SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Non-Tech : Kirk's Market Thoughts -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: robert b furman who wrote (21260)11/6/2024 8:40:01 AM
From: #Breeze5 Recommendations

Recommended By
easygoer
longz
sixty2nds
Texas Jack
toccodolce

  Respond to of 27100
 
Bob, here's De Niro's reaction to last night.




To: robert b furman who wrote (21260)11/6/2024 8:45:22 AM
From: Kirk ©1 Recommendation

Recommended By
the traveler

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 27100
 
Wow, Trump crushed with the popular vote too.

It seemed on TV discussion last night it was a larger rejection of the far left "woke agenda" than the Democrats expected by trying to install the most liberal former senator and current VP without a primary to see what the actual majority of the party wanted.

I wonder if things would have been different if Biden had invited Musk to the White House policy discussions on how to build EVs.

Some of my stocks, such as C, SFM, COHR and INTC, are soaring in the premarket.

Congratulations as you and several others here were right about who would win. Let's hope Trump spends time making America Great Again and not seeking revenge.

I look forward to seeing what Musk, the current Einstein of our generation, can do to make government more efficient.

RFK, in charge of health care, scares the crap out of me.
.




To: robert b furman who wrote (21260)11/8/2024 1:21:12 PM
From: Kirk ©  Respond to of 27100
 
Interesting questions but isn't a lot of this information the companies want to keep secret, especially from competitors?

I wonder if they are also going after US universities that take full paying Chinese students for engineering degrees from BS to PhD?

Moolenaar, Krishnamoorthi Question Semiconductor Equipment Manufacturers on Sales to China

November 8, 2024
•
Press Release

WASHINGTON, D.C.-- Chairman John Moolenaar (R-MI) and Ranking Member Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL) of the House Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party wrote letters to industry leaders in semiconductor manufacturing equipment (SME), regarding their businesses sales to the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The growing prevalence of American, Japanese, and Dutch semiconductor manufacturing equipment in China could give the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) an advantage in building advanced chips all while building up China’s domestic chip capacity.

Chairman Moolenaar and Ranking Member Krishnamoorthi sent this inquiry to KLA, Applied Materials, Lam Research, Tokyo Electron, and ASML.

In the letters, the lawmakers write, “[a]s . . . the world’s leading semiconductor manufacturing equipment firms, your compan[ies have] information that will help us better understand the flow of SME to the PRC and its contributions to the PRC’s rapid buildout of its semiconductor manufacturing industrial base... Alarming reports show the PRC now purchases more semiconductor manufacturing equipment than the United States, South Korea, and Taiwan combined. This will not only help the PRC supply chips to Russia’s war machine but also threaten its neighbors, including Taiwan, as the PRC will feel less constrained by the threat of American sanctions. It will also allow the PRC to continue to progress in critical fields such as artificial intelligence, which are at the very heart of the strategic competition between the United States and the PRC.”

They continue, “We understand that some SME firms believe we should limit the expansion of, or even weaken these and existing and or future unilateral U.S. controls, due to perceived impacts on the competitiveness of this sector. However, enhanced export controls simply are not mutually exclusive with a robust and thriving SME industry.”

Moolenaar and Krishnamoorthi pose the following questions to the companies:

  • For FY2022, FY2023, and YTD FY2024, please state the total dollar value of your company’s:
  • People’s Republic of China (PRC) revenue including sales of goods and services. Please also describe how your company defines total PRC revenue.
  • PRC revenue obtained from a transaction subject to an export license from the United States.
  • PRC revenue obtained from PRC entities that are currently on the BIS Entity List, Treasury NS-CMIC List, or DoD’s 1260H List, as well as any entity that is directly affiliated with such an entity (e.g., unlisted subsidiaries). As part of this response, please identify the revenue for entities that were on the relevant list at the time that you transacted with them.
  • PRC revenue obtained from a transaction in which one party to the transaction was a PRC government entity or affiliated entity as defined as 50.1% or more of ultimate government ownership.
  • PRC revenue from PRC-headquartered or other distributors outside of the PRC where you have knowledge such items are for sale to the PRC.
  • If this dollar value is more than one percent of your company’s yearly gross revenue, please list the top five PRC-distributors by revenue for FY2022, FY2023, and YTD FY2024 for your company.
  • Please provide a list of U.S. export license applications (including approved, denied, or still pending) submitted to the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security between January 1, 2021, and present day. Please include the name of each determined end-user.
  • Please provide the data since January 1, 2021 on the annual volume of SME equipment, by individual models, shipped to the PRC from any of your worldwide direct or indirectly controlled subsidiaries. Please include the most sophisticated technology node the machine is capable of working on (e.g., 14nm, 7nm, etc.), defined as qualified on such nodes with any other customer (both PRC and non-PRC).


  • Please list your top 30 customers in the PRC by revenue, including from sales to the PRC by your subsidiaries located outside the United States (i.e. regardless of if it was a direct U.S. export).


  • How many of your company’s employees are engaged in export control and trade compliance work in the PRC? Please list any due diligence, or other firms that may assist you in export control compliance and whether they are located in or have staff in the PRC.


  • What is your company’s global manufacturing footprint? How much of your manufacturing is done in the United States, the PRC, and elsewhere? (Please provide two data sets: (1) your company’s operational and capital related expenses by geography and (2) shipments to the SME by value according to their point of departure)


  • What plans does your company currently have for any new or expanded offshoring of production, and what related options are under consideration?


selectcommitteeontheccp.house.gov




To: robert b furman who wrote (21260)11/10/2024 1:22:08 AM
From: Kirk ©2 Recommendations

Recommended By
berniel
robert b furman

  Respond to of 27100
 
One the one hand, Governor Stupid is railing on the refineries for raising prices, then on the other hand, he appoints most of the members of the CARB that are making gas prices here even higher.
Last year, the board estimated that the proposed change could drive a 47-cent price increase in 2025 that could reach 79 cents in 2035, as refineries pass costs to customers. ...

“We do not need lower CARB emissions — good grief!” said California resident Melanie Arace in a public comment. “If this is all about the air quality, one sliver of our country isn’t going to clean the air of the entire planet. Quit taxing us to death!”





To: robert b furman who wrote (21260)11/12/2024 11:10:56 AM
From: Kirk ©1 Recommendation

Recommended By
Return to Sender

  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 27100
 
Pat Gelsinger seeks stronger CHIPS Act backing from incoming Trump administration

Amanda Liang, Taipei; Levi Li, DIGITIMES Asia
Tuesday 12 November 2024

Since assuming the role of Intel CEO in 2021, Pat Gelsinger has actively collaborated with government leaders to advance the CHIPS Act, a 2022 initiative aimed at boosting US semiconductor independence and providing significant subsidies for domestic chip production. With Donald Trump's election victory, Gelsinger aims to continue securing policy support to keep Intel's manufacturing plans on course.

Switching to the winning horse

Industry sources reveal that Gelsinger has been in close contact with Vice President-elect JD Vance, showing confidence in the upcoming administration's support for the CHIPS Act. On November 8, Gelsinger reportedly congratulated Vance via text, underscoring his intent to foster stronger collaboration with the new leadership.

Gelsinger recently expressed frustration over delays in CHIPS Act funding, despite Intel's US$30 billion investment in US manufacturing, as noted by Yahoo Finance and Tom's Hardware. He argued that Intel's US investments in R&D and production outpace competitors, justifying a larger share of the CHIPS Act's support.

During recent discussions with Vance, Gelsinger conveyed optimism that the new administration would accelerate CHIPS Act funding to support Intel's US manufacturing plans, The Verge reports.

President-elect Trump has previously voiced criticisms of the CHIPS Act, questioning the Biden administration's subsidy strategy. Industry analysts point out that while TSMC's Arizona plant is advancing, Intel's slower progress on Fab 52 and Fab 62 may put it at risk of subsidy cuts during Trump's tenure, as reported by The Wall Street Journal.

While the Biden administration held high expectations for Intel's US manufacturing expansion, some officials expressed disappointment at its slower-than-expected progress, The New York Times notes. With Trump's return to office, Intel may face increased scrutiny, necessitating faster construction timelines to retain federal subsidies.

Intel is progressing with its US expansion, including its Ohio fab, which broke ground in 2022 with President Biden present. While Intel initially set a 2025 operational goal for the plant, the final timeline will depend on market demand and the speed of federal funding.

Gelsinger's Vance connection

Vance has expressed support for Intel's Ohio facility, and as a US Senator from Ohio, his role is crucial for Intel's relationship with the Trump administration.
Gelsinger recently shared that he has been in communication with Vance and other Republican leaders, including incoming Senator Bernie Moreno, to reinforce Intel's position under the new administration.

The Wall Street Journal reports that Intel's Ohio facility production may now start in 2026, or even 2027. Intel maintains that progress remains steady, with over 100 employees hired and construction workers expected to reach several thousand by late 2024.

Intel's US expansion faces delays from CHIPS Act funding and construction hurdles. However, Gelsinger hopes to collaborate with the new administration to expedite funding, keeping Intel's manufacturing plans on track. He emphasizes that Intel's projects are progressing and reiterates the company's commitment to supporting the American semiconductor sector alongside the Trump administration.

From digitimes.com