←back to thread

US Intel

(stratechery.com)
539 points maguay | 7 comments | 26 Aug 25 10:47 UTC | HN request time: 0.225s | source | bottom
Show context
monknomo ◴[26 Aug 25 15:37 UTC] No.45028039[source]▶
the president unilaterally extorting 10% ownership out of a company isn't going to build the kind of system that competes with anyone. Big business can't really thrive under this kind of thing any more than corner stores can thrive under a protection racket.
replies(4): >>45028634 #>>45030689 #>>45032132 #>>45034694 #
1. AnimalMuppet ◴[26 Aug 25 16:18 UTC] No.45028634[source]▶
Didn't the US pay $9.8 billion? Intel's market cap is $106 billion, so $9.8 billion for 10% is buying at a slight discount.

If that data is correct, how did the US "extort" ownership?

Look, I'm as terrified of Trump's overreach as the next guy. I could easily see him extorting partial ownership of companies. But I don't see this as being that.

Can you make a convincing argument otherwise?

replies(4): >>45028842 #>>45028898 #>>45029932 #>>45031575 #
2. AnIrishDuck ◴[26 Aug 25 16:31 UTC] No.45028842[source]▶
What was the legal basis for this "purchase"? Because as I understand it, Trump came in, saw a law he didn't like (CHIPS), and unilaterally "altered the deal"

I don't think it's fair to characterize this as some kind of standard stock sale, as the terms were never set out as such from the start. (And to be fair, there are lots of valid criticisms of CHIPS)

Instead, funding was voted for by Congress... and then a third party came in, threatened to kill it on a dubious legal basis, and extracted protection money (well, shares). That's textbook extortion.

3. davedx ◴[26 Aug 25 16:34 UTC] No.45028898[source]▶
It was a grant (free money). Then the terms were (mostly) unilaterally changed to be an equity investment. Right?
replies(2): >>45033080 #>>45033086 #
4. downrightmike ◴[26 Aug 25 17:50 UTC] No.45029932[source]▶
All in so far it is $11.1 billion
5. jawiggins ◴[26 Aug 25 19:58 UTC] No.45031575[source]▶
The US Government wanted companies to build fabs in the US so it offered them money to do it. Intel, which was one of those companies, but not the only one, took them up on the offer and was paid to begin construction on a fab in the US.

Normally when we pay businesses to do things we don't demand equity stakes in the businesses afterwards.

Notably, the biggest shareholders in Intel appear to be retirement funds of Americans - so Trump has just pilfered some money from the retirement accounts of Americans.

6. BeetleB ◴[26 Aug 25 22:20 UTC] No.45033080[source]▶
It was because Intel likely wasn't going to get the rest of the grant money, because Lip-Bu Tan openly told the world he won't develop 14A without commitments from customers.

If Intel is going to cease semiconductor development, then why should they get the rest of the taxpayer money? Even under Biden and Pat Gelsinger, the government was signaling to Intel that they may not get the full money if they don't make progress.

7. cpncrunch ◴[26 Aug 25 22:21 UTC] No.45033086[source]▶
No. It was a grant with profit sharing. The profit sharing was turned into equity.

https://www.intc.com/news-events/press-releases/detail/1748/...