Comments
Relevant_Monstrosity t1_jaf45ir wrote
Who needs insider trading when you can cut core infrastructure budgets and buy back shares!
Courtside237 t1_jaefkz1 wrote
We can’t let the enemy control our semi conductor access. We’ll be working for those bastards if that keeps up.
710Ashbury t1_jaep13r wrote
Fuck Intel. All Intel chips have backdoors. I hope Intel goes straight into the bloody toilet
DangerStranger138 OP t1_jaey2e6 wrote
NSA May Have Backdoors Built Into Intel And AMD Processors
> ^(Steve Blank)^(, recognised as one of Silicon Valleys leading experts, says that he would be extremely surprised if the American NSA does not have backdoors built into Intel and AMD chips. His reason is that the NSA finds “hacking” through backdoors significantly more simple than trying to crack encryption. For example trying to crack AES 256 bit encryption would require the power of 10 million suns to crack at the current TDP of processors. Steve Blank therefore claims that because cracking encryption is so infeasible the NSA uses hardware level backdoors instead. Steve Blank said that these suspicions arose when he saw the NSA could access Microsoft emails in their pre-encryption state and so he knew there was another way in.)
​
RIVERTOAD1929 t1_jaet255 wrote
These deals always turn out to just fuck the tax payer and make a handful of people rich boring😴
DangerStranger138 OP t1_jaegr33 wrote
MEATY CLIFFNOTES
> ^(The Commerce Department on Tuesday) ^(released its plans) ^(to begin accepting applications in late June for a $39-billion manufacturing subsidy program. The law also creates a 25% investment tax credit for building chip plants, estimated to be worth $24 billion.)
>
> ^(Recipients who receive more than $150 million in direct funding "will be required to share with the U.S. government a portion of any cash flows or returns that exceed the applicant’s projections by an agreed-upon threshold," the department said.)
>
>^(Companies winning funding are also prohibited from using chips funds for dividends or stock buybacks, and must provide details of any plans to buy back their own shares over five years. The department will consider an "applicant’s commitments to refrain from stock buybacks.")
>
>^(Democratic lawmakers have noted that the largest U.S. semiconductor companies have poured hundreds of billions of dollars into stock buybacks in recent years, with Intel) ^((INTC.O)) ^(spending more than $100 billion on buybacks since 2005. Intel also pays a dividend.)
>
>^(It's not uncommon for states to require specific employment targets as a condition for tax subsidies, but the Biden administration is a significant expansion.)
>
>^(Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo said companies must submit a plan that includes an outline of workforce needs. Applicants seeking more than $150 million in direct funding must submit "a plan for how they will provide affordable and accessible childcare for their workers.")
>
>^(Applicants must address six program priority areas including plans "to commit to future investment in the U.S. semiconductor industry, including to build R&D facilities in the United States.")
>
>^(Applicants should also "create opportunities for minority owned, veteran-owned, and women-owned businesses; demonstrate climate and environmental responsibility; invest in their communities by addressing barriers to economic inclusion; and commit to using iron, steel, and construction materials produced in the United States.")
>
>^(Most direct funding awards are expected to range between 5% and 15% of project capital expenditures. Commerce said it generally expects the total amount of an award including loan or loan guarantee, to not exceed 35% of project capital expenditures.)
>
>^(Raimondo noted that companies winning awards will be required to enter into agreements restricting their ability to expand semiconductor manufacturing capacity in foreign countries of concern like China for 10 years after winning funding. They cannot engage in any joint research or licensing efforts with a foreign entity of concern involving sensitive technologies.)
[deleted] t1_jaejb1x wrote
[removed]
DangerStranger138 OP t1_jaelnte wrote
I disagree. It definitely gonna spur movement in American Manufacturing Markets
VisualMod t1_jaef3zc wrote
| User Report | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Total Submissions | 10 | First Seen In WSB | 2 years ago |
| Total Comments | 353 | Previous Best DD | |
| Account Age | 2 years | [^scan ^comment ](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=VisualMod&subject=scan_comment&message=Replace%20this%20text%20with%20a%20comment%20ID%20(which%20looks%20like%20h26cq3k)%20to%20have%20the%20bot%20scan%20your%20comment%20and%20correct%20your%20first%20seen%20date.) | [^scan ^submission ](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=VisualMod&subject=scan_submission&message=Replace%20this%20text%20with%20a%20submission%20ID%20(which%20looks%20like%20h26cq3k)%20to%20have%20the%20bot%20scan%20your%20submission%20and%20correct%20your%20first%20seen%20date.) |
keepgrindingact t1_jaeihun wrote
Lol I disagree with this entirely, but I’m also short chip stocks. Major cognitive dissonance for me
DangerStranger138 OP t1_jaem3ba wrote
Disagree with Investing in America? Divesting from Foreign market strongholds?
keepgrindingact t1_jaet4ts wrote
I disagree that government has a role in directing what companies should or shouldn’t do w their profits
DangerStranger138 OP t1_jaew2io wrote
It's not uncommon for defined return on investment perimeters from government contracts, especially when dealing with national security and taxpayers money.
grimkhor t1_jaenqez wrote
So if you take the money they basically want some profits and they want you to hire more inclusively and follow what the government says about your customers. Sounds like a lot for some not so free cash. I doubt any besides the very desperate will take it.
DangerStranger138 OP t1_jaewneo wrote
No such thing as a free handout
grimkhor t1_jaexh07 wrote
I just explained to you why why someone would no like it because it's more government control and less free market. If you don't hand out free money to boost local development guess what there will be no boost in local development. This won't boost local development but will only put government in control of weaker players in the field.
DangerStranger138 OP t1_jaeza2v wrote
American Made is good for American Stock Market.
Nobody forcing corporations to apply for multimillion dollar government loans lol.
grimkhor t1_jaf05u0 wrote
Highly regarded opinion. Yeah no sh1t and then people wonder why there are no takers and the money disappears instead of funding semis from America.
DangerStranger138 OP t1_jaf0v0y wrote
>and the money disappears instead of funding semis from America.
That's why the CHIPS Act has defined ROI perimeters on how loans can be used to prevent free hand outs and potentially risk national security if they fail to meet industry standards. lol wtf you can't have your cake and eat it too
grimkhor t1_jaf2ozh wrote
lol no if you're a failing semi company you can take the money and without profits you just raise capex, pay some executive bonuses and it's gone. They just do the whole eco friendly and diverse hiring then leave the garbage with the government. Fantastic companies that nobody ever heard of like "Solitron Devices" will gladly take that deal I bet.
Sounds like a true communist speaking that thinks government regulated companies are the solution.
DangerStranger138 OP t1_jaf3eml wrote
Chipmakers don't need to share any profits at all as long as their projections are correct within a certain margin. All this is saying is that companies can't lie and apply for a small margin fab only made possible by government funds, then make mad stacks in reality then leave. As long as the companies are rational and realistic in their applications everyone gets to keep their money.
There should be plenty of companies that apply openly laying out the case for mad profits and they will be able to keep all of it as long as they deliver.
​
grimkhor t1_jaf4l2e wrote
>Recipients who receive more than $150 million in direct funding "will be required to share with the U.S. government a portion of any cash flows or returns that exceed the applicant’s projections by an agreed-upon threshold," the department said.
>
>Commerce expects "upside sharing will only be material in instances where the project significantly exceeds its projected cash flows or returns, and will not exceed 75% of the recipient’s direct funding award."
I read that part. I know. The issue is for that "loan" you have also to do these things.
>provide affordable childcare
>
>must provide details of any plans to buy back their own shares over five years
>
>Applicants must address six program priority areas including plans "to commit to future investment in the U.S. semiconductor industry
>
>Applicants should also "create opportunities for minority owned, veteran-owned, and women-owned businesses; demonstrate climate and environmental responsibility; invest in their communities by addressing barriers to economic inclusion; and commit to using iron, steel, and construction materials produced in the United States."
>
>winning awards will be required to enter into agreements restricting their ability to expand semiconductor manufacturing capacity in foreign countries of concern
That's a big list of costs for basically a loan that you only pay back 75%. Esp. the last point that is not only about China but about ANY country the government doesn't like.
KuntFuckula t1_jaegl0p wrote
Good. CEOs need to stop juicing EPS via buybacks to attract investment over their competition. It’s gimmicky stock value manipulation.