Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

surely they will figure it out, i mean AMD was ass dragging for years before they figured it out but they did.  at some point this stock has to be a buy just because toilet water has so much room for improvement.

  • 3 weeks later...
Posted
17 hours ago, Wiler77 said:

So POTUS is demanding INTC CEO resign, and telling TSMC they need to take a 49% ownership stake in the company.  Things going great!

'member when the president shouldn't be telling companies how do run themselves and what to say? Something about a free market?

season 20 20x1 GIF by South Park

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)

Earlier this week, Cadence Design Systems pleaded guilty to illegally exporting EDA technology to China from 2015-2021.  The CEO of Cadence at that time: Lip-Bu Tan.  Today's Intel CEO: The same Lip-Bu Tan.

DJT tends to do almost everything with a bludgeon, but a "leak" to the NYT or WSJ or whatever stating, "The administration, the DoE, DoD, etc. is extremely concerned by the outcome of the Cadence case.  Cadence's CEO was Li-Bu Tan, who is now the CEO of Intel.  Federal officials are concerned about such a breach under his leadership at Cadence and whether the Intel board exercised proper due diligence in adding Mr. Tan to the board in 2022 and appointing him as CEO in 2025.  Intel has been a large recipient of CHIPs Act funding and has several critical contracts with the DoE and DoD."

EDIT to add: DJT being prescriptive almost guarantees a certain course of action will not be taken.  An immediate resignation/termination followed by a partnership with TSMC might actually be one correct course of action.  They absolutely cannot do that now, as it would be akin to DJT dictating corporate actions.  Yet another case where DJT should have been cautious or quiet.

Edited by boilerhorn
Posted

Looks like Trump flipped on Lip-Bu. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/11/intel-ceo-trump-lip-bu-tan.html

Another TACO case?

President Donald Trump said Monday that he and members of his cabinet met with Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan, days after he called on the head of the chipmaker to resign. Intel shares rose 2% in extended trading.

“I met with Mr. Lip-Bu Tan, of Intel, along with Secretary of Commerce, Howard Lutnick, and Secretary of the Treasury, Scott Bessent,” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social. “The meeting was a very interesting one. His success and rise is an amazing story. Mr. Tan and my Cabinet members are going to spend time together, and bring suggestions to me during the next week. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”

An Intel spokesperson confirmed the meeting.

“Earlier today, Mr. Tan had the honor of meeting with President Trump for a candid and constructive discussion on Intel’s commitment to strengthening U.S. technology and manufacturing leadership,” the spokesperson wrote in an email.

Posted
30 minutes ago, boilerhorn said:

Looks like Trump flipped on Lip-Bu. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/11/intel-ceo-trump-lip-bu-tan.html

Another TACO case?

President Donald Trump said Monday that he and members of his cabinet met with Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan, days after he called on the head of the chipmaker to resign. Intel shares rose 2% in extended trading.

“I met with Mr. Lip-Bu Tan, of Intel, along with Secretary of Commerce, Howard Lutnick, and Secretary of the Treasury, Scott Bessent,” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social. “The meeting was a very interesting one. His success and rise is an amazing story. Mr. Tan and my Cabinet members are going to spend time together, and bring suggestions to me during the next week. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”

An Intel spokesperson confirmed the meeting.

“Earlier today, Mr. Tan had the honor of meeting with President Trump for a candid and constructive discussion on Intel’s commitment to strengthening U.S. technology and manufacturing leadership,” the spokesperson wrote in an email.

Not TACO, it's the despotic leader saying "sure is a nice business, it would be a shame if anything happened to it..." And then seeing what sort of concessions and bribes he can secure. Apple did it last week with the glass and gold offering

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 2
Posted
10 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Not TACO, it's the despotic leader saying "sure is a nice business, it would be a shame if anything happened to it..." And then seeing what sort of concessions and bribes he can secure. Apple did it last week with the glass and gold offering

Goodfellas Bust Out - video Dailymotion

Posted
1 hour ago, Wiler77 said:

Company that acted like a cartel with its anticompetitive practices gets bailed out by US government and becomes a shareholder.  That's just super.

They're getting bailed out from decades of paying out record dividends and stock buybacks. This is more taxpayer subsidy of executive bonuses.

If they're buying back over a hundred billion in stocks, maybe they are the source of their own business problems. 

God, I love the Almighty Free Market and it's infinite wisdom to punish inefficient firms

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Captainant said:

They're getting bailed out from decades of paying out record dividends and stock buybacks. This is more taxpayer subsidy of executive bonuses.

If they're buying back over a hundred billion in stocks, maybe they are the source of their own business problems. 

God, I love the Almighty Free Market and it's infinite wisdom to punish inefficient firms

No CR/ but this seems bipartisan across aisles:

Quote

Some degree of greater government involvement is now pretty bipartisan — the reported deal involves converting the firm’s Biden-era grants into equity. The bigger question is whether this will help turn the chipmaker around — DC has long flagged Intel as America’s best (last?) bet for US-owned, home-grown chipmaking.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/24/us/politics/intel-chips-biden.html

Posted
11 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

No CR/ but this seems bipartisan across aisles:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/24/us/politics/intel-chips-biden.html

You're citing a pre-trump47 article to tell me how what trump47 is doing is bi-partisan, just FYI. Reframing a grant as a stock purchase is some pretty rancid deal rewriting mid flight.

https://www.business-standard.com/world-news/trump-admin-in-talks-to-take-10-stake-in-intel-via-chips-act-grants-125081900100_1.html

Beyond Intel, the White House official also floated the possibility that the administration could convert other Chips Act awards into equity stakes. It’s not clear whether that idea has gained traction broadly within the administration or whether officials have broached the possibility with any companies that could be affected. 

It's going to sour any business from taking grant money for fear of it turning out to be a baited hook. The feds operating with such dishonesty is bad for business.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
10 minutes ago, Captainant said:

It's going to sour any business from taking grant money for fear of it turning out to be a baited hook.

We can hope.

But yeah the whole thing stinks.

Posted
19 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah, no, it's not.  The CHIPS Act provided grants, but the strings did not include giving up equity.  That's a whole new thing from Mr. Transaction.

 

19 hours ago, WBT said:

We can hope.

But yeah the whole thing stinks.

The crazy thing is that there's other recipients of CHIPS funding via grants that are not receiving demands of equity or compensation for what was a previous act of Congress. Just completely off the rails that the President is trying to take a bite out of a company.

I could have sworn folks around these parts felt passionately about the government seizing private property....

Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Captainant said:

 

The crazy thing is that there's other recipients of CHIPS funding via grants that are not receiving demands of equity or compensation for what was a previous act of Congress. Just completely off the rails that the President is trying to take a bite out of a company.

I could have sworn folks around these parts felt passionately about the government seizing private property....

Also, wtf is the point?  Making returns for the US?  They claim they're not going to exercise voting rights.  But that's enough stock to move the market on sale/"purchase."

I suspect that it's just performative in that Trump sincerely wishes he'd done the CHIPS Act and that his trade/manufacturing policy was that coherent.  The only thing that can be criticized is that it's a "government giveaway," and this mitigates that to some extent.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted
21 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah, no, it's not.  The CHIPS Act provided grants, but the strings did not include giving up equity.  That's a whole new thing from Mr. Transaction.

My point is that in the current present time, the idea of the national government taking a stake in Intel (for whatever reasons; good, bad or indifferent) seems to be gaining bipartisan acceptance. 

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
31 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

My point is that in the current present time, the idea of the national government taking a stake in Intel (for whatever reasons; good, bad or indifferent) seems to be gaining bipartisan acceptance. 

No, I don't think so.  CHIPs was a bipartisan effort, yes.  But it did not involve taking an equity stake in any company in return for grants.

Trump and Lutnick are doing this unilaterally, without Congressional or Democrat consent.

Posted
47 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

No, I don't think so.  CHIPs was a bipartisan effort, yes.  But it did not involve taking an equity stake in any company in return for grants.

Trump and Lutnick are doing this unilaterally, without Congressional or Democrat consent.

I think I misspoke upon furthe reading, currently the idea of the national government taking the 10% stake in Intel is NOT bipartisan but Trump led; what is bipartisan is the interest in the government getting involved in some capacity to help Intel as a matter of national interest (even much more so than U.S. Steel).

Posted
1 hour ago, Vegas64 said:

I think I misspoke upon furthe reading, currently the idea of the national government taking the 10% stake in Intel is NOT bipartisan but Trump led; what is bipartisan is the interest in the government getting involved in some capacity to help Intel as a matter of national interest (even much more so than U.S. Steel).

You're not replying to your boss. It's okay to say "I think I was wrong upon furthre [sic] reading". 

Posted

I am not here to say that nationalizing something like intel isn't the right choice (looking straight at TSMC, and the big Chinese fabs) when a standalone corporate entity is competing against competition and a country its kinda fucked up and that's exactly what's happened with the foundry business at the leading edge node. 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...