Array
(
    [content] => 
    [params] => Array
        (
            [0] => /forum/threads/south-korea-says-u-s-chips-act-subsidies-have-too-many-requirements.17577/
        )

    [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] => 2021770
            [XFI] => 1050270
        )

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

South Korea Says U.S. Chips Act Subsidies Have Too Many Requirements

Daniel Nenni

Admin
Staff member
SEOUL—The U.S. Chips Act is dangling billions of dollars in subsidies in front of the world’s biggest semiconductor manufacturers, but South Korea says there are too many strings attached. The conditions for receiving the subsidies unveiled last week are putting two of South Korea’s biggest chip makers—Samsung Electronics Co. and SK Hynix Inc. a difficult position as they decide whether to apply for the federal funding, government officials and industry analysts said.

South Korea’s minister of trade, industry and energy described the requirements under the $53B chip subsidy program as vast and unconventional. Asking firms to submit information about their management and technology could expose them to business risks, the official, Lee Chang-yang, said Monday. The demand that companies offer child care for employees, together with rising interest rates and inflation, would drive up the already high cost of investing in the U.S., he said.

“There are many unusual conditions that are completely different from the subsidies we generally provide for foreign investment,” said Mr. Lee. He said South Korean officials were discussing those terms with their U.S. counterparts.

Samsung and SK Hynix would also face new restrictions on expanding their chip production facilities based in China if they were to apply for the U.S. chip subsidies. South Korea’s trade minister, Ahn Duk-geun, will be in Washington, D.C., this week to meet with high-level U.S. government officials, the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy said Tuesday. The ministry said it would make the same points in Washington that Mr. Lee outlined in his remarks and stress that if the U.S. wants to stabilize and advance its semiconductor supply chain, it will need the cooperation of South Korean companies...

The U.S. is seeking to attract more chip production facilities, with the goal of creating at least two manufacturing clusters for cutting-edge semiconductors by 2030, according to the Commerce Department...

Samsung and SK Hynix are the world’s two largest memory chip makers. Samsung is building a $17B contract chip-making factory for producing cutting-edge semiconductors in Taylor, Texas. SK Group, the owner of SK Hynix, pledged last year to invest $15B in semiconductor R&D and facilities for advanced packaging in the U.S. The Chips Act includes a host of financial provisions. Companies that accept the subsidies are required to share with the U.S. government a portion of their profits that exceed initial projections by an agreed-upon threshold, while refraining from using federal funds for stock buybacks and dividends...

Companies are concerned about requirements to turn over information about profit projections and factory production because they are considered carefully guarded trade secrets, said Mr. Kim. “Even though all subsidies inevitably come with preconditions, what the U.S. is asking for here may be too much and beyond what’s necessary,” he said...

 
So I guess Samsung and Hynix are out of contention.

I think Samsung and SK Hynix will participate Chips Act and follow those restrictions announced by US Commerce Department. Otherwise, do they have any other better choices?

"It is a South Korea's posture to show international audience (like CCP) and Korean domestic audience that they did try hard to fight all those Chips Act restrictions and requirements. If CCP is going to express its anger towards Samsung or SK Hynix due to those restrictions, Koreans can say "don't blame us" innocently."

 
Will the subsides eventually go to fabless design houses when they purchase chips made in USA to compensate higher price due to higher manufacturing cost in USA?
 
Samsung and Hynix have significant investments in China so I don't think that is going to work for the CHIPs Act. Intel should be a front runner and Micron. I think TSMC has a good chance since they have high powered customers and partners. The semiconductor ecosystem is a powerful thing, even politically.
 
Samsung and Hynix have significant investments in China so I don't think that is going to work for the CHIPs Act.
We shall see. Some interesting points to contemplate. Given the EUV ban for China, SK's DRAM plant in the PRC is already at the technological end of the line (very bad given how these fabs are supposed to always be converted to the new lowest cost per bit node). So maybe they would have stopped investing further in China anyways. It seems like Samsung's NAND operation in the PRC is less extensive than SK's DRAM operation there, so maybe stopping further investment there is not as difficult as it might otherwise seem (doubly so if the tools they need get on the export blacklist).

Intel should be a front runner and Micron.
Maybe I am worrying over nothing, but I don't know if they will be the case. Micron has slashed their CAPEX and even pushed out their new nodes as cost cutting measures. Over the next 2-3 years I don't know if Micron will be in a position to do much more than start that expansion to their R&D fab. The US Gov wanting a strong plan for profitability might also throw a wrench into things. Depending on what the short term looks like, and if the GOV is not willing to believe Micron won't get it's legs broken by Samsung they might limit the incentives they get. The government might also refuse to invest alot of money into intel, given that IFS is a fledgling operation that is still building a customer base.

I think TSMC has a good chance since they have high powered customers and partners. The semiconductor ecosystem is a powerful thing, even politically.
That is probably the one certain thing. Given all of the whining about the cost of US fabs and the criticality/guaranteed nature of TSMC, I feel TSMC is basically a shoe-in to get a fair chunk of change for their AZ fab like they claim they the US GOV promised them. Given the small amounts of money required, high profits generated, and ubiquitous nature of their chips, I wouldn't be shocked if TI got whatever they wanted. Skywater being so small and a big DoD contractor will probably also be taken care of.
 
Last edited:
The government might also refuse to invest alot of money into intel, given that IFS is a fledgling operation that is still building a customer base.
I think Intel will definitely get funds, if they apply. Some government requirement details are yet to be revealed. Like, how long are dividends and buybacks restricted for? The exact specifications of what are excess profits too.
That is probably the one certain thing. Given all of the whining about the cost of US fabs and the criticality/guaranteed nature of TSMC, I feel TSMC is basically a shoe-in to get a fair chunk of change for their AZ fab like they claim they the US GOV promised them. Given the small amounts of money required, high profits generated, and ubiquitous nature of their chips, I wouldn't be shocked if TI got whatever they wanted. Skywater being so small and a big DoD contractor will probably also be taken care of.
One thing I wonder about with TSMC... do their facilities under construction meet the buy American rules (e.g. for steel) and the union labor rules?

I think there's a possibility that the Biden administration could be in for a big surprise - that no one applies for the subsidies. The yet to be revealed details defined rules that the government can seize some of their gross profits if the facilities are "more profitable than projected". What does that mean? How will it be proven? Will companies have to allow government auditors to examine their books in ways that are typically considered trade secrets? Will TSMC stand for that, with those remarkable gross margins? And you and I both believe TSMC is exaggerating the extent of their higher costs per wafer in the US versus Taiwan, and if we're correct and the truth comes out - and is subject to Congressional review - won't that be embarrassing?

I think the chip companies might get together and negotiate with Biden to relax the requirements before agreeing to apply. Some requirements are in the legislation, some are add-ons by the administration. I suspect the chip companies know they have a lot of leverage. The CHIPS Act is a signature piece of legislation on the President's agenda. This is also a time to set precedents. It already looks like the Korean companies are taking a pragmatic view. TSMC is the big question. Will they want a precedent set where the USG regulates profits? I doubt it.
 
The whole act been pidgeonholed to suit Intel, and TSMC will likely be allowed to move forward just to make it less screaming about act's intentions.
That's not the way the act looks. I can't believe Intel would want limits on future stock buybacks and the threat of the government seizing "excess profits". Worse, even if no company applies, the government will still waste billions on creating the wasteful bureaucracy that the rest of the law creates.
 
My prediction/guessing:

1. Any semiconductor manufacturer who is willing to build a new fab in the US will get a Chips Act subsidy. The difference is in the amount and the requirements.

2. Intel will get the largest Chips Act subsidy although Intel won't be happy enough because they believe they should get much more. They may not like the clause to prevent them to do stock buyback for a period of time. But the reality is Intel doesn't have enough cash now and won't have enough cash for next 5 ~ 8 years to do the stock buyback anyway.

3. TSMC will get the most (if not all) money they asked for or was "promised/told". TSMC gets strong support from the Congress, Whitehouse, NSC, DoD, DoE, DARPA, Commerce Department, defense industry, Apple, Nvidia, and AMD. For national security and for political consideration, funding to TSMC is not an issue.

4. Micron will get a significant subsidy because they are the only US memory manufacturer and has leading edge memory technology. Also the collaboration between Micron and TSMC will make both companies even more critical to US.

5. TI and Globalfoundries will get subsidy because their unique positions in products and services.

6. Samsung will join the crowd to receive the subsidy. They don't really have other better options. The amount of subsidy Samsung will receive probably is less than TSMC.

7. SK Hynix will also build fab in US and receive the subsidy. Like Samsung, SK Hynix doesn't have other better options.

8. Compare to the billions investment to construct the fabs, childcare requirement announced by the Commerce Department is too small and too cheap to become an issue.
 
Last edited:
Why is Intel the big winner? Why not GF?

Intel has the largest fab construction project in US (4 new fabs) among the semiconductor companies who are headquartered in US. Intel is almost 8 times bigger than Globalfoundries in terms of 2022 revenue in addition to have much advanced manufacturing technologies and products.

GF will get a significant subsidy but won't be larger than Intel. On the other hand, awarding Intel the largest subsidy will give enough political cover for US to give large amount of subsidies to Samsung, SK Hynix, and TSMC.

Especially in the case of TSMC Arizona expansion, it's one of the reasons why a Chips Act was needed to begin with. When TSMC's Arizona fab was negotiated there wasn't any federal budget that can be used on it in such large scale. In the eyes of US government, TSMC is the "must to have" and Intel is in between "must to have" and "nice to have" or "better to have". GF is probably in the category of "already have". I guess.
 
Last edited:
We shall see. Some interesting points to contemplate. Given the EUV ban for China, SK's DRAM plant in the PRC is already at the technological end of the line (very bad given how these fabs are supposed to always be converted to the new lowest cost per bit node). So maybe they would have stopped investing further in China anyways. It seems like Samsung's NAND operation in the PRC is less extensive than SK's DRAM operation there, so maybe stopping further investment there is not as difficult as it might otherwise seem (doubly so if the tools they need get on the export blacklist).

Does DRAM require EUV? I know Samsung tried a bit of EUV at 10nm but I think it was because they wanted to be first.
 
Hist78, can you expand item 2 into two parts, Intel internal (CPU, Altera, etc) and IFS? The Chips Act should mostly be going to DoD and foundry services, especially US companies in my biased opinion. Do you agree or am I off base?

Please tell me how Intel is doing on their foundry services to external customers. I am aware of 3 completely different groups who worked at Intel that used TSMC as their foundry. Crazy, huh? Any idea why? If TSMC builds 16nm in AZ, what will happen to IFS?

TSMC is the "must to have" and Intel is in between "must to have" and "nice to have" or "better to have". GF is probably in the category of "already have".

TSMC, please continue to allow us smaller companies develop IP and EDA automation around your processes (Intel won't), and add a 16nm fab to your AZ facility, this way we can move Intel into the "too pompous to have" category.
 
Does DRAM require EUV? I know Samsung tried a bit of EUV at 10nm but I think it was because they wanted to be first.
Samsung and SK both use it for their leading and future DRAM nodes, although both seem to be having issues ramping it (but this understanding can totally be out of date since I haven’t done much research recently). Micron is still optical but the next gen is supposed to be EUV.
 
Does DRAM require EUV? I know Samsung tried a bit of EUV at 10nm but I think it was because they wanted to be first.
There is no compelling need in the sense of exploding numbers of cuts, etc.

The structure is purely legacy scaling with lots of self-aligned array patterning, so at most you might have an M0 layer go from double to triple patterning at 12 nm for example.
 
Intel has the largest fab construction project in US (4 new fabs) among the semiconductor companies who are headquartered in US. Intel is almost 8 times bigger than Globalfoundries in terms of 2022 revenue in addition to have much advanced manufacturing technologies and products.

GF will get a significant subsidy but won't be larger than Intel. On the other hand, awarding Intel the largest subsidy will give enough political cover for US to give large amount of subsidies to Samsung, SK Hynix, and TSMC.

Especially in the case of TSMC Arizona expansion, it's one of the reasons why a Chips Act was needed to begin with. When TSMC's Arizona fab was negotiated there wasn't any federal budget that can be used on it in such large scale. In the eyes of US government, TSMC is the "must to have" and Intel is in between "must to have" and "nice to have" or "better to have". GF is probably in the category of "already have". I guess.

The problem is Intel is only making CPUs, their other chips are outsourced. It will be completely inconsequential to the part of semi market which actually matters.


My bet, Intel will spend the lion share of the subsidy to prop its cash cow business, and not go for foundry.
 
Back
Top