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: kech who wrote (195375)	8/25/2025 12:13:22 PM
From: Elroy	3 Recommendations Recommended By Dr. John Lance Bredvold sbfm Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197005

I actually think it's a great deal for Intel, and a lousy deal for the government (if the interest is to make money). If you could magically own 10% of any semiconductor firm would you choose Intel? No way. It probably stops other semiconductor firms from wanting to receive Chips Act funds, if it requires them to sell (give?) equity to the US government. On the other hand, any semiconductor firm bidding for US government contracts probably would love to have the government as an investor, if it makes it more likely that they win the US government contracts. From all I've read it doesn't quite seem that the US government fully understands the situation with the semiconductor industry, and what is and is not strategic. Probably they understand it, but the chaotic way that things are rolling out doesn't give one confidence. The US dominates the world in semiconductor design, and semi design tools. The US dominates the world in semiconductor capital equipment - the machines used to fabricate / manufacture semiconductors. The US DOES NOT dominate the world in the fabrication of semiconductors. THAT's the national security issue. TSMC in Taiwan dominates the manufacturing / fabrication of semiconductors, especially at the leading edge. For some reason, this industry (taking a customer's design and making an actual semiconductor out of the design) is a winner takes all industry, and TSMC is winning, and no one can catch up. Intel is trying to catch up, but not succeeding. So there are loads of ways to make TSMC stop advancing in semiconductor fabrication. For example, tell Applied, Lam and KLA Tencor to stop selling them capital equipment machines. Boom, TSMC is halted from advancing down the technology roadmap. But then our capital equipment industry suffers (badly) and the entire world suffers because chips don't advance. Anyways, giving Intel $10 billion doesn't mean they can be a merchant fabricator that will be equal to TSMC. Not even close. Intel has no problem getting capital. It's not the capital required, it's the technological know how. And, since Trump will be out of office in three more years, no semiconductor company is adjusting their long term (multi-decade) strategy to fit his unique economic views. I doubt the next Republican President does anything close to what Trump is doing in regard to tariffs and government control over areas they haven't traditionally had control, so why would a semiconductor company spend the $$ billions required to do what Trump wants, and then the next President perhaps could care less about this stuff, and the world may go back to the "highest quality at cheapest price anywhere in the world" system wins.

To: kech who wrote (195375)	8/25/2025 12:17:30 PM
From: waitwatchwander	1 Recommendation Recommended By sbfm Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197005

Let's just hope Qualcomm can utilize Intel's 18A processes for it's chips as a result of this investment. With this as plan B that has to be the important factor. Intel's 14A process may now be on the block for pick up by Samsung, TSMC or Global Foundries which could also work out well for Qualcomm. As to a plan B, AMD and Nvidia are in a different boat than Qualcomm. Much like with GM's SUVs, there should be no doubt that Intel processors will now dominate within the US govt but this is not likely to be a great change in the status quo. Big SUVs were also GM's greatest export, much like with Intel's servers today. The only real difference I see is there are many other options (old and new) for big servers while the big SUV class was dominated by GM. Not quite the same but there are similarities.

To: kech who wrote (195375)	8/25/2025 1:00:10 PM
From: Piece of beef	7 Recommendations Recommended By aryl jazzcat2000 Jon Koplik manning18 NozRydr and 2 more members Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 197005

I feel much better about this than this insanity... from perplexity: how much money did the govenment lose due to the money given to renewable energy companies during the obama administration The U.S. government lost approximately $780 million to $2.2 billion in taxpayer money due to loan defaults and credit costs from renewable energy companies funded during the Obama administration, notably including the high-profile bankruptcy of Solyndra. Overview of Losses Government loan guarantees to renewable energy firms under the Obama-era Department of Energy totaled nearly $34 billion. Defaults, including from companies like Solyndra, Fisker Automotive, and Abound Solar, resulted in direct losses calculated at about $780 million—a 2.28% loss rate on total loans disbursed. Expected net costs (including projected losses on risky loans that might default in the future) were estimated by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to be about $2.2 billion as of 2014, a figure that reflects both actual and anticipated losses over the life of the loans.