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: carranza2 who wrote (195612)	9/15/2025 11:58:02 AM
From: Art Bechhoefer	9 Recommendations Recommended By BDAZZ Eric Martin JeffreyHF Lance Bredvold manning18 and 4 more members Respond to of 196896

carranza2 -- If the government purchase of INTC is ". . . all about national security . . . , " wouldn't the same rationale apply to purchasing Boeing, Lockheed, Northrop, Texas Instruments, and other firms deemed vital to the national security? Too many other issues infect the government's decision to buy not a majority stake but only a big enough portion to allow heavy handed influence over Intel's policies – in other words, pay to play. This strategy never works out well in the long run and generally harms both national security and taxpayers as well. It is diametrically opposed to view of investment experts such as Warren Buffett, who searches for well run firms whose managers love their work, and produce uncommonly good results accordingly. Buffett has never approved of taking over company management or banking on a turnaround from new top officials. If a company management results in a culture that creates inferior results, then, under a reasonably effective market system, the company will eventually fail. That is a better outcome than the counter strategy that says some companies are too big to fail – especially banks and automobile firms, which have received some form of government assistance in the past. There are, moreover, too many conflicts of interest that arise with government ownership, especially when a proposed takeover is made known to only a favored few government officials, who in turn can make money (illegally) on the inside information. Too much of this going on today, which could convince institutional investors to withdraw from any incentives to invest in government partially owned firms. Art

To: carranza2 who wrote (195612)

9/15/2025 1:00:36 PM

From: Jim Mullens

6 Recommendations

Recommended By
John Hayman
kech
Lance Bredvold
manning18
NozRydr

and 1 more member

Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 196896

Art / C2, re: US GOV 10pct INTC Investment.........................................................

Copilot- discuss Pros/ Cons >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Great question—let’s unpack the pros and cons of the U.S. government's 10% equity stake in Intel (under the CHIPD Act) versus the prior $11.1 billion grant awarded through the CHIPS and Science Act. These two approaches reflect very different philosophies on how to support strategic industries like semiconductors.

CHIPD Act: Government Equity Stake in Intel

Pros

Direct Financial Return: The government now owns stock in Intel, meaning it could profit if Intel’s share price rises—unlike grants, which are one-way spending.
Strategic Influence: Even without voting rights, a 10% stake gives Washington leverage in shaping Intel’s long-term direction, especially on national security priorities.
Signal of Commitment: This bold move shows the U.S. is serious about domestic chip production, potentially attracting more private investment.

Cons

Market Distortion: Critics argue this blurs the line between capitalism and state control, potentially discouraging private investors.
Political Risk: Future administrations could politicize Intel’s operations or use the stake for leverage in unrelated policy battles.
Lack of Transparency: The deal was negotiated privately, raising concerns about insider access and favoritism.
No Governance Rights: Without board representation or voting power, the government may have limited ability to steer Intel’s decisions.

CHIPS Act Grant: $11.1B Award to Intel

Pros

Targeted Investment: Grants were tied to specific projects—like building fabs in Arizona, Ohio, and Oregon—ensuring money went to infrastructure and jobs.
Private Sector-Led: Intel retained full control, preserving market dynamics and innovation incentives.
Broad Industry Support: The CHIPS Act funded multiple companies (TSMC, Samsung, Micron), not just Intel, helping diversify U.S. chip capacity.

Cons

No Financial Return: Grants are sunk costs—taxpayers don’t benefit if Intel’s stock soars.
Oversight Challenges: Ensuring companies meet milestones and use funds appropriately requires complex monitoring.
Risk of Misallocation: Some experts worry the CHIPS Act may have targeted the wrong technologies or lacked strategic focus.

Strategic Trade-Offs

Feature	CHIPD Act (Equity Stake)	CHIPS Act Grant ($11.1B)
Financial Return Potential	? Yes	? No
Control Over Intel	?? Limited (no vote)	? Full private control
Market Impact	? Risk of distortion	? Preserves competition
Transparency	? Questioned	? Publicly tracked
National Security Leverage	? Strong signal	? Infrastructure-focused

In short, the CHIPD Act is a more aggressive, high-stakes play, while the CHIPS Act grant was a safer, infrastructure-first approach. The equity stake could pay off financially and strategically—but it also introduces new risks and political entanglements.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Trump Administration’s Approach to TSMC (2025)

?? Strategic Shift

The current administration is leveraging tariff-linked incentives to accelerate reshoring of advanced semiconductor manufacturing. Rather than relying solely on grants or subsidies, it’s using the possibility of import tariffs as a policy lever to encourage deeper U.S. investment from foreign firms like TSMC.

President Trump has publicly framed chip imports as a national security vulnerability and suggested tariffs ranging from 25% to 100% could apply to foreign-made semiconductors unless companies expand U.S. operations.

?? Resulting Investment Surge

In response to this policy posture, TSMC announced a $100 billion expansion in the U.S. on March 3, 2025, which includes:

Three new fabs with cutting-edge process nodes
Two advanced packaging plants
A research and development center in Arizona

This builds on the $65 billion already committed under the CHIPS Act, bringing TSMC’s total U.S. investment to $165 billion.

Current Administration’s Tactics

Tariff-Linked Incentives: Tariffs are positioned as a conditional tool—companies that invest domestically may avoid them, while those that don’t face higher import costs.
National Security Framing: Semiconductor production is treated as a strategic asset, with policy designed to reduce reliance on overseas supply chains.
Selective Continuation of CHIPS Funding: While the administration has criticized the CHIPS Act’s cost, it continues to release milestone-based payments to firms like TSMC (e.g., $1.5B disbursed in Q4 2024).

Summary of Approach

Policy Tool	Trump Administration
CHIPS Act Grants	? Continued with performance oversight
Tariff-Linked Incentives	? Used to encourage domestic expansion
Ownership Stakes	? Not applied to TSMC
Strategic Messaging	??? National security–driven
Investment Outcome	?? $100B new commitment from TSMC

This approach blends economic pressure with opportunity, aiming to reshape global supply chains without direct ownership. It’s a more assertive form of industrial policy....