- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The US now owns 10% of Intel
Posted on 8/22/25 at 9:06 pm to fallguy_1978
Posted on 8/22/25 at 9:06 pm to fallguy_1978
quote:
Yeah, I don't agree with the government taking ownership in private/public companies.
I don’t see this is as taking ownership. It is more like the corporate equivalent to section 8 for housing.
But, it is kind of ironic it looks identical to the blueprint Trump was presented for government pharmaceutical grants that was rejected.
Posted on 8/22/25 at 9:10 pm to lsuconnman
I see it more as the government owning the means of production, aka socialism.
Intel has been getting boat raced by their competitors in recent years. They should be allowed to go bankrupt if it happens. Will it when the taxpayers own part of the company?
Intel has been getting boat raced by their competitors in recent years. They should be allowed to go bankrupt if it happens. Will it when the taxpayers own part of the company?
This post was edited on 8/22/25 at 9:11 pm
Posted on 8/22/25 at 9:15 pm to fallguy_1978
Once the scale tips from corporate laziness to obligation I’ll agree.
Posted on 8/22/25 at 11:18 pm to SlidellCajun
Easy long play.
Intel stock has that money printer reserve currency backing, officially.
Anyone not nibbling on this during pullbacks is delusional
Intel stock has that money printer reserve currency backing, officially.
Anyone not nibbling on this during pullbacks is delusional
Posted on 8/22/25 at 11:29 pm to FAT SEXY
quote:
Anyone not nibbling on this during pullbacks is delusional
Count me out.
This plays out like GM. Gubment and secured creditors get the foundry. Shareholders are spun off with the debt and outdated hardware.
Posted on 8/22/25 at 11:35 pm to lsuconnman
Comparing BO bailouts for the Auto sector back in the day isn't fair.
Intel is still a Top 5 name in the Semiconductor space.
..and that space is much more profitable than the automotive industry.
Intel is still a Top 5 name in the Semiconductor space.
..and that space is much more profitable than the automotive industry.
Posted on 8/22/25 at 11:39 pm to FAT SEXY
They’ve been relegated to the kids table.
They lost $18 bil last year, and have been unable to secure a single client for their foundry.
They lost $18 bil last year, and have been unable to secure a single client for their foundry.
Posted on 8/22/25 at 11:44 pm to lsuconnman
Our government just flagged that they will pay for the best chip engineers.
Our government has the keys to the printing press.
Our government has the keys to the printing press.
Posted on 8/23/25 at 12:03 am to FAT SEXY
Fair enough, but retail shareholders will not be invited to the printer party.
Posted on 8/23/25 at 6:30 pm to SlidellCajun
The US owning companies is an inherent conflict of interest.
When contracts are awarded or regulations passed, obviously isn't the government going to favor the companies ti has an ownership stake in?
Seems like a terrible idea for the govt. to have any major stake in companies because it will lead to favoritism.
When contracts are awarded or regulations passed, obviously isn't the government going to favor the companies ti has an ownership stake in?
Seems like a terrible idea for the govt. to have any major stake in companies because it will lead to favoritism.
Posted on 8/23/25 at 9:30 pm to StansberryRules
Kind of semantics at this point considering Boeing moved its headquarters to DC and effectively was allowed to oversee its own compliance for decades.
Posted on 8/23/25 at 9:34 pm to StansberryRules
quote:
The US owning companies is an inherent conflict of interest.
Agreed
If I was a competing company, I would be pissed
Posted on 8/23/25 at 11:28 pm to FAT SEXY
quote:more like easy short play. News of the government ownership is going to drive the price higher next week. Same as MP materials a month or so ago.
Easy long play.
Posted on 8/24/25 at 12:55 am to AuburnTigers
Feel free to post your slips after you make this easy short money, my guy.
Regardless of all that, for a long outlook like I have: I know this thing ain't going too much lower if it were to dip. The 10 year low for this ticker is $19. If it happens to drop below that in the short term I bet it gets gobbled up with the quickness.
It's got Big Daddy Money Printing Uncle Sam on its side now.
I'm not expecting parabolic moves btw, just gradual increases.
Regardless of all that, for a long outlook like I have: I know this thing ain't going too much lower if it were to dip. The 10 year low for this ticker is $19. If it happens to drop below that in the short term I bet it gets gobbled up with the quickness.
It's got Big Daddy Money Printing Uncle Sam on its side now.
I'm not expecting parabolic moves btw, just gradual increases.
This post was edited on 8/24/25 at 1:22 am
Posted on 8/24/25 at 4:27 pm to SlidellCajun
quote:An article that sums up both sides of the argument Reuters
"We don't think any government investment will change the fate of its foundry arm if they cannot secure enough customers."
The chipmaker, once synonymous with American chipmaking prowess, has stumbled due to years of management missteps, ceding its manufacturing lead to Taiwan's TSMC and losing out on the race for artificial intelligence chips to Nvidia.
Now, at an impasse, Intel needs to prove it is capable of making advanced chips to attract customers. Reuters has reported that Intel's current 18A process - less advanced than 14A - is facing problems with yield, the measure of how many chips printed are good enough to make available to customers.
Large chip factories including TSMC swallow the cost of poor yields during the first iterations of the process when working with customers like Apple. For Intel, which reported net losses for six straight quarters, that's hard to do and still turn a profit.
"If the yield is bad then new customers won't use Intel Foundry, so it really won't fix the technical aspect of the company," said Ryuta Makino, analyst at Gabelli Funds, which holds Intel stock.
Makino, who believes that Intel can ultimately produce chips at optimal yields, views the deal as a net negative for Intel compared with just receiving the funding under the CHIPS Act as originally promised under the Biden Administration.
"This isn't free money," he said.
The federal government will not take a seat on Intel's board and has agreed to vote with the company's board on matters that need shareholder approval, Intel said. But this voting agreement comes with "limited exceptions" and the government is getting Intel's shares at a 17.5% discount to their closing price on Friday.
The stake will make the U.S. government Intel's biggest shareholder, though neither Trump nor Intel disclosed when the transaction would happen.
Intel's shares closed up 5.5% on Friday on news of the government's equity stake, but fell 1% in post-market trading after the chipmaker detailed the terms of the deal. They have risen 23% so far this year as Tan has announced huge job cuts.
Posted on 8/24/25 at 6:43 pm to SlidellCajun
I’m ain’t government owning companies. If GM or Intel can’t make it, they can’t make it.
Posted on 8/24/25 at 8:33 pm to fallguy_1978
quote:It is an absolutely terrible idea. Just like the government getting a percentage of AMD/nVidia chips sold to China. We don’t need the government involved in free enterprise.
This seems like a terrible idea.
Popular
Back to top


1








