You are currently viewing SemiWiki as a guest which gives you limited access to the site. To view blog comments and experience other SemiWiki features you must be a registered member. Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The 20% stake seems too small. If this transaction is real, it will require heavy lifting from TSMC to make it a success. If TSMC can't get >60% equity and voting rights, it doesn't make sense for TSMC to proceed.
The 20% stake seems too small. If this transaction is real, it will require heavy lifting from TSMC to make it a success. If TSMC can't get >60% equity and voting rights, it doesn't make sense for TSMC to proceed.
Sometimes you need to do things that don't make financial sense. In Apple's darkest days, Steve Jobs' long time rival, Bill Gates, led $msft financial investment into $aapl, which saved apple. And that deal did not even have explicit government hands in it.
Why did $msft do this deal? It probably had something to do with antitrust investigation against $msft at that time.
$tsmc investing some $$s into IFS is a relatively small cost and would buy a lot of good wills from usg and its customers going forward.
They should not drive Intel to such a state. Previous reports mentioned TSMC canceling its discount to Intel.
TSMC should cultivate a viable second-place competitor to avoid being labeled a monopoly. However, its logic seems to be that by outperforming the competition by a large margin, the market will have no choice but to accept its dominance—even in a geopolitical conflict hotspot.
What is happening now is a negative consequence of that perspective.
Sometimes you need to do things that don't make financial sense. In Apple's darkest days, Steve Jobs' long time rival, Bill Gates, led $msft financial investment into $aapl, which saved apple. And that deal did not even have explicit government hands in it.
Why did $msft do this deal? It probably had something to do with antitrust investigation against $msft at that time.
$tsmc investing some $$s into IFS is a relatively small cost and would buy a lot of good wills from usg and its customers going forward.
I think we need to distinguish between TSMC's investment amount at this venture and the percentage equity/voting rights TSMC may acquire. They are two different things. Obviously among the potential investors, TSMC is the only company that will do the the most works to save Intel Foundry. TSMC can't be entitled merely 20% of equity.
None of the potential investment partners like Broadcom, Qualcomm, Apple, and Nvidia are in the semiconductor manufacturing business and they don't want to get involved in manufacturing either. TSMC and all those Intel bail out project partners are not white knights. All of them are doing something to entertain US government and Trump, not for Intel. At the same time they must take care their own shareholders's interest.
I think we need to distinguish between TSMC's investment amount at this venture and the percentage equity/voting rights TSMC may acquire. They are two different things. Obviously among the potential investors, TSMC is the only company that will do the the most works to save Intel Foundry. TSMC can't be entitled merely 20% of equity.
None of the potential investment partners like Broadcom, Qualcomm, Apple, and Nvidia are in the semiconductor manufacturing business and they don't want to get involved in manufacturing either. TSMC and all those Intel bail out project partners are not white knights. All of them are doing something to entertain US government and Trump, not for Intel. At the same time they must take care their own shareholders's interest.
If tsmc’s stake is too high in the deal, it may trigger an antitrust review in China which is outside the control of US govt. if the stake is low, there is no motivation for tsmc work hard on this.
They should not drive Intel to such a state. Previous reports mentioned TSMC canceling its discount to Intel.
TSMC should cultivate a viable second-place competitor to avoid being labeled a monopoly. However, its logic seems to be that by outperforming the competition by a large margin, the market will have no choice but to accept its dominance—even in a geopolitical conflict hotspot.
What is happening now is a negative consequence of that perspective.
"They should not drive Intel to such a state. Previous reports mentioned TSMC canceling its discount to Intel."
It's Pat Gelsinger's arrogance and stupidity that burned the half-century relationship between Intel and TSMC.
Intel's founders (Andy Grove, Gordon Moore, Robert Noyce) and TSMC founder Morris Chang have been long-time friends/acquaintances for more than 50 years. Actually, Intel was given an opportunity to be TSMC's founding investor back in 1986/1987. Intel placed orders at TSMC as early as 1988/1989 after advising TSMC to improve 100 or so manufacturing-related issues.
Morris Chang at one point even invited former Intel CEO and Chairman Craig Barrett to join TSMC's board of directors.
Pat Gelsinger's constant attacks on Taiwan (a US ally) and TSMC (a long time Intel partner) is childish behavior I can't remember any major US company's CEOs ever did.
www.tweaktown.com
