News Trump administration reportedly mulling a 10% stake in Intel — CHIPS Act funding could be reworked into the purchase amount

[Admin]

The Trump administration is considering taking a 10% stake in Intel by converting $10.9B in Chips Act grants into equity, a move that would make the U.S. government Intel’s largest shareholder and mark a major shift in how federal chip funding is deployed.

Trump administration reportedly mulling a 10% stake in Intel — CHIPS Act funding could be reworked into the purchase amount : Read more

 

[hotaru251]

Would hope it would be read over w/ fine tooth comb making sure its the Gov investing and not a specific part (or persons) of the gov investing who could carpet pull later.

 

[SonoraTechnical]

you mean like what will happen with the Qatar 747-8i once the Trump Presidential library is established?

 

[Tanakoi]

you mean like what will happen with the Saudi 747-8i once the Trump Presidential library is established?

You mean the Qatar 747? No one knows what will happen then, as it will depend on the current President, but if they transfer it to the Trump Presidential Library, it will remain the property of the US Government (The National Archives administers all Presidential Libraries) and would be present as a non-functional display, just as the Boeing 747 is on display in the Reagan Library.

 

[Tanakoi]

Would hope it would be read over w/ fine tooth comb making sure its the Gov investing and not a specific part (or persons) of the gov investing who could carpet pull later.

From a strict economic viewpoint, such investments are a poor idea, but the view is different from a national security perspective. The US having to ask China to make the chips required for its smart weapons is probably not a good idea.

 

[SonoraTechnical]

You mean the Qatar 747? No one knows what will happen then, as it will depend on the current President, but if they transfer it to the Trump Presidential Library, it will remain the property of the US Government (The National Archives administers all Presidential Libraries) and would be present as a non-functional display, just as the Boeing 747 is on display in the Reagan Library.

Corrected. Qatar. You're assuming all of the rules stay the same. You're imagining a sitting president won't modify the rules such that an ex-president can invoke the right to a large security detail and travel in the security of an ex-presidential jet once he's out of office? When Vance is Prez, he'll tell Donny he can't use the Q747? Let's see what happens....

That said... the Gov't loan to Chrysler was a bit unlike anything that had come before it.. So in regards to Intel, there is precedent for the gov't helping out private business but taking measures to secure their interest.

Personally, I'm in favor of the gov't taking a large interest in 'Sonoran HotDogs are Us' to insure it's good fortune, but I don't think I'll get the same treatment as a large corporation. note: I'm jesting... this is hyperbole... this is an exagerated hypothetical situation... a joke...

 

[ezst036]

From a strict economic viewpoint, such investments are a poor idea, but the view is different from a national security perspective. The US having to ask China to make the chips required for its smart weapons is probably not a good idea.

The US government could just as easily ask AMD, Nvidia now has CPUs, could ask Tenstorrent, could ask IBM who still makes P.O.W.E.R. CPUs and I suspect there are many others I didn't think of at the moment. And it doesn't need to be single-provider, single architecture either.

Fabbed in Taiwan is not China.

There is no national security issue here.

This is simply getting into bailout territory. Big companies should not be bailed out.

 

[Tanakoi]

You're assuming all of the rules stay the same. You're imagining a sitting president won't modify the rules such that an ex-president can invoke the right to a large security detail and travel in the security of an ex-presidential jet once he's out of office?

I'm quoting the law. You're spinning fantasy narratives.

The US government could just as easily ask AMD, Nvidia now has CPUs

Neither of them have fabs, now do they?

Fabbed in Taiwan is not China.

According to China, Taiwan is a province of ... wait for it ... China. China reportedly is planning a full takeover of the island no later than 2027.

 

[thestryker]

The US government could just as easily ask AMD, Nvidia now has CPUs, could ask Tenstorrent, could ask IBM who still makes P.O.W.E.R. CPUs and I suspect there are many others I didn't think of at the moment. And it doesn't need to be single-provider, single architecture either.

Which of those has fabs again? Oh yeah... none of them.

It's not about architecture as those tend to be part of the bid for making the products in the first place. It's about the manufacturing which legally has to be on US soil.

That leaves one US owned manufacturer for leading edge production which is becoming more important. That's what all of this has been, and continues to be, about.

 

[ohio_buckeye]

The thing is, as has been said, Intel has fabs. From a national security perspective you don’t want to have to ask potential adversaries to give you chips. TSMC makes most of the CPUs for other companies like AMD, nvidia etc. So while they have good designs, Intel is a practical investment.

 

[Marlin1975]

Just came out Softbank is investing 2 billion into intel.

Just when you think intel is not that bad off they need a 2billion cash infusion.

 

[jlake3]

Wow. Surprised this thread isn’t closed yet.

This is simply getting into bailout territory. Big companies should not be bailed out.

I can appreciate the sentiment, but the reality is that certain companies failing can create an enormous logistical mess that extends well beyond themselves. Given that the government sees a strategic interest in having a US-based, cutting-edge foundry company, the two options are to try and keep Intel afloat, or do nothing and hope you don’t have to step in and sort out the foundry situation if they fall apart. I’d bet that attempting to maintain continuity of business and trying to continue process development during the time it takes separate foundry from design, find an acceptable buyer, negotiate terms, work out financing, etc. is considered more risky and is extremely expensive on its own.

 

[usertests]

SoftBank Invests $2 Billion In Intel As Part Of A Broader Move To Gain Exposure To "Semiconductor Innovation In The United States"

Intel's hype machine appears poised to rev into high gear again, this time courtesy of a significant investment by SoftBank.

wccftech.com

Just came out Softbank is investing 2 billion into intel.

Just when you think intel is not that bad off they need a 2billion cash infusion.

How do stonks work?

 

[ezst036]

According to China, Taiwan is a province of ... wait for it ... China. China reportedly is planning a full takeover of the island no later than 2027.

According to Taiwan, Taiwan is a province of Taiwan. China has been planning a takeover since the 40's or something like that. If we all waited for something to happen we'd be waiting for nothing.

Neither of them have fabs, now do they?

Which of those has fabs again? Oh yeah... none of them.

It's not about architecture as those tend to be part of the bid for making the products in the first place. It's about the manufacturing which legally has to be on US soil.

That leaves one US owned manufacturer for leading edge production which is becoming more important. That's what all of this has been, and continues to be, about.

Again with this magic poof thinking that is far too common in some parts.

The fabs can be sold together with their personnel contracts, can be spun off into a separate entity. Texas Instruments has fabs, I thought IBM did but I think I was incorrect about that earlier, there's also Global Foundries. Markets are dynamic the fabs will find a home if it comes to that,

The idea that it can't be sold that it just vanishes into thin air is bankrupt thinking. The buying and selling is how its supposed to work, companies come and go all the time, we're not supposed to ring in a celebration over a welcoming of Corporatism. "it is the merger of state and corporate power" You know.

Oh, and Intel is openly discussing giving up on leading edge.
https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-i...-cede-leading-edge-market-to-tsmc-and-samsung

"This is the first time Intel has admitted to considering withdrawing from the leading-edge semiconductor technology race for a major node, essentially leaving leading-edge process technologies to TSMC and possibly Samsung Foundry."

What I find the funniest part of all is how Intel is never called a monopoly unless its convenient. Now everybody wants to rush to save the monopoly. Save the precious monopoly.

 

[thestryker]

The fabs can be sold together with their personnel contracts, can be spun off into a separate entity.

This is not viable for Intel's fabs and likely won't be for at least 2 more years due to proprietary nodes. Even if this was done GloFo is a perfect example of what would likely happen: optimize for the currently capable nodes while cutting as much as possible and killing future node investment.

Texas Instruments has fabs, I thought IBM did but I think I was incorrect about that earlier, there's also Global Foundries. Markets are dynamic the fabs will find a home if it comes to that,

These fabs are completely irrelevant for advanced nodes since they don't have any.

The idea that it can't be sold that it just vanishes into thin air is bankrupt thinking. The buying and selling is how its supposed to work, companies come and go all the time, we're not supposed to ring in a celebration over a welcoming of Corporatism. "it is the merger of state and corporate power" You know.

This is just your complete ignorance with regards to Intel's business talking. If you knew what you were talking about you wouldn't have written it.

Oh, and Intel is openly discussing giving up on leading edge.

Yes they are, and that's the bare minimum any public intervention should be contingent on: Intel continuing R&D for further advanced nodes.

 

[ezst036]

This is not viable for Intel's fabs and likely won't be for at least 2 more years due to proprietary nodes. Even if this was done GloFo is a perfect example of what would likely happen: optimize for the currently capable nodes while cutting as much as possible and killing future node investment.

You don't seem to realize just how big Intel's capacity really is. AMD right now, Nvidia right now, none of them could fill it.(Not without assuming some of Intel's capacity/clients however that ended up) Between Dell and HP and others consumer offerings, it isn't like there's no Intel sales. The generic corporate entities out there be it GM or insurance companies like Aetna or the banks or any other are still on their upgrade-every-2 or-3-years cycles, Intel still sells a boat load of processors. And Intel does still sell server CPUs too. There's also the video cards, and a whole host of other things Intel makes.

A buyer of an Intel fab would simply be selling wafers right back to Intel->->Dell(etc.) until those 2 or more years can be gotten past.

These fabs are completely irrelevant for advanced nodes since they don't have any.

Since Intel doesn't have any advanced nodes either due to saying publicly that giving up on 14a/18a is in the works, it's entirely relevant. The fabs would most definitely find a home and keep right on fabbing.

This is just your complete ignorance with regards to Intel's business talking. If you knew what you were talking about you wouldn't have written it.

I love being insulted, especially this time in the morning. This right here is what leads the moderators to say "not open for further replies"

Yes they are, and that's the bare minimum any public intervention should be contingent on: Intel continuing R&D for further advanced nodes.

Interventionism is just the "nice word" that gets used in place of imperialism. And look at the aggressive tone in this sentence and the force that it more than implies.

Intel is not a healthy company. This is not a good place to put taxpayer dollars and no amount of force is going to magically bring it back to health. Intel either needs to figure it out or Intel does what other past monopolies have done. Certain pieces get sold and or new entities are born.

Monopolies die too.

 

[ohio_buckeye]

Even if Intel gave up on advanced nodes I’m sure stuff they have already developed is capable enough for any weapons systems etc for a few years while they invest in R&D.

 

[ezst036]

Wow. Surprised this thread isn’t closed yet.


I can appreciate the sentiment, but the reality is that certain companies failing can create an enormous logistical mess that extends well beyond themselves. Given that the government sees a strategic interest in having a US-based, cutting-edge foundry company, the two options are to try and keep Intel afloat, or do nothing and hope you don’t have to step in and sort out the foundry situation if they fall apart. I’d bet that attempting to maintain continuity of business and trying to continue process development during the time it takes separate foundry from design, find an acceptable buyer, negotiate terms, work out financing, etc. is considered more risky and is extremely expensive on its own.

It will be expensive no matter what. The question is should the wealthy guys foot the bill or do you and I eat it? They would be footing the bill during their mergers and divestitures and acquisitions.

I don't want to eat it. Let them eat it.

 

[Amdlova]

Other wait Intel arm devices... sound like Army to me... maybe now we call ded x86


Maybe now they can launch true hybrid cores x86 and arm on a single device, may use some of these arm cores to talk with gpu...

 

[thestryker]

You don't seem to realize just how big Intel's capacity really is. AMD right now, Nvidia right now, none of them could fill it.(Not without assuming some of Intel's capacity/clients however that ended up) Between Dell and HP and others consumer offerings, it isn't like there's no Intel sales. The generic corporate entities out there be it GM or insurance companies like Aetna or the banks or any other are still on their upgrade-every-2 or-3-years cycles, Intel still sells a boat load of processors. And Intel does still sell server CPUs too. There's also the video cards, and a whole host of other things Intel makes.

A buyer of an Intel fab would simply be selling wafers right back to Intel->->Dell(etc.) until those 2 or more years can be gotten past.

I'm very well aware of how much capacity Intel has and how many products they sell. I'm not sure why you'd bring up nvidia given that most of their products are huge and their wafer buy count is gigantic. Also not sure why you're bringing up video cards which are all made by TSMC.

Do you think that if Intel sells off its fabs it wants to be chained to using Intel 7 still. That's what it would take to fill up the proprietary nodes currently in operation as someone buying the foundry would need it to be full and not wind them down. This doesn't seem like a deal Intel would want to make.

Since Intel doesn't have any advanced nodes either due to saying publicly that giving up on 14a/18a is in the works, it's entirely relevant. The fabs would most definitely find a home and keep right on fabbing.

You seem to just saying whatever pops into your head and sounds good without having any knowledge to back it up. The closest anyone else is to Intel is having 14nm equivalent nodes. Meanwhile Intel has 7, 4 (I imagine this is being wound down at this point if it isn't already) and 3 in full volume production. Intel 18A is headed towards high volume production which I assume they'll be loud about when it happens.

I love being insulted, especially this time in the morning. This right here is what leads the moderators to say "not open for further replies"

It's not an insult it's an accurate observation based on your clear and continued lack of knowledge about the topic at hand.

 

[VizzieTheViz]

It will be expensive no matter what. The question is should the wealthy guys foot the bill or do you and I eat it? They would be footing the bill during their mergers and divestitures and acquisitions.

I don't want to eat it. Let them eat it.

This is what it boils down to and with the current administration the wealthy guys paying for anything is hardly likely.

Let’s hope Intel can turn things around without any state sponsorship, it’s better for everyone too have a healthy (and I’d prefer a smaller so they have to play fair) Intel making cool stuff than to have any other or no Intel at all.

 

[TerryLaze]

Since Intel doesn't have any advanced nodes either due to saying publicly that giving up on 14a/18a is in the works, it's entirely relevant. The fabs would most definitely find a home and keep right on fabbing.

Intel did not say that, everybody else (clickbaiters) did.
What intel said was that they have to reach bankruptcy to not make 14A on time.

Let’s hope Intel can turn things around without any state sponsorship,

It wouldn't be a sponsorship, CHIPs is/would be, stake means that the gov would get a share of any earnings, which could be billions every year.
But they are talking 10% of market cap, does intel even have 10% of shares sitting around to sell?! (Meaning that they don't belong to any other shareholder and can actually be sold)
Otherwise they are talking about something like a merger, that the gov would become 10% owner of the company as a company and not just shares, which I could not see any company agreeing to do.

 

[Tanakoi]

But they are talking 10% of market cap, does intel even have 10% of shares sitting around to sell?! (Meaning that they don't belong to any other shareholder and can actually be sold)

Such arrangements are typically handled by issuing new shares. Share dilution for existing shareholders is offset by the cash infusion boosting the balance sheet.

 

[ezst036]

Luckily, Softbank may become an investor so hopefully that reduces the need for a government bailout of Intel.

https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-i...ajority-share-of-arm#xenforo-comments-3884946

 

[TerryLaze]

Such arrangements are typically handled by issuing new shares. Share dilution for existing shareholders is offset by the cash infusion boosting the balance sheet.

Share dilution does not change the amount of percentage, 10% will still be 10% it would just be more shares in number.
If you have 100 shares then 10% would be 10 shares, if you do dilution and now have 200 shares then 10% would be 20 shares.
Either you have free shares to give out or you don't, dilution doesn't create anything out of nothing, you can't sell more than 100% of anything, the rolling stones gather no moss, etc etc.