the US. The US government has a history of writing no-strings-attached blank cheques to people/companies just so avoid the stigma of government control in public companies. I wonder how the markets will react, will stocks go up because people will assume Intel's going to be a government mandated champion or will they go down because of the negative connotations government control bring…

Name one literal no-strings-attached blank cheque to a large company in the last 20 years

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solyndra

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHIPS_and_Science_Act

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

#267

Post by holmesworcester »

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 think I agree overall, but "these kind of deals should be boring, not a media event" make me doubt that position, because "deal becomes a media event" seems so eventually-inevitable given how democracy works.

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

#268

Post by signatoremo »

sobiolite wrote: post #91

Ironic, 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.

You need to study history. US government is no stranger in getting stakes in businesses. Did you already forget the Great Depression?

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/governmen...

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

#269

Post by carom »

internetter wrote: post #187
pixelatedindex wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

TSMC gets their machines from ASML who licenses their technology from the Department of Energy. The US will be OK.

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

#270

Post by hangonhn »

BeetleB wrote: post #141
fancyfredbot wrote: post #101

Did Lip Bu Tan initially try to say no to this? You'd kind of expect him to say no. Is that why Trump tried to oust him? Is Trump trying to oust him the reason Intel are now accepting this?

> You'd kind of expect him to say no. There was no guarantee Intel would get the rest of the CHIPS money they were granted - even the Biden administration kept holding it back (after officially awarding it to them) - as there were doubts Intel could deliver. I also wonder if some deal was made around 14A. Tan said he would not develop it without commitments from customers, because sales from Intel CPUs wouldn't justi…

The investment from Softbank is interesting because ARM is also a portfolio company of theirs. ARM has said they want to make their own chips now so Intel might be a good candidate for that.
Post reply on HN