3 ms·

The article pretty much says it right in the opening section > investing a further $400 billion in the US alongside buying a stake in Intel seems improbable fr

by araes 1y ago

The article pretty much says it right in the opening section > investing a further $400 billion in the US alongside buying a stake in Intel seems improbable from a purely financial standpoint TSMC's entire assets are ~$200,000,000,000 [1] (cash, inventory, accounts receivable, land, buildings and equipment.) Buying 49% of Intel ... maybe. Intel's outstanding Market Cap is current ~$88,600,000,000. (4,377,000,000 outstanding shares [2] @ 20.26 8/5/25 midday price [3]). Double TSMC's entire assets is a bit extreme. Notably, Intel's valuation also seems kind of nonsense. They made $13B in revenue last quarter. 2024 yearly was $53B ... on a market cap of $88B? Intel's been a mess lately, yet their valuation's also kind of a mess. If they ever stop bleeding money on operating profit and net income they won't look that bad. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TSMC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TSMC [2] https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/intc/institutional-holdings https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/intc/instituti... [3] https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/intc https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/intc

csomar 1y ago
They are $50bn in debt.
j_walter 1y ago
What part of any plan they have had tells you they are likely to stop losing money any time soon? They are basically selling for asset price right now...because the market doesn't believe they are worth more than their assets.
- Gud 1y ago
  No plan, but wouldn’t be the first time a juggernaut is turned around.
  - j_walter 1y ago
    Wouldn't be the first time they became obsolete either...and I think even with the US governments help they are too far down the drain to come back.
achempion 1y ago
Why would they buy exactly 49% and not 51% of Intel? If these extra 2% are not available, why buy 49% then and not just 2-5%?
- bathtub365 1y ago
  They don’t want a successful foreign company to have a controlling interest in their failing domestic company
  - tremon 1y ago
    Is your "they" the same as the parent's "they"? Seems like you're talking about different parties.
- seanmcdirmid 1y ago
  They want to ensure that TSMC doesn't have a controlling stake.
  - sct202 1y ago
    The remaining 51% would be highly fractured unless it was like the US government on the otherside. One of the publicly traded companies I worked at effectively got taken over with <20% of regular shares by an activist billionaire.
    - seanmcdirmid 1y ago
      Ya, they would have to make their stake non-voting regardless, then what would be the point? I don't think Trump thought this through.
    - rvba 1y ago
      The 51% would be controlled by the few people from funds, who live in USA - and who are easy to "influence"
rwmj 1y ago
They could do the China[1] / EU[2] strategy of announcing they'll do it, but never following through with it. When your opponent has the attention span of a drunken gnat, it's a surprisingly good strategy. [1] https://archive.ph/sAFWP https://archive.ph/sAFWP [2] https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/fossil-fool https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/fossil-fool
cyphertruck 1y ago
That money will be provided via a loan, from the US Government, at a reasonable interest rate. USG doesn't lose money, TSMC gets to expand into all of Intels fabs (when they raise the money to buy a controlling interest in INTC down the line.) Or the entire thing can be done by a stock swap, with whoever diluting themselves however amount is necessary, etc.

by araes 1y ago

csomar 1y ago

They are $50bn in debt.

j_walter 1y ago

What part of any plan they have had tells you they are likely to stop losing money any time soon? They are basically selling for asset price right now...because the market doesn't believe they are worth more than their assets.

Gud 1y ago
No plan, but wouldn’t be the first time a juggernaut is turned around.
- j_walter 1y ago
  Wouldn't be the first time they became obsolete either...and I think even with the US governments help they are too far down the drain to come back.

achempion 1y ago

Why would they buy exactly 49% and not 51% of Intel? If these extra 2% are not available, why buy 49% then and not just 2-5%?

bathtub365 1y ago
They don’t want a successful foreign company to have a controlling interest in their failing domestic company
- tremon 1y ago
  Is your "they" the same as the parent's "they"? Seems like you're talking about different parties.
seanmcdirmid 1y ago
They want to ensure that TSMC doesn't have a controlling stake.
- sct202 1y ago
  The remaining 51% would be highly fractured unless it was like the US government on the otherside. One of the publicly traded companies I worked at effectively got taken over with <20% of regular shares by an activist billionaire.
  - seanmcdirmid 1y ago
    Ya, they would have to make their stake non-voting regardless, then what would be the point? I don't think Trump thought this through.
  - rvba 1y ago
    The 51% would be controlled by the few people from funds, who live in USA - and who are easy to "influence"

rwmj 1y ago

They could do the China[1] / EU[2] strategy of announcing they'll do it, but never following through with it. When your opponent has the attention span of a drunken gnat, it's a surprisingly good strategy. [1] https://archive.ph/sAFWP https://archive.ph/sAFWP [2] https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/fossil-fool https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/fossil-fool

cyphertruck 1y ago

That money will be provided via a loan, from the US Government, at a reasonable interest rate. USG doesn't lose money, TSMC gets to expand into all of Intels fabs (when they raise the money to buy a controlling interest in INTC down the line.) Or the entire thing can be done by a stock swap, with whoever diluting themselves however amount is necessary, etc.