fansink
Well-known member
Jensen Huang's March 20, 2025, denial applies to an earlier rumor, and while it sets a precedent, it doesn’t cover this one.
In the news today - Intel/TSMC JV
- Thread starter ashwinbrao1
- Start date
Jensen Huang's March 20, 2025, denial applies to an earlier rumor, and while it sets a precedent, it doesn’t cover this one.
There is also Taiwanese government.
What is TSMC getting by doing JV with Intel Foundry?
1 - Fab space = tool an existing fab to their requirement and start making chips sooner and avoid tariffs. (Similar to what Tower Semi is doing at Intel's New Mexico Fab - Intel supplies the fab space & Tower equips it and run the fab iirc)
or
2 - Just a stake in Intel Foundry (invest some money in return for a share of profit) = If Intel Foundry succeeds one way or the other, TSM does lose a customer/revenue (small but still). by taking a stake, they can still participate in the profit in IFS's success or by investing in a competitor, they avoid the M word (monopoly) and related antitrust concerns.
Fab 52/62 - EUV compatible - Already in JV with Brookfield with Intel holding 51% stake. Selling anything more means loss of control to Brookfield.
Fab 42 - I believe EUV compatible - Last I heard online is it is being partially tooled for UMC 12 & rest is 18A. Intel can let TSM take a stake in that. But are they going to operate the fab to make 18A chips?
Ohio Fabs - They are not ready yet - may be the JV is to run these fabs after construction is completed. Intel delayed these recently.
Oregon TD fabs - These are very important to Intel, I don't think they will be selling these to TSM.
Rest of the fabs are not EUV compatible fabs. Would TSM be interested in them? So what is left to do a JV with TSM?
So I think TSM taking a stake in Intel Foundry is more likely outcome than doing a JV (as in operating Intel's fabs by TSMC) if there is even a discussion.
I recently read a wall st analyst report that Intel is looking for a financial entity and a fabless customer as partners to invest in Intel Foundry. But its not 100% confirmed. But this would mirror exactly what Intel did with IMS nano business - they sold a stake to Bains Capital (a financial entity) & TSM (customer of that business unit). If this is true, its possibly the best outcome for Intel Foundry. That fabless customer partner probably gets a wafer supply agreement and profit sharing.
1 - Fab space = tool an existing fab to their requirement and start making chips sooner and avoid tariffs. (Similar to what Tower Semi is doing at Intel's New Mexico Fab - Intel supplies the fab space & Tower equips it and run the fab iirc)
or
2 - Just a stake in Intel Foundry (invest some money in return for a share of profit) = If Intel Foundry succeeds one way or the other, TSM does lose a customer/revenue (small but still). by taking a stake, they can still participate in the profit in IFS's success or by investing in a competitor, they avoid the M word (monopoly) and related antitrust concerns.
Fab 52/62 - EUV compatible - Already in JV with Brookfield with Intel holding 51% stake. Selling anything more means loss of control to Brookfield.
Fab 42 - I believe EUV compatible - Last I heard online is it is being partially tooled for UMC 12 & rest is 18A. Intel can let TSM take a stake in that. But are they going to operate the fab to make 18A chips?
Ohio Fabs - They are not ready yet - may be the JV is to run these fabs after construction is completed. Intel delayed these recently.
Oregon TD fabs - These are very important to Intel, I don't think they will be selling these to TSM.
Rest of the fabs are not EUV compatible fabs. Would TSM be interested in them? So what is left to do a JV with TSM?
So I think TSM taking a stake in Intel Foundry is more likely outcome than doing a JV (as in operating Intel's fabs by TSMC) if there is even a discussion.
I recently read a wall st analyst report that Intel is looking for a financial entity and a fabless customer as partners to invest in Intel Foundry. But its not 100% confirmed. But this would mirror exactly what Intel did with IMS nano business - they sold a stake to Bains Capital (a financial entity) & TSM (customer of that business unit). If this is true, its possibly the best outcome for Intel Foundry. That fabless customer partner probably gets a wafer supply agreement and profit sharing.
fansink
Well-known member
The first two earlier JV rumors and the Tan bump were all ~2 weeks up (30-40%), then ~2 weeks back down to ~$19.
Funny how many times people fall for the same schtick.
This rumor plays into the story that Intel 18A execution is still in trouble, even after Intel management said otherwise.
To be fair, I wouldn't expect TSMC's customers to know about this unless someone leaked it
siliconbruh999
Well-known member
this is like 3rd or 4th time the rumor surfaced how are people so dumb to fall for a rumor that many times.
MKWVentures
Moderator
MInority stake in a JV doesnt necessarily mean they share fabs, IP, anything. It would give IFS cash needed to survive and and TSMC would benefit somewhat if IFS prospered.
Its not a unfounded rumor, but these often fall through due to lawyers objecting to control and liability and arguments over money.
I would expect the win for TSMC is "we invested in helping US have US headquartered foundry, now get off our back".
It could end up like the Kioxia holding company. If only Intel had a person on their board who knew anything about the Kioxia organization
fansink
Well-known member
That particular rumor started Mar 8, it took 8 days before Huang denied it, which is weirdly a long time.
The rumor said Nvidia, AMD, Broadcom, etc… were approached with the JV idea and they were not, so that part is false.
He denied it at GTC because someone asked him. It was an off hand remark which are better than prepaired ones. I talked to friends at BCOM, they had not heard either. AMD helping Intel?
I am very suspicious of this rumor. It was quashed several weeks ago. TSMC leaders denied it, Jensen denied it, and it just doesn't make sense. It also seemed perfectly timed to provide a stock boost on a bad day overall. Interesting questions if by chance it is true: Apollo Group has a 49% stake in Intel Foundry's Ireland fab expansion. Brookfield has a 49% stake in Intel's Arizona fab expansion. An interesting question is what % stake does this mean Intel has in total of Intel Foundry? What fraction of Intel Foundry in its entirety is composed of these expansions? In New Mexico expansion, they are partnering with Tower, but Tower has taken no stake. The site in Ohio, Oregon, and Israel appear to have no capital partner. I'm wondering if the rumor of TSMC taking a 20% stake would exceed the CHIPs requirement that Intel retain 50.1% ownership.
siliconbruh999
Well-known member
this has never happened the only thing that has happened is the reverse one time onlyHe denied it at GTC because someone asked him. It was an off hand remark which are better than prepaired ones. I talked to friends at BCOM, they had not heard either. AMD helping Intel?
Just curious, what does Apollo Group get in return for the money they invested? Is it like a loan?
hist78
Well-known member
MInority stake in a JV doesnt necessarily mean they share fabs, IP, anything. It would give IFS cash needed to survive and and TSMC would benefit somewhat if IFS prospered.
Its not a unfounded rumor, but these often fall through due to lawyers objecting to control and liability and arguments over money.
I would expect the win for TSMC is "we invested in helping US have US headquartered foundry, now get off our back".
It could end up like the Kioxia holding company. If only Intel had a person on their board who knew anything about the Kioxia organization
All of TSMC’s and Taiwan's goodwill didn’t work as expected. Trump still imposed a 32% tariff on products imported from Taiwan based on the bogus accusation that Taiwan levied a 64% import tax on American made products.
International relations, trade, investments, and treaties have a basic and critical requirement: trust. Trump's personal businesses have declared bankruptcy six times, so I guess "trust" is not in his dictionary. And we all know how a company that loses people's trust will not doing well in the semiconductor business.
In June 2024, Intel Corporation and Apollo Global Management entered into a joint venture concerning Intel's Fab 34 manufacturing facility in Leixlip, Ireland. Under this agreement, Apollo invested $11 billion to acquire a 49% equity interest in the joint venture, while Intel retained a 51% controlling stake and maintained full ownership and operational control of Fab 34 and its assets.
I'm guessing that Apollo gets a share of profits? It is certainly possible TSMC does a similar thing, just money no control. TSMC has a JV in Japan and Germany so it would be opposite of that, all money and no technology.
hist78
Well-known member
There is a good interview by EE Times related to the concept of "trust" and semiconductor industry.
Architect of CHIPS Act Speaks on Its Impact
"In an exclusive interview with EE Times, Keith Krach, former Under Secretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment in the Trump administration, speaks on the significance of the CHIPS Act, which has since been passed by the House in a 243–187 vote." "Along with former...
semiwiki.com