Intel Warns US Equity Stake Could Trigger 'Adverse Reactions'
- Reference: 0178858656
- News link: https://slashdot.org/story/25/08/25/1831240/intel-warns-us-equity-stake-could-trigger-adverse-reactions
- Source link:
Foreign governments may impose additional regulations on Intel due to US government ownership, the company warned in securities filings, while the precedent could discourage other nations from offering grants if they expect similar equity conversions. China alone represents 29% of Intel's revenue. The deal also restricts Intel's strategic flexibility, requiring government votes align with board recommendations except on matters affecting federal interests.
[1] https://news.slashdot.org/story/25/08/22/1849210/intel-has-agreed-to-a-deal-for-us-to-take-10-equity-stake-trump-says
[2] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/50863/000005086325000129/intc-20250822.htm
[3] https://news.slashdot.org/story/24/11/26/206258/intels-chips-act-funding-cut-by-over-600-million
Nationalize silicon, (Score:3)
but don't nationalize healthcare!
Trump take factory (Score:4, Interesting)
The whole thing with the subsidy in the CHIPS act was that Intel was going to be building fabs and making more shit over here. Now we just get stocks and no manufacturing.
That's what this was about right MAGA? Jobs and manufacturing? It's not just political power and corruption right? Will you ever stop living in fear of the potential embarrassment of having to admit DJT is not a good person and not a good President?
Re: (Score:2)
> Will you ever stop living in fear of the potential embarrassment of having to admit DJT is not a good person and not a good President?
I continue to wonder where precisely the line is for some of these folks. I do not consider it an embarrassment to use newly available information to determine that your previous position was mistaken... but if someone asks you what it would take to change your mind, and the answer is "nothing," THAT is an embarrassment and the truest sign that an un-thinking follower.
Why would China complain? (Score:1)
Every business operating in China has majority ownership by the Communist government.
Re: (Score:3)
You think China is making objective statements? The official stance of the Chinese government is that CV19 originated from America.
China says what's in China's interests. It's part opposition and part shit-stirring. Take what they say about the US as seriously as they take what Trump says about China.
Re: Why would China complain? (Score:2)
Because they know how this works, so can use the same argument the US has been using against certain Chinese companies.
Like everything else this administration does, it is short sighted and self defeating. This can work for utilities serving local communities, but not for an international company that needs to demonstrate lack of government interference.
Stop Propping up Failed Companies (Score:1)
The government shouldn't take an ownership share, nor should it be propping up a failing company in the first place. While actually owning a piece of what you are spending money on is 'better' for the government than just granting/gifting money away, both are two sides to the same coin. Intel is a failing company that makes slower, more buggy, and more expensive chips. You can have one of those fault but not all three. The government may as well still grant the money instead because the shares of this compa
Re: Stop Propping up Failed Companies (Score:2)
We have to first enforce antitrust so we don't have any companies which are too big to fail.
Like it or not, and I don't, we do have those. And Intel is one of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps, but I think the government taking partial ownership is a way to cause it to fail...at least internationally.
How will/should this affect the stock price? (Score:2)
The CHIPS Act gave Intel a bunch of money, but that money turned out to not be a grant but a stock purchase instead. Intel does get more money to invest, but it's not clear that Intel's problem was a lack of capital. It's more likely a lack of competence.
So, the 10% equity was not purchased on the open market but was newly created shares. The stock has now been diluted in a major way. Unless that $11 billion is expected to result in 10% growth, the stock price should drop around 10%.
Re: (Score:1)
Lack of competence can be addressed through injection of capital to hire competent people to correct whatever problems incompetence caused.
Re: (Score:2)
Was it newly created shares though? Haven't seen a quote on that yet. With all of the buybacks everyone has been doing for years now, Intel could easily sell the 10% out of their own existing stock.
Competence, sure, that they have missing indeed. They're a gen behind in tech and are now manufacturing at TSMC. 13 and 14 series high end was basically recall material. Theoretically they are trying to now skip a gen and come out on top again, but I have my doubts.
Their foundry business dreams have also failed m
Commies (Score:5, Insightful)
The "free speech and free markets" brigade sure has been quiet lately.
I guess they're too busy crossing out parts of their pocket-constitutions.
Intel is hilarous (Score:2)
"If the US government stops throwing free money at us and start expecting something in return, other governments might stop throwing free money at us too!"
TikTok anyone (Score:2)
So...can Intel be trusted anymore ?
How can anyone know that the US government has not put in "back doors" for their benefit
What's going to be the new catch phrase "Intel intel inside"
AMD could do well out of this, along with ARM and other CPUs
Re: TikTok anyone (Score:2)
They never could be trusted. Cisco proved that the government will demand back doors ages ago. But then, you can't trust AMD on the same basis.
Re: (Score:2)
Xerox too I believe.
Re: (Score:2)
Intel could never *really* be trusted, because of "national security" and "national security letters". But this *is* worse.
What Intel was supposed to do (Score:2)
was find a way to give a billion or so of the CHIPS money to Trump ... for instance by "investing" in Trump coin. They did not give Carrot Man his carrot, so now they get the stick.
Who knew the US was going Communist? (Score:2)
Governments taking over private enterprises... huh. I did not have "GOP becomes Communist" on my bingo card 15 years ago.
So this is illegal (Score:4, Insightful)
Whatever else you think about it Trump does not have the right to unilaterally do this. The chips act does not give him that right.
Earlier today he has once again hinted at becoming a dictator.
It is genuinely frustrating how many Trump supporters still exist even here. I don't believe for a second any of them are so foolish that they believe Trump will be good for them economically. So that just leaves social issues.
Is potentially being able to say the n word in public without losing your job worth giving up thousands of dollars a year if not more? The last BBB will cost consumers a minimum of $1,000 a year. And that's before we talk about all the other impacts
I don't expect Trump supporters to change their minds. I figured out years ago that nothing changes their minds because they willingly consume propaganda for entertainment.
I am mostly just bitching at this point. Screaming into the void as it were. There's a small chance Gavin newsom will save the country despite everything but besides that we are going to look like South Sudan in 10 years
Re: (Score:1)
> It is noone's fault but yours.
OK, coward
Re: (Score:2)
Posted with his user name. It's not much but it's better then you've ever done.
Re: (Score:1)
> Whatever else you think about it Trump does not have the right to unilaterally do this. The chips act does not give him that right. Earlier today he has once again hinted at becoming a dictator. It is genuinely frustrating how many Trump supporters still exist even here. I don't believe for a second any of them are so foolish that they believe Trump will be good for them economically. So that just leaves social issues. Is potentially being able to say the n word in public without losing your job worth giving up thousands of dollars a year if not more? The last BBB will cost consumers a minimum of $1,000 a year. And that's before we talk about all the other impacts I don't expect Trump supporters to change their minds. I figured out years ago that nothing changes their minds because they willingly consume propaganda for entertainment. I am mostly just bitching at this point. Screaming into the void as it were. There's a small chance Gavin newsom will save the country despite everything but besides that we are going to look like South Sudan in 10 years
Gavin Newsome turning himself into just as big a clown show as Trump is not going to save us. He's pandering for eyeballs. He is no savior. No savior will dare step foot in the political arena. They'd have to become that which they hate to ever get enough power to affect change. And by the time they got to that power, they'd be just as corrupt as the current crop. Hooray American Politics. It's been bought and paid for. There is no other direction but that decided by the monied.
Re: So this is illegal (Score:1)
Correct, Newsom wants to force medicate the homeless, he is not a hero.
It's still fun to watch the maggots lose their shit though.
Re:So this is illegal (Score:4, Interesting)
The way I see it is what Newsom is doing is just living in the political reality of 2025. We're talking about him aren't we? The Republicans are responding to it, he has them on the defensive.
You really think Trump will be defeated by civility politics? Biden tried that and look what it got him. The political reality is crueler, meaner and more divisive than ever and that's how we, the electorate, want it. We voted for it.
I'm not saving Gavin Newsom is going to "save us" but he is showing other Democrats that you have to pick the things you believe in and defend them almost maniacally today if you want to get anywhere.
I'll take Gavin's style over Hakeem Jefferies all day long right now.
Re:So this is illegal (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, if you think it's goofy and stupid when Newsom says it, well, that's the point he's making.
I do appreciate the people who say "but when Trump does it it's genuine". It's very cute.
Re: So this is illegal (Score:2, Troll)
They're not wrong, drumpf is genuinely evil and demented.
Re: (Score:2)
> I'll take Gavin's style over Hakeem Jefferies all day long right now.
Gavin will get my vote for the same reason Hillary and Kamala did: Because the other side has homophobia codified into their platform*.
* Usually I'd just link to the GOP's platform where they state a desire to see Obergefell overturned, but recently [1]the mask [go.com] [2]totally fell off. [wesh.com]
[1] https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-formally-asked-overturn-landmark-same-sex/story?id=124465302
[2] https://www.wesh.com/article/fdot-removes-protest-rainbow-stripes-from-crosswalk-near-pulse/65879897
Re: (Score:2)
Look the part about the homophobia may be true but have you considered "libs be cringe"?
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to appeal to the masses, particularly Trump's masses, you need to sink to their level, and, unfortunately, for Trump's masses, that's along the lines of a WWE personality yelling barely intelligibly into a camera, pointing and threatening. Wasn't that Dwayne Elizando Mountain Dew Comacho?
Re: (Score:2)
>> Whatever else you think about it Trump does not have the right to unilaterally do this. The chips act does not give him that right.
>> Earlier today he has once again hinted at becoming a dictator.
> Gavin Newsome turning himself into just as big a clown show as Trump is not going to save us.
Trump is doing illegal things because he knows the judiciary cannot or will not stop him. Is there an instance of Newsome doing the same? It's one thing to do legal things that many people disagree with, but it's an entirely different thing to do illegal things.
Re: (Score:2)
> No savior will dare step foot in the political arena. They'd have to become that which they hate to ever get enough power to affect change...
Are you suggesting that opponents of the current regime not fire with fire, but instead roll over?
Re:So this is illegal (Score:5, Informative)
> Is potentially being able to say the n word in public without losing your job worth giving up thousands of dollars a year if not more? The last BBB will cost consumers a minimum of $1,000 a year. And that's before we talk about all the other impacts
"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."
--Lyndon B. Johnson
Re:So this is illegal (Score:5, Interesting)
Very apropos. LBJ was talking about the politics of the South, and the politics of the South have very much become the politics of the country.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, because stupid people aren't limited to the South.
Re: (Score:2)
No, but their particular culture of anything-goes-as-long-as-there's-some-targeted-group used to be.
The way I like to put it (Score:2)
Is that if you want to sell your house and give the money to Trump you go right ahead but don't make me do it.
Re: (Score:1)
> Earlier today he has once again hinted at becoming a dictator.
He will pack up his office and leave just like every other president on Jan 20 2029.
Relax. You only have 1,259 more days of this.
Re: So this is illegal (Score:5, Insightful)
He tried real hard not to leave last time.
This time he will have more help, assuming he lives that long
Re: (Score:2)
Not really.
Harder than anyone would like- for sure- but "real hard"? No. That's utter fucking nonsense.
Let us hope we never have a President who tries "real hard" to stay in office.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't mistake your stupidity for a lack of ignorance- I assure you, it's both.
Re: (Score:2)
Despite what you think, the Republicans do not have the ground game to pull off keeping Trump in office. Elections are State controlled; per the Constitution States have very broad powers to determine who, when and where can be on a ballot. Even if a few States put Trump on the ballot for a 3rd unconstitutional term, most states would not. He would lose in a landslide, because he wouldn't be able to get any electoral votes from most states.
Re: So this is illegal (Score:2, Informative)
"Elections are State controlled"
He's in the process of deploying the military to the states that would oppose him right now. He's BEEN in the process of eliminating the generals who would oppose his illegal use of the military against the citizenry.
Re: (Score:2)
> Despite what you think, the Republicans do not have the ground game to pull off keeping Trump in office. Elections are State controlled; per the Constitution States have very broad powers to determine who, when and where can be on a ballot. Even if a few States put Trump on the ballot for a 3rd unconstitutional term, most states would not. He would lose in a landslide, because he wouldn't be able to get any electoral votes from most states.
He's already trying. [1]https://www.npr.org/2025/08/18... [npr.org]
[1] https://www.npr.org/2025/08/18/nx-s1-5506210/trump-mail-in-ballots-ban
Re: (Score:2)
He's not leaving, if he can help it. The whole point of the NG in DC is to provoke a nominally violent response, so he can declare martial law, and then, viola, never leave office. If you haven't already come to this conclusion, you need to pay more attention.
Re: (Score:2)
> He will pack up his office and leave just like every other president on Jan 20 2029.
Judging by the current state of his hands and ankles, you might be a bit presumptuous.
Re: (Score:3)
> Whatever else you think about it Trump does not have the right to unilaterally do this. The chips act does not give him that right.
This is correct.
> Earlier today he has once again hinted at becoming a dictator.
No.
He cannot force Intel to do this, however, every executive since the dawn of time has been able to make deals with US corporations in return for funding.
Intel sold an equity stake in its business for 8 something billion dollars.
Doing this doesn't make him a dictator. It does, however, make him a hypocrite- but that's hardly news for anyone.
Fellating the image of Reagan while acquiring equity stakes in corporations... chef's kiss. But still not dictatorship behavior.
Re: (Score:3)
> Doing this doesn't make him a dictator. It does, however, make him a hypocrite- but that's hardly news for anyone.
> Fellating the image of Reagan while acquiring equity stakes in corporations... chef's kiss. But still not dictatorship behavior.
He quite literally said today, "A lot of people are saying maybe we'd like a dictator." He's floating that balloon, seeing how much push back he'll get for it.
[1]https://bsky.app/profile/atrup... [bsky.app]
[1] https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3lxabbp5nw32l
Re: (Score:2)
> He quite literally said today, "A lot of people are saying maybe we'd like a dictator." He's floating that balloon, seeing how much push back he'll get for it.
There's no balloon to float.
He's had a hard on for being El Presidente Vitalicio forever. He dreams of himself as the Great White Savior of White America.
Fortunately for us, we're still a nation of laws, and he hasn't proven to test the legal pushback against questionably legal executive action more than any other particular executive.
Look at the context of this.
He's discussing deploying the Illinois National Guard to Chicago. These are people who are sworn to fucking kill his ass if he becomes a dom
Re: So this is illegal (Score:2)
"Fortunately for us, we're still a nation of laws"
Hahahahahhahahahahah
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be a fucking moron.
Would you like a list of extralegal actions done by every single President since 1990?
Stop, take a fucking breath, regain your composure, and start looking at things from a rational perspective.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you see Congress stopping him at all ? Do you see the SCOTUS stopping him at all ? Get your head out of your ass and smell reality. Trump's not leaving, except in a body bag. Midterm elections are already at risk. Do you need the frog to be fully boiled before you feel the effects?
Re: (Score:2)
> He is making ICE into his own army, it already has the budget it needs.
His own Hoover-era FBI for persecuting (mostly) illegal immigrants... ya.
The general populace? Give me a break.
There are cities with more police officers than there are ICE agents in the United States.
> The supreme court said the president can do whatever the fuck he wants as long as it does it as the president, so yeah, any, fucking, thing.
No, they didn't. If I thought it would do any good to explain to you the meaning of that ruling, I would- but suffice it to say- it was largely expected that such a ruling would come down, at least since the Nixon era.
> He's already coming for his enemies, Bolton now
Ya, I wouldn't want to have done anything questionably legal while being on his bad side- h
Re: (Score:2)
> Fortunately for us, we're still a nation of laws, and he hasn't proven to test the legal pushback against questionably legal executive action more than any other particular executive.
Who will enforce any of this? He's placed loyal stooges in every level of government.
Re: (Score:2)
> Who will enforce any of this? He's placed loyal stooges in every level of government.
lol.
Yes. The First President Ever To Do So!!!!
It's his fucking Government. He's the fucking executive of it.
You seem to be really upset by that. I'm not a fan personally, but the twat did win an election.
Re: (Score:2)
This country's government is designed to have checks and balances on power. Congress isn't supposed to rubber-stamp every suggestion the President makes about spending -- they're the ones in charge of those decisions. Judges, particularly at the highest levels, aren't supposed to be partisan stooges; they're supposed to follow the law, but that doesn't seem to be what we have now. Nobody outside of the executive seems to want to exert their power, for fear of losing it. Apparently, it's enough to be able to
Re: (Score:2)
> This country's government is designed to have checks and balances on power.
Correct, it does.
> Congress isn't supposed to rubber-stamp every suggestion the President makes about spending
Uh, wrong.
Congress is supposed to do whatever the fuck the majority of it wants to do. Not what you want it to do.
> Judges, particularly at the highest levels, aren't supposed to be partisan stooges
I'm not going to argue that all judges are perfect- and Trump definitely picked some really fucking shitty ones (but so did Obama) at the circuit level- but Trump's Supreme Court picks aren't that bad. Certainly not as bad as Bush's.
I have a feeling that you find any ruling that you disagree with to be "partisan".
> Nobody outside of the executive seems to want to exert their power, for fear of losing it. Apparently, it's enough to be able to claim having it.
Congress largely agrees with the President. It's perfectly logic
Re: (Score:2)
When will people marry his declarations and musings with the fact that he's marching Federally-controlled troops into cities to "fight crime". What the hell does everyone think is going to happen in next year's mid-terms when armed forces loyal specifically to Trump with little or no objection from Congress or the Supreme Court starting "guarantee" a "fair vote".
Everything he and the Republicans have been working towards since the claims of Obama's ineligibility has been preparing for the moment when they m
Re: (Score:2)
I promise you that California, Illinois, and DC Army National Guards are not loyal to Trump.
You need some edibles, because your brain is flat out poisoned with conspiratorial horseshit.
Re: (Score:2)
> to be clear this is entirely illegal
That's not clear in the slightest.
> that money was allocated by congress for a specific purpose. this is impoundment
The money was allocated by Congress for the CHIPS act, which directed the Department of Commerce to incentivize domestic fabrication capacity.
It's quite mum on the strings that can be attached, and other CHIPS disbursements have had strings attached as well.
I don't disagree with your assertion that Congress largely believes that "it's ok when their guy does it", however- claims of this being illegal are questionable at best, and claims of it being a sign of dictatorship
Re: (Score:2)
Yawn.
Looks like liberal rage bait, to me.
> Under the newly signed order, Hegseth is charged with “ensuring that each State’s Army National Guard and Air National Guard are resourced, trained, organized, and available to assist Federal, State, and local law enforcement in quelling civil disturbances and ensuring the public safety and order whenever the circumstances necessitate, as appropriate under law.
So, he has written an EO that directs the Secretary of Defense to... erm, do their job.
It is the job of the Army National Guard and Air National Guard of every single state to prepared to do their duties under the law, of which are included law enforcement if called upon to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
> Yawn.
> Looks like liberal rage bait, to me.
You'd be in tears if Biden deployed the national guard under the guise of fighting crime.
Re: (Score:2)
In tears because I'd be sorely disappointed in him... I'm not in tears when Trump does it, because I expect him to use the power he has to troll those he doesn't like.
Did you have me mistaken for a Trump supporter just because I think you're stupid?
Slandering me won't make you look less so.
Re: (Score:2)
> It is genuinely frustrating how many Trump supporters still exist even here. I don't believe for a second any of them are so foolish that they believe Trump will be good for them economically. So that just leaves social issues.
Some of it might be culture war issues, but you're overlooking something far more important - a lot of these folks see their political alignment as part of their identity. If thrown into question because they finally admit to themselves that the emperor is naked, now where do they fall?
In our two-party system, being an independent means aligning yourself with literal losers. So, the only other realistic option is the Democrats, and you don't have to do much lurking in conservative circles to discover what