Live data from Hacker News

Dutch government takes control of Chinese-owned chipmaker Nexperia

cnbc.com

551–560 of 668 posts

Re: Dutch government takes control of Chinese-owned chipmaker Nexperia

#551
post #454
post #5

Some more context from a dutch news source[0]: The ministry of economic affairs intervened out of a fear that crucial technological skills and capacities will leave the Netherlands and Europe. The ministry stated in a press release[1] that there was a threat of a "knowledge leak" (w/e that means exactly) and a possible threat to the European economy. After this intervention the Dutch government can now stop or revers…

Some new information has just emerged in the Dutch press. According to a just published article by the NRC newspaper [0], the owner wanted to use Nexperia's funds to finance another business (WingSkySemi) which was in financial trouble. He would have done this by making Nexperia place large orders for wafers it did not need. The article mentions Nexperia only requiring $70-80 million in wafers, while Nexperia would h…

This Dutch article also adds a lot more context, what the Dutch government did starts to make more and more sense and would for sure be something the Chinese would have intervened in if the situation were reversed. [0]

Update: Looks like China has retaliated: [1]

[0] https://tweakers.net/nieuws/240304/nexperia-ceo-bevoordeelde...

[1] https://nos.nl/artikel/2586411-china-legt-chipfabrikant-nexp...

Re: Dutch government takes control of Chinese-owned chipmaker Nexperia

#552

Update from the Amsterdam Court of appeal[0] , as expected large amount of pressure from the USG as well as some pressure on the CEO after the latest US 50% rule that triggered the RE restictions. - US telling Nexperia to ditch its Chinese leadership if it wants a waiver from the entity list. - The NL gov putting pressure on the CEO to introduce a new supervisory board to make sure there are no links to China. A lot…

There is basically a straight line from this to the new Chinese rate earth controls.

Re: Dutch government takes control of Chinese-owned chipmaker Nexperia

#553

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Netherlands imported more CeO2 (a rare earth) from China than any other country, with 517 metric tons during the first half of 2025.

with Dutch stats like this it’s always important to note what’s for Dutch use or transporting through the Port of Rotterdam.

It's likely for Dutch. China exported 2414 metric tons of CeO2 in that period. The top 4 destinations are Netherlands (517 tons), Italy (438 tons), Japan (353 tons), USA (284 tons). So others can import it themselves just fine.

Re: Dutch government takes control of Chinese-owned chipmaker Nexperia

#555

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> China has been moving towards more openness to foreign investment over time After they lost most of those same foreign investors that got tired of handing over their IP, the "local partnering" (what often resulted in state/court backed judgements against the foreign investors), ... The disasters "wolf warrior" politics, combined with the above mentioned issues. And the stringent monetary policies limitation on movi…

The IP sharing issue has been massively overblown. IP sharing was relatively limited. The European and American car manufacturers, for example, never lost their considerable competitive edge over their Chinese rivals. In the end, it was an entirely different technology - electric cars - that allowed the Chinese to leap-frog the legacy car manufacturers, and not because of IP sharing, but because of Chinese R&D in bat…

>The reasons for the decline are cyclical.

What a nice exercise in public relations.

Re: Dutch government takes control of Chinese-owned chipmaker Nexperia

#556
I've often wondered about where the lines would be for a similar issue in the USA:

> CFIUS oversees transactions that might give foreign entities control of U.S. businesses. This includes mergers, acquisitions, or takeovers. It also reviews investments in critical technologies, infrastructure, sensitive data, and specific real estate deals. At CFIUS' recommendation, the President may suspend or prohibit transactions deemed threatening to U.S. national security.[0]

If a US company is blocked from being acquired, presumably the CFIUS considers the company to be "nationally strategic."

In an unlikely hypothetical, I'm curious what the US would try to do in this scenario:

1. US company A agrees to be acquired by foreign company B.

2. CFIUS recommends blocking the acquisition under nation security grounds and the US president executes the block.

3a. US company A threatens to shut down all operations if the block is not lifted.

3b. US company A immediately destroys all assets irrevocably in spite.

In 3a, my guess is that the US would cook up or find some legal scheme to take over the company.

In 3b, the US has no warning and the company succeeds in denying the US something the US considers a strategic asset, although to its demise.

It reminds me of the Invention Secrecy Act.

In a nation that holds private property to be more sacrosanct than most nations, it's super interesting when the the government forcibly takes property. Things like eminent domain never feel natural in the US.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Foreign_Investmen...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invention_Secrecy_Act

Re: Dutch government takes control of Chinese-owned chipmaker Nexperia

#557
post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question was, emphasis mine: "which firms in China are controlled by European entities?" Western brands have investments , but are required by law to have a local partner, that learns the trade and eventually copies the product: China bars foreign companies from participating on their own in many industries, but in some of those industries foreign companies can participate only by forming a joint venture with a C…

That’s a common misconception, but it's factually incorrect. European companies can, and do, acquire and control companies in China. The legal framework and the reality on the ground show a very different picture. 1. The Law Explicitly Allows It: China's Foreign Investment Law (effective since Jan 1, 2020) clearly states that foreign investors are permitted to acquire the shares, equity, or other similar interests of…

I stand corrected. China has recently opened up (wisely only recently, protecting its native industries until they are able to compete globally). Yet the fact remains it is fiercely protective (as it should be. If only EU and US followed its example), and pursues an explicit, government-supported policy of taking over first local, then global markets:

China imposes more trade and investment barriers, discriminatory taxes, and information security restrictions than any other country by a vast margin. - https://ecipe.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/DTE_China_TWP_R...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Made_in_China_2025

And China also makes sure to appear open, using subtle instead of blunt tools, and concealing its influence operations - mister DeH40, with a 19 month old account, zero favorites or submissions, and a total of two comments, both in defense of China.

Re: Dutch government takes control of Chinese-owned chipmaker Nexperia

#558

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The “Negative List for Foreign Investment” explicitly bans or limits foreign participation in many areas (e.g., media, education, data services, telecoms, mining) That's a very good for them, by looking at the list. Look at how big a problem the EU now has with its reliance on US tech and military. Sovereignty is very important in strategic industries and in those that allow foreign powers to influence your populat…

> Volkswagen is a cherry picked example, look at Tesla, which isn't a joint venture. BMW still uses a JV but now holds 75% of BMW Brilliance etc. No cherry picking. Purely random. FWIW, according to my quick research there are only 3 vehicle manufacturers that operate and manufacture in China while retaining 100% ownership as a foreign company. They are Tesla (Gigafactory in Shanghai), Lexus (EV plant in Shanghai), a…

The JV rule is gone. China removed the foreign ownership cap in autos on a staged schedule with NEVs in 2018, commercial vehicles in 2020 and passenger cars from the start of 2022. The old "max two JVs" rule was lifted at the same time. In other words, if a foreign OEM wants 100% today, the law allows it.

BMW example I mentioned is an example of exercising that choice, it lifted its stake in BMW Brilliance from 50% to 75% once the rules changed. And Tesla ias wholly owned in Shanghai (enabled by the 2018 NEV opening). That's precisely the point I made, it wasn't an "exception" as you framed it, to a still binding rule, it was an early use of the liberalization.

So since 2022 ownership is a strategic choice for these companies. Many legacy JVs remain not because they don't have a choice but because of scale, supply chain integration, dealer networks, local partners assets etc, so on other words it works for them like this better, but any OEM with the capital can take majority or go 100% (as BMW did and as Tesla/Scania/Lexus show).

Saying "technically the market might be open ... but in practice it is pretty closed" doesn't hold up to the post 2022 facts.

Re: Dutch government takes control of Chinese-owned chipmaker Nexperia

#559
post #538
post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

in the NRC article it says that board members started to complian that the CEO was "making choices that were not in the interest of the company". Four days later they were fired. "It was at that moment that Nexperia alerted the ministry of Economic Affairs"

Right, I suppose at that point there was some chauvinism or at least fear of being held accountable for it. But the thing that surprised me was that there was actually someone listening at Economic Affairs. Perhaps at that level a board of directors has connections at the government. Either that, or there's some AFM type branch that listens to directors' complaints.

[dead]

Re: Dutch government takes control of Chinese-owned chipmaker Nexperia

#560

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just for cars. Microsoft has been independent in China since the late 90s, although they had to find a partner to do Azure.

> although they had to find a partner to do Azure. By "finding a partner" you actually mean have Azure-branded services provided by Chinese companies through isolated data centers. Which kind of proves OPs point.

Microsoft operated in China for more than a decade before azure was a thing. A lot of companies did, Microsoft is just the one I’m familiar with.
Post reply on HN