81–90 of 560 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When all your military spending can't help you win against a third-world country (USA in Afghanistan) or a single country 1/3 your size (Russia in Ukraine), it really makes you wonder if all that spending is justified to uphold one big bluff.
Winning is different from taking over.. Russia wants to rule over Ukraine, not destroy it. US was all into destroying Afghanistan and Iraq. They had no intention of being there long term.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly, this is a win-win for TSMC. Intel isn't dead. They've made some bad choices and investments but they're still huge. They have $30 billion in gross profit per year on an utterly boring, non-hype based business model. Get rid of some dead weight, write off the bad investments, improve their foundry business and their value easily grows multiples of what it currently is. On top of it already being a shrewd bus…
Intel is not profitable. They have negative eps and negative free cash flow. The cash flows from existing products can't be considered in isolation. If their R+D and Capex investments stopped, the sum total of the existing+legacy cash flows wouldn't nearly cover Intel's substantial liabilities. They also have 50 billion dollars in debt, and their cash flow situation has gotten so desperate that slices of future fab r…
Did I say they were? Google gross versus net margin.
> If their R+D and Capex investments stopped, the sum total of the existing+legacy cash flows wouldn't nearly cover Intel's substantial liabilities.
You sure? https://www.intc.com/financial-info/balance-sheet
Current assets are $43 billion. Total assets are $192 billion. $30 billion yearly in gross profit. Debt is only $50 billion. They still hold 75% market share. Repeat, they still sell 3 times more chips than AMD.
Yes, their balance sheet isn't as good as some fabless competitors but if TSMC helps them with their 14a yield then it looks like a good investment.
Also, having TSMC on board will surely help with their fab business. Again, between the US government needing them to survive, TSMC on board, plus the fact they still do have a decent core business, I think Intel (and TSMC's investment) will be fine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
TSMC is not going to get over the 50% threshold because it has no free will in this whole matter, as the very existence of Taiwan, and hence of TSMC, depends on the political will of the US. Otherwise I fully agree with you, this will definitely not work out in the long run, but who cares about the long run anymore in this day and age?
Why would China annexing Taiwan have any direct effect on TSMC ? I'd imagine they would be happy to have TSMC still selling to NVidia, Apple and AMD, and therefore a powerful lever in case of future US export controls/etc.
On the surface, buying 49 percent of Intel wouldn't infuse the company with any capital. It would just bail out investors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see how it can't work at least short term, when the US is by a long margin the world leading military and economic power. Why else has the US been overspending on military for decades and planting military bases and nuclear submarines all over the world, to become the world hegemony, if not to bully everyone in doing its bidding when push comes to shove? I'm not defending the actions of the US, I'm just askin…
> I don't see how it can't work at least short term, when the US is by a long margin the world military and economic power. The 90s were ~30 years ago. American economic and military capacity ain't what they used to be, and alienating your allies and friends is starting to look like a poor strategy.