Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sbfm who wrote (195316)	8/21/2025 12:38:54 PM
From: Elroy	4 Recommendations Recommended By Dr. John Lance Bredvold NozRydr pheilman_ Respond to of 198517

I always thought when the US government saved the US banks in 2008 financial crisis they should have received equity, keep the banks afloat but dilute the hell out of the existing shareholders, and then 4-5 years later after all the stock prices had rebounded sell the equity, make big profits, and voila saving the banks = a money maker. I have no problem with the government taking stakes in companies as long as they resist the urge to get involved with management decisions. That's a big if, but there's nothing wrong with another silent shareholder partner that also wants the same thing we want - a higher share price.

To: sbfm who wrote (195316)	8/21/2025 2:31:34 PM
From: Art Bechhoefer	1 Recommendation Recommended By sbfm Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 198517

sbfm and all -- A sovereign wealth fund, or whatever its name might be, should produce a return on investment (ROI) greatly exceeding the cost of the investment. Since the U.S. is already in debt, any fund must offset the cost of debt service, plus an additional return that would justify the risk of investing in a company with a questionable earnings record and questionable quality of management. Currently, long term Treasury bonds bear interest at more than 4.5% annually. The risk of investing at this time in a company like Intel, which is nowhere near the leader in semiconductor fabrication, would, in my view require a ROI of at least 9 percent (4.5% current rate for long term debt service, plus another 4.5% to cover the risk of an equity position in Intel). Note that an investment guru like Warren Buffett would never invest in mediocre management, nor would he be very happy about buying ordinary common stock. He would instead favor a convertible preferred stock or bond, with a dividend or interest paid ahead of any outstanding common stock dividend, and a conversion rate that would provide a high probability of a ROI in the coming 3 to 5 years. In other words, a high probability of a 9% or better ROI in the next 3 to 5 years. I don't think an investment in Intel would produce that high a ROI, unless, of course, the administration favored Intel chip contracts, or even worse, demanded that other firms buy Intel chips in order to qualify for government contracts. Pay to play contracts only worsen the burden of public debt, meaning taxpayers, especially those in low to middle income groups, pay most of the cost. I've had enough experience working in government to know how this business works. It's not pretty. P.S. Even the current president prefers bonds or convertible preferred stocks, as evidenced by more than 600 trades made by his sons or associates since last January, but delivering income to him, as shown in recently released court documents (defamation lawsuit settlements involving voting firms and Fox News). Art

To: sbfm who wrote (195316)	8/23/2025 5:58:34 PM
From: GR8FORM	1 Recommendation Recommended By sbfm Respond to of 198517

Interesting that comrade Bernie voted against the “bi-partisan” chips act calling it a blank check and a bribe to failing industry. Here is a Gemini response to sho voted against that bill and why the opposition. A significant portion of Republicans in both the House and Senate voted against the CHIPS Act, along with progressive Independent Senator Bernie Sanders. Key opposition arguments included concerns about "corporate welfare" for large companies and the bill's overall cost and scope. Key Figures and Reasons for Opposition Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA): The House Minority Leader criticized the bill as a "blank check" for the semiconductor industry. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): Opposed the bill because he believed direct cash payments to massive corporations invited corruption. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT): A progressive who, along with many conservatives, derided the bill as corporate welfare and a "blank check". Rep. Brandon Williams (R-NY): Ran his campaign in 2022 against the CHIPS Act, labeling it a "corporate welfare package," though he later praised the resulting factory investment in his district. Key Arguments Against the Bill Corporate Welfare: Opponents argued that the bill provided excessive subsidies to already profitable companies. Cost and Scope: Some Republicans, including Senate leadership, felt the bill had become a "blank check" after last-minute changes expanded its scope. Cronyism: Concerns were raised that direct government funding to corporations could lead to corruption. Vote Breakdown House of Representatives: 187 Republicans voted against the bill, while 24 Republicans voted in favor. Senate: 17 Republicans voted for the bill, with the majority opposing it.