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

US reportedly forcing TSMC to buy 49% stake in Intel to secure tariff relief

notebookcheck.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 560 posts

Re: US reportedly forcing TSMC to buy 49% stake in Intel to secure tariff relief

#451

Post by like_any_other »

stubish wrote: post #399
mathiaspoint wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there's one product we have domestic alternatives to it's semiconductors. We're a couple nodes behind TSMC. Using US only foundries or paying a premium for TSMC is not the end of the world.

Semiconductors are not fungible. Using US alternatives also means dropping all the AI plans and subsidies, at least on US soil. The big AI data centers would all end up in China, owned and managed by subsidiaries and leased back to the parent.

> The big AI data centers would all end up in China, owned and managed by subsidiaries and leased back to the parent.

Well does it matter where industry & technology are located (and who controls them) or doesn't it? The anti-protectionism crowd thinks no, it makes no difference if we make something locally, or import it. A stance not shared by any of the countries currently leading the semiconductor industry - or in the case of China, rapidly catching up.

Re: US reportedly forcing TSMC to buy 49% stake in Intel to secure tariff relief

#452

Post by snickerbockers »

eru wrote: post #396
cherryteastain wrote: post #32

Tariffs kinda make sense when you have a deficit in a widely available item. Big trade deficit with Bangladesh? Sure you can buy cheap textiles from Thailand or Vietnam or something. Unfortunately this approach does not work when you lack a viable domestic alternative and you're up against a monopoly. What will the US do if TSMC does not blink? Not buy TSMC made chips? Obviously that is impossible, so the logical con…

> Tariffs kinda make sense when you have a deficit in a widely available item. Big trade deficit with Bangladesh? Sure you can buy cheap textiles from Thailand or Vietnam or something. Sorry, how do they 'make sense'? What's the problem with a trade deficit with Bangladesh? And in your example, you'd just shift bilateral trade balances around, without impact the overall trade balance of the US? I could perhaps believ…

>Sorry, how do they 'make sense'?

To the same extent that other forms of taxation make sense. I wish people had this same sudden interest in protecting the free market and maximizing trade when we're taking about income tax or sales tax or property tax, etc.

Re: US reportedly forcing TSMC to buy 49% stake in Intel to secure tariff relief

#453

Post by zaik »

phkahler wrote: post #38

On the surface, buying 49 percent of Intel wouldn't infuse the company with any capital. It would just bail out investors.

I would not be surprised if some member of the Trump syndicate has acquired a significant stake in Intel shortly before this announcement.

Re: US reportedly forcing TSMC to buy 49% stake in Intel to secure tariff relief

#454

Post by znpy »

frontfor wrote: post #349
jm_redwood wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it feels fair to call tariffs a VAT that goes away if the manufacturer produces things domestically which seems… reasonable? raise revenue and encourage domestic manufacturing. yeah, it sucks that I can’t buy a JetKVM right now. otoh being dependent on (often) adversarial nations for everything we buy is also not ideal.

Manufacture domestically will result in price increases, which again hits the bottom harder than some of us here. Is this what we want?

Manufacture domestically and whatever the price increases is goes back into the local economy. Somebody is going to be paid for that work. Also, money circulating is what makes an economy strong.

Re: US reportedly forcing TSMC to buy 49% stake in Intel to secure tariff relief

#455

Post by notepad0x90 »

cherryteastain wrote: post #32

Tariffs kinda make sense when you have a deficit in a widely available item. Big trade deficit with Bangladesh? Sure you can buy cheap textiles from Thailand or Vietnam or something. Unfortunately this approach does not work when you lack a viable domestic alternative and you're up against a monopoly. What will the US do if TSMC does not blink? Not buy TSMC made chips? Obviously that is impossible, so the logical con…

I don't know why analysis like this doesn't go a bit deeper. Yes americans will pay more, but TSMC will also see less demand. Intel has it's own foundry, maybe it can start competing against TSMC, because now TSMC costs a lot more and intel's cost of manufacturing in the US to compete against TSMC can be recouped much better thanks to the new market prices set by the TSMC tariffs?

Government's shouldn't put up with monopolies either, if it wasn't for trump's political baggage, HN would be all over this I'm sure, TSMC is already investing on US factories which even without purchasing a share of intel, it would force them to use those factories and bring them online sooner. We've had multiple unfortunate wars due to dependence on foreign resources that don't have good/sufficient competition state-side, that is not a good pattern to repeat.

If TSMC doesn't blink, maybe they'll get their way for now but all their American projects and in general doing business in the US will be unpleasant and costly until 2028+. Which is cheaper? I don't know, I'm asking because a lot of opinion on the subject isn't talking/explaining about the actual numbers and nuanced economic considerations.

Re: US reportedly forcing TSMC to buy 49% stake in Intel to secure tariff relief

#456

Post by imtringued »

dismalaf wrote: post #106
adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's actually better than that. TSMC wouldn't help intel with their 14a node. They would kill it, fire all of Intel's foundry R&D, and just build TSMCs 14a node.

I mean, it's the same thing... So yes.

You euphemistically called it "help", but all you agreed to was a hostile takeover of a competitor only to gut said competitor. If a company genuinely thinks they are ahead, they don't have to do these petty tricks unless they want to nib a promising competitor in the bud while they are small and cheap. Intel is neither, nor is it a promising purchase. The only thing of value they possess is x86 IP.

Re: US reportedly forcing TSMC to buy 49% stake in Intel to secure tariff relief

#457

Post by WithinReason »

Havoc wrote: post #155

Someone with a gun to their head is the only party that would buy it. Latest mindfactory data suggests that in gaming consumer space is now 96% AMD, 4% Intel. Seriously: https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/1mfu3cq/this_... And doesn't sound like their next or next next nodes are in good shape either

This excludes laptops

Re: US reportedly forcing TSMC to buy 49% stake in Intel to secure tariff relief

#458

Post by tsoukase »

By corporate practices this is not a good thing. Companies buy companies if they are complementary to them (which Intel is not to TSMC) or competitors in order to extinguish them (which nobody wants for Intel). Government enforcement to buying a company leads to mutual hurting. So no option is left than to do nothing.

Re: US reportedly forcing TSMC to buy 49% stake in Intel to secure tariff relief

#459

Post by Thorrez »

cyphertruck wrote: post #215
phkahler wrote: post #38

On the surface, buying 49 percent of Intel wouldn't infuse the company with any capital. It would just bail out investors.

It actually wouldn't. The sale price will be pretty close to the current market price, maybe %10 more. If the Government kicks in funds to underwrite the deal (say a loan to TSMC) then the deal would likely happen exactly at market price. That means investors who sell are getting the current low market price or a little bit higher--- they will still be down the massive amount. This is really bailing out current manag…

Who would TSMC buy the shares from?

Would they buy existing shares from investors? Would they really find enough investors willing to sell shares at market price? I doubt it. There would be a lot of investors that would rather hold than sell at market price. Market price is the current minimum price an investor is willing to accept. Not the price that all investors are willing to accept.

Would they buy new shares issued by Intel? That seems more likely to me. That would be a bailout to Intel.

Re: US reportedly forcing TSMC to buy 49% stake in Intel to secure tariff relief

#460

Post by Thorrez »

phkahler wrote: post #38

On the surface, buying 49 percent of Intel wouldn't infuse the company with any capital. It would just bail out investors.

Who would TSMC buy the shares from? Investors or Intel? See my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44809007 .
Post reply on HN