Semiwiki on LinkedIn Semiwiki on Facebook Semiwiki on Twitter Register / Log in 
Array
(
    [content] => 
    [params] => Array
        (
            [0] => /forum/index.php?threads/gelsinger-gets-30-billion-from-brookfield-capital.16681/
        )

    [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
)

Gelsinger Gets 30 billion from Brookfield Capital

A

Arthur Hanson

Well-known member
How much money does Intel need to compete with TSM, this might end up creating too much capacity and then a crash or price/cost pressures. Any thoughts or comments appreciated. This was announced on CNBC this morning.
 
Arthur Hanson said:
How much money does Intel need to compete with TSM, this might end up creating too much capacity and then a crash or price/cost pressures. Any thoughts or comments appreciated. This was announced on CNBC this morning.
Click to expand...
Just a thought - the capital isn’t technically to exclusively compete with TSM/Samsung - by reducing the amount of money Intel needs for capital building of plants/fabs, etc that frees up the overall corporate cash flow for non fab things like engineering products too..

So I think while this money and the CHIPs Act are fab-focused (or appear to be) the remaining pool of Intel’s own money can technically be reallocated to other efforts… meaning they directly affect those too. Perhaps a sneaky way to improve their position vs. AMD, Nvidia, etc..
 
I would like to note that its a 51/49 split between Intel and Brookfield Asset Management, so no, they are not getting 30 Billion.

Brookfield gets a share of the profit as part of the agreement, specific numbers ars under NDA.
 
Xebec said:
Just a thought - the capital isn’t technically to exclusively compete with TSM/Samsung - by reducing the amount of money Intel needs for capital building of plants/fabs, etc that frees up the overall corporate cash flow for non fab things like engineering products too..

So I think while this money and the CHIPs Act are fab-focused (or appear to be) the remaining pool of Intel’s own money can technically be reallocated to other efforts… meaning they directly affect those too. Perhaps a sneaky way to improve their position vs. AMD, Nvidia, etc..
Click to expand...

This type of financial arrangement helps Intel to ease its cash flow issues and maintain Intel's dividends payout.

Intel is using its assets to gain $15 billion injection from Brookfield. The "$30" billion value of this venture/partnership/asset sales/sale and leaseback deal is questionable.
 
Redfire said:
I would like to note that its a 51/49 split between Intel and Brookfield Asset Management, so no, they are not getting 30 Billion.

Brookfield gets a share of the profit as part of the agreement, specific numbers ars under NDA.
Click to expand...
.

To form a LLC, all its members/investors chip in capital, land, equipment, and/or technology assets to make it possible.

But in the Intel's SEC filing, Intel called this Brookfield deal as a "Contribution and Purchase Agreement". What does the "purchase" really mean? Is it a Sale and Leaseback in disguise?
 
Why would Gelsinger, or the board, want to desrisk their investments if they are confident in their future success?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top