←back to thread

US Intel

(stratechery.com)
539 points maguay | 1 comments | 26 Aug 25 10:47 UTC | HN request time: 0.207s | source
Show context
onetimeusename ◴[26 Aug 25 17:21 UTC] No.45029567[source]▶
The other day when the US's stake in Intel was announced, people assumed it was a political stunt. I suspected it was because of national security interests. The CHIPS act probably didn't get the result US Defense wanted quickly enough. Some details that were glossed over include that there was a chip shortage a few years ago as a result of COVID and TSMC supply chain disruptions that led to a shortage in electronics and automobiles even. This started to look like a national security interest back then.

Second, there is an AI race going on. US intelligence is taking it very seriously and views supremacy of our AI as very important. Recently, the US was pushing NVDA to start using Intel's foundry. I assume it's for national security reasons.

Finally, a couple of details from the Intel deal that were not widely discussed is that the US is taking a passive seat[1]

The government’s investment in Intel will be a passive ownership, with no Board representation or other governance or information rights. The government also agrees to vote with the Company’s Board of Directors on matters requiring shareholder approval, with limited exceptions.

There are also warrants being given whose status is based on Intel's foundry. That suggests the foundry was the interest all along.

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

replies(7): >>45029693 #>>45029778 #>>45029869 #>>45029914 #>>45030128 #>>45032121 #>>45032885 #
cpuguy83 ◴[26 Aug 25 20:47 UTC] No.45032121[source]▶
I mean obviously it's about chip production, but shitting on the chips act is a political stunt and nothing more.

Building fabs takes lots of money and time. Intel also doesn't have customers except themselves and have fallen far behind in the fab business and has a decade+ or mistakes to make up for.

What we have here is picking a winner and potentially insider trading/market manipulation with Trump shitting on Intel leading up the "deal".

replies(1): >>45032538 #
1. onetimeusename ◴[26 Aug 25 21:27 UTC] No.45032538[source]▶
That was what I was arguing against. It seems like people cannot stop themselves from making this about Trump. I guess he does that himself though. The problem with saying he was shitting on the CHIPS Act is that Biden himself didn't even pay out the money. It's because Intel made no progress on the fab. It's pretty clear behind both Biden and Trump is a desire to have Intel's foundry working. With Intel making no progress on it, I am assuming the call to take a stake in Intel was done to mitigate all the benchmarks Intel said they would make but failed to do. Perhaps the government figured they could pass the money to Intel without giving up the reigns this way. Either way, I am very convinced there is a national security motive under all of this and neither Trump nor Biden went down this path to grandstand on it.