←back to thread

607 points givemeethekeys | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
jjcm ◴[] No.44990743[source]
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 investing BUY INTEL SHARES" media event. These things should follow a strict set of rules and processes so investors and companies know what to expect. These kind of deals should be boring, not a media event.

replies(25): >>44990768 #>>44990991 #>>44991008 #>>44991032 #>>44991056 #>>44991094 #>>44991125 #>>44991135 #>>44991142 #>>44991149 #>>44991156 #>>44991177 #>>44991295 #>>44991514 #>>44991586 #>>44991729 #>>44992050 #>>44992377 #>>44992551 #>>44992788 #>>44993446 #>>44993951 #>>44993969 #>>45000356 #>>45063597 #
ch4s3 ◴[] No.44991032[source]
I’d really rather we didn’t bail out these companies at all. It clearly creates moral hazard and makes it hard for better run companies to enter markets.
replies(7): >>44991093 #>>44991108 #>>44991331 #>>44991669 #>>44995067 #>>44996633 #>>45000367 #
bcrosby95 ◴[] No.44991331[source]
If shareholders are losing ownership it's less a pure bailout and more a strategic investment and/or takeover. It also potentially lets the average taxpayer benefit rather than just those its directly propping up.
replies(5): >>44991528 #>>44992474 #>>44993012 #>>44995064 #>>44996556 #
frollogaston ◴[] No.44993012[source]
They aren't really losing ownership, they sold ownership at market rate.
replies(1): >>44997183 #
1. re-thc ◴[] No.44997183[source]
> they sold ownership at market rate

No, they did not. The government paid less than Softbank that also just purchased a stake. Unless forced, Intel could have likely gotten a better deal.