11 ms·

TI is a going concern, no bailout necessary

lokar 1y ago
Intel is not getting any money that legislation (law) had not already allocated to them. The transfer of shares to the Gov is just a shakedown.
- givemeethekeys 1y ago
  Just? You mean they should have received the stupidly large sum of money without anything for the tax payer?
  - Spivak 1y ago
    Yes? That's what grants are. The government is buying a domestic chip industry with that money.
    - givemeethekeys 1y ago
      Why shouldn’t they get some equity in return for giving money to a for profit company?
      - dmix 1y ago
        They should be doing neither. America is the last place that is short of capital for industry investments where it requires gov taxes going to it, they have a huge domestic financial market and tons of foreign investment (but those require legitimate plans, not national security woo woo). This is just propping up weak megacorp industry like they did with Boeing, instead of fostering real progress.
      - Spivak 1y ago
        I'm a bit biased because my home state is Ohio and they have it in their constitution that the state can't have a stake in any private company and can't even lend credit to any private company. And this amendment was written in blood, in the early 19th century the state nearly bankrupted itself investing in and taking stake in private companies. * The state can't risk taxpayer money on ventures that might not pay off or lose them money. How the state "gets around this" is by issuing zero recourse loans. The advantage is that when economic development money is handed out there's not an asset on the balance sheet. It's treated like it was spent. The value the state gets from spending the money has to be independently worth it for taxpayer without considering financial returns. * It eliminates a whole category of conflicts of interests where the government will get squeamish regulating or punishing bad behavior because it would hurt the taxpayers' investment. * It also eliminates vectors for corruption as well as the negative effects of the government having direct influence over specific businesses. No backdoor regulations from the state's ownership stake that don't go through the legislature. So I'm very heavily in the camp that government shouldn't ever be allowed to have stake in any private company. The line between government and private enterprise should be the wall this admin likes to talk about. I certainly didn't expect it would be republicans I would be trying to convince that state ownership of business is a bad thing.
        andrekandre 1y ago
        > So I'm very heavily in the camp that government shouldn't ever be allowed to have stake in any private company. The line between government and private enterprise should be the wall this admin likes to talk about. completely agree, private sector should be private and public be public, and the two should never co-mingle (and that includes politicians owning stocks and bonds etc)... right now there is so much corruption (sorry, "investment") it boggles the mind > I certainly didn't expect it would be republicans I would be trying to convince that state ownership of business is a bad thing. because they are competing with china and they are wiping the floor with the competition, so they feel they need to do the same i assume
        justin66 1y ago
        > I'm a bit biased because my home state is Ohio and they have it in their constitution that the state can't have a stake in any private company and can't even lend credit to any private company. The Ohio government works around this by cooperating with private “development corporations.”
      - lokar 1y ago
        I’m not a fan, but it’s been going on for a very long time. It’s not all that different from development tax incentives which are very common. I think the grants had some requirements to build up domestic production.
OhMeadhbh 1y ago
Sure.. calculators and MSP430s for remote power meters are keeping TI from closing up shop, but TI doesn't have the capitalization structure to bring up a fab for the types of chips people say they want. I mean sure... If you want to make 28nm chips, they're fine, and you can do a lot with 1 and 2 GHz parts, but... We keep saying we want to make the chips in the states that they're making in Shenzhen and Taipei... And honestly, a $1.6B grant from daddy warbucks may not be enough to prevent TI from taking the money and dropping out of the program in a few years. And this comes from a place of love... My family's been invested in GSI for almost 100 years
- dkdcio 1y ago
  > calculators and MSP430s for remote power meters are keeping TI from closing up shop calculators have consistently been a minor percentage of TI’s business (~5% of profits per source below). I doubt MSP430s in particular amount to a huge percentage either one random source: https://www.meta-calculator.com/blog/ti-graphing-calculator-profit-margins/ https://www.meta-calculator.com/blog/ti-graphing-calculator-... (this is pretty easy info to find)
  - OhMeadhbh 1y ago
    I can assure you that TI's margins on calculators and MSP430s are much higher than their margins on DAC*s.
    - Kirby64 1y ago
      Depends on which line of DACs. And calculators are an almost irrelevant amount of TIs revenue. They don’t report it individually, but it’s categorized under the miscellaneous “other” bucket which is only 6% of their business and includes DLP and “other charges” related to M&A. $947 million with all those other things means you’re talking about probably 100-300 million in revenue. There’s other businesses within TI that do more revenue than that by themselves.
      - OhMeadhbh 1y ago

Intel is not getting any money that legislation (law) had not already allocated to them. The transfer of shares to the Gov is just a shakedown.

givemeethekeys 1y ago
Just? You mean they should have received the stupidly large sum of money without anything for the tax payer?
- Spivak 1y ago
  Yes? That's what grants are. The government is buying a domestic chip industry with that money.
  - givemeethekeys 1y ago
    Why shouldn’t they get some equity in return for giving money to a for profit company?
    - dmix 1y ago
      They should be doing neither. America is the last place that is short of capital for industry investments where it requires gov taxes going to it, they have a huge domestic financial market and tons of foreign investment (but those require legitimate plans, not national security woo woo). This is just propping up weak megacorp industry like they did with Boeing, instead of fostering real progress.
    - Spivak 1y ago
      I'm a bit biased because my home state is Ohio and they have it in their constitution that the state can't have a stake in any private company and can't even lend credit to any private company. And this amendment was written in blood, in the early 19th century the state nearly bankrupted itself investing in and taking stake in private companies. * The state can't risk taxpayer money on ventures that might not pay off or lose them money. How the state "gets around this" is by issuing zero recourse loans. The advantage is that when economic development money is handed out there's not an asset on the balance sheet. It's treated like it was spent. The value the state gets from spending the money has to be independently worth it for taxpayer without considering financial returns. * It eliminates a whole category of conflicts of interests where the government will get squeamish regulating or punishing bad behavior because it would hurt the taxpayers' investment. * It also eliminates vectors for corruption as well as the negative effects of the government having direct influence over specific businesses. No backdoor regulations from the state's ownership stake that don't go through the legislature. So I'm very heavily in the camp that government shouldn't ever be allowed to have stake in any private company. The line between government and private enterprise should be the wall this admin likes to talk about. I certainly didn't expect it would be republicans I would be trying to convince that state ownership of business is a bad thing.
      - andrekandre 1y ago
        > So I'm very heavily in the camp that government shouldn't ever be allowed to have stake in any private company. The line between government and private enterprise should be the wall this admin likes to talk about. completely agree, private sector should be private and public be public, and the two should never co-mingle (and that includes politicians owning stocks and bonds etc)... right now there is so much corruption (sorry, "investment") it boggles the mind > I certainly didn't expect it would be republicans I would be trying to convince that state ownership of business is a bad thing. because they are competing with china and they are wiping the floor with the competition, so they feel they need to do the same i assume
      - justin66 1y ago
        > I'm a bit biased because my home state is Ohio and they have it in their constitution that the state can't have a stake in any private company and can't even lend credit to any private company. The Ohio government works around this by cooperating with private “development corporations.”
    - lokar 1y ago
      I’m not a fan, but it’s been going on for a very long time. It’s not all that different from development tax incentives which are very common. I think the grants had some requirements to build up domestic production.

OhMeadhbh 1y ago

Sure.. calculators and MSP430s for remote power meters are keeping TI from closing up shop, but TI doesn't have the capitalization structure to bring up a fab for the types of chips people say they want. I mean sure... If you want to make 28nm chips, they're fine, and you can do a lot with 1 and 2 GHz parts, but... We keep saying we want to make the chips in the states that they're making in Shenzhen and Taipei... And honestly, a $1.6B grant from daddy warbucks may not be enough to prevent TI from taking the money and dropping out of the program in a few years. And this comes from a place of love... My family's been invested in GSI for almost 100 years

dkdcio 1y ago
> calculators and MSP430s for remote power meters are keeping TI from closing up shop calculators have consistently been a minor percentage of TI’s business (~5% of profits per source below). I doubt MSP430s in particular amount to a huge percentage either one random source: https://www.meta-calculator.com/blog/ti-graphing-calculator-profit-margins/ https://www.meta-calculator.com/blog/ti-graphing-calculator-... (this is pretty easy info to find)
- OhMeadhbh 1y ago
  I can assure you that TI's margins on calculators and MSP430s are much higher than their margins on DAC*s.
  - Kirby64 1y ago
    Depends on which line of DACs. And calculators are an almost irrelevant amount of TIs revenue. They don’t report it individually, but it’s categorized under the miscellaneous “other” bucket which is only 6% of their business and includes DLP and “other charges” related to M&A. $947 million with all those other things means you’re talking about probably 100-300 million in revenue. There’s other businesses within TI that do more revenue than that by themselves.
    - OhMeadhbh 1y ago