Array
(
    [content] => 
    [params] => Array
        (
            [0] => /forum/index.php?threads/biden%E2%80%99s-big-play-to-attract-foreign-chip-and-ev-investments-could-be-stumbling-as-samsung-tsmc-and-others-reportedly-balk-at-high-costs.19846/
        )

    [addOns] => Array
        (
            [DL6/MLTP] => 13
            [Hampel/TimeZoneDebug] => 1000070
            [SV/ChangePostDate] => 2010200
            [SemiWiki/Newsletter] => 1000010
            [SemiWiki/WPMenu] => 1000010
            [SemiWiki/XPressExtend] => 1000010
            [ThemeHouse/XLink] => 1000970
            [ThemeHouse/XPress] => 1010570
            [XF] => 2021370
            [XFI] => 1050270
        )

    [wordpress] => /var/www/html
)

Biden’s big play to attract foreign chip and EV investments could be stumbling as Samsung, TSMC and others reportedly balk at high costs

Daniel Nenni

Admin
Staff member
42fa5852c4ca0a38666d28d5aa735f10

Caitlin O'Hara—Bloomberg via Getty Images
  • Washington promised incentives for domestic manufacturing through the CHIPS Act and the Inflation Reduction Act, successfully wooing foreign giants like Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Samsung, and LG to invest in the U.S. But these same companies are now worried about their U.S. projects, wary of high costs and uncertainty about subsidies.
Samsung Electronics, the world’s biggest memory chipmaker, announced in November 2021 that it would spend $17 billion to build a new advanced chipmaking plant in Texas, with operations expected to start in 2024. But the cost of the plant soon ballooned by over $8 billion from initial forecasts, as inflation drove up construction and material costs, Reuters reported last March.

“The U.S. investment plans apparently pose a growing financial burden for global chipmakers and any other manufacturing players making facility investments there,” an unnamed official from a South Korean chipmaker told The Korea Times in a report published Wednesday. “Few would have predicted that both the labor and construction costs would rise at this alarming pace."

Samsung told Fortune the construction in Taylor, Texas, is in progress as originally planned.

Korean officials had previously expressed concerns about "unusual" conditions attached to money from the CHIPS Act, particularly those asking firms to share information about their technology and to provide childcare to employees.

TSMC's project in Arizona, celebrated by President Joe Biden in late 2022, is also having issues. In January, the world's largest contract chipmaker said that its second plant in Arizona won't start operations until 2027 or 2028, later than the initial forecast of 2026. It also delayed the start of operations at its first Arizona plant to 2025. The chipmaker also revealed that it's still in talks with the U.S. government about incentives and tax credits.

In contrast, TSMC's Japan project—also backed by government money—is going more smoothly. The more modest project is on track to start production later this year, as planned. TSMC also announced plans for a second plant in the country.

TSMC founder Morris Chang has previously spoken on the similarities in business and working culture between Japan and Taiwan. TSMC also found the Japanese government easier to deal with, sources told Reuters last September.

The Inflation Reduction Act provides incentives for clean energy related manufacturing was meant to attract more production to the U.S., but even this support may not be enough to cushion the blow of rising costs and macroeconomic uncertainty.

South Korean firms that make batteries for electric vehicles are slowing and reassessing their investments in the U.S.

SK On, a battery making affiliate of SK Group, partnered with Ford to build battery factories in Kentucky and Tennessee. Yet both firms are delaying the start of production at one of two Kentucky facilities to an unspecified date. The other plant in Kentucky is still on-track to open in 2025. Ford executives said last October that the pace of adoption of EVs was slower than what the industry had expected.

LG Energy Solutions, one of the world’s top EV battery makers, is also scaling back its investments in the U.S. The South Korean firm laid off 170 workers at its plant in Michigan in November, partly blaming a slower-than-hoped-for EV transition. LG also shelved plans for a fourth battery plant in the U.S. in January last year.
LG did not immediately respond to Fortune’s request for comment.

Some automakers like Ford and General Motors are less optimistic about the pace of growth for EV adoption this year. Possible reasons could include more barriers to accessing tax credits from the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act and elevated interest rates that could have an effect on financing.

And there may be another concern on the minds of executives: A possible change in policy depending on who wins U.S. elections in November. "We are also faced with political risks ahead of the U.S. presidential election,” the unnamed chip official told The Korea Times.

 
I'm still happy that semiconductor coverage is a top priority for media channels, even though they get it wrong most of the time. The CHIPs act isn't even two years old yet. There was no semiconductor wooing by the Federal Government. TSMC started the AZ fab construction three years ago and the planning was years before that. Samsung has been in Texas even longer. I love the CHIPS Act and I hope there is plenty more money to come for the semiconductor ecosystem but let's not re-write history. If there is any "wooing" it was at the state level and from customers who want to say they manufacture in the good old US of A.

And the CHIPs Act does not "belong" to Biden, he just signed it:

 
And the CHIPs Act does not "belong" to Biden, he just signed it:
Your statement is correct, but in reality there is more to this. It is correct that Congress wrote the bill and Biden just signed it, but the Biden Administration's Dept of Commerce, part of the Executive branch of the USG, did add their own requirements and criteria for the allocation of CHIPS Act funding, covering things like review of foreign investments and joint development agreements, sharing of "excess profits" with the USG, a target for limiting project funding to 35% of the capital expenditure, various workforce DEI requirements, use of "prevailing wage" measures during construction... there are many entanglements and complications. (I"m still curious about what the government's criteria will be for determining "excess profits".)

I agree about state and local governments are making the greater effort to attract manufacturing projects, with simpler criteria than the feds. Ohio, for example, coughed up $600M in grants for the first two Intel fabs to be built, with minimal requirements beyond construction.


Oregon's state tax breaks for Intel are in the range of $200M+ per year. Oregon's Washington County, where Intel's facilities are, signed a 30 year package of tax breaks to Intel reportedly worth a total of $2B. And they have to, because Intel's property tax value is certainly well over $100B, and if Intel had to pay according to the usual local property tax rules they would never have located in Oregon at all.

Intel even got tax concessions from the New Mexico city of Rio Rancho for the recent plant expansion there (a suburb of Albuquerque). This falls into my "You Can't Make This Stuff Up" folder. Their subsidies were clearly rounding errors on a $3.5B project.

 
Re: Excess Profit Sharing - that is quite the entanglement alone. Here’s a little more info; looks like it’s negotiated as part of the condition of receiving the money:

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."



The second statement here seems to imply that the “excess profits” just returns the money that was funded by the US Govt* (up to. 75%). Source: https://www.reuters.com/technology/...ng-subsidies-share-excess-profits-2023-02-28/

*i.e. Taxpayers.
 
Re: Excess Profit Sharing - that is quite the entanglement alone. Here’s a little more info; looks like it’s negotiated as part of the condition of receiving the money:

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."



The second statement here seems to imply that the “excess profits” just returns the money that was funded by the US Govt* (up to. 75%). Source: https://www.reuters.com/technology/...ng-subsidies-share-excess-profits-2023-02-28/

*i.e. Taxpayers.
Yeah, this is the dumbest, most poorly conceived part of the *implementation* of the CHIPS Act. It is not in the bill that Congress passed. This is pure Biden Administration. And I wonder... will the USG credit the fab builders for the actual losses they surely will incur while the fabs ramp up, so the "excess" profits are net over the life of the facilities? No one knows yet, and it will be separately negotiated for every grant receiver. (That's code for there are no consistent rules and the government can play favorites.) I also wonder how will these never-worked-in-the-private-sector G12-G15 bureaucrats are going to figure out the complex accounting that the fab builders are likely to submit into the excess profits criteria negotiations? The companies will hire independent financial top-guns to represent them. It wouldn't shock me if the corporate subsidiary shells that these fabs are all wrapped in always show a paper loss, even at full capacity.
 
Yeah, this is the dumbest, most poorly conceived part of the *implementation* of the CHIPS Act. It is not in the bill that Congress passed. This is pure Biden Administration. And I wonder... will the USG credit the fab builders for the actual losses they surely will incur while the fabs ramp up, so the "excess" profits are net over the life of the facilities? No one knows yet, and it will be separately negotiated for every grant receiver. (That's code for there are no consistent rules and the government can play favorites.) I also wonder how will these never-worked-in-the-private-sector G12-G15 bureaucrats are going to figure out the complex accounting that the fab builders are likely to submit into the excess profits criteria negotiations? The companies will hire independent financial top-guns to represent them. It wouldn't shock me if the corporate subsidiary shells that these fabs are all wrapped in always show a paper loss, even at full capacity.
75% return of money on home-run profits is WAY cheaper than investor money. The only issues should be how much red tape is also involved, otherwise that counts as easy money.
 
Back
Top