Gap said:
tysker said:
Gap said:
tysker said:
flown-the-coop said:
You are not making the least bit of sense. How are tariffs socialism?
Government ownership of the means of production is socialism. Trump just said (again!) that he saved Intel, after the US government bought a controlling share of the company. My friend, you need to keep up
Do you understand what the word controlling means? My friend, controlling isn't 10%.
The US received a 10% stake in Intel for $8.9 billion paid for with the CHIPS grant money. That act from 2022 was to boost American chipmaking.
Coming from a background in finance, 10% shareholders are reporting shareholders or controlling shareholders (Rule 144, Form 4, and also in excess of 13G/13D filings), so it's a bit of a term of art. That being said, 10% is generally where holders can easily secure Board membership, wield significant voting power, and influence company policy. 10% is squarely in the activist shareholder level of stock ownership.
So tell me, will you guarantee that the government will not use its (I'll use a term you prefer here) minority stake to influence Intel's decision-making at the expense of shareholder value? Will you guarantee that Intel will not receive a taxpayer-funded bailout if the company fails?
Coming from a background in public accounting, if you were to state a pure and simple number for "controlling interest" that is just 50% before you get into any corner cases.
You are confusing controlling interest and an owner of control securities by an affiliate.
Either way, the US stake is actually (and certainly purposefully) 9.9% instead of 10.0% to avoid even being considered an owner of control securities.
I didn't say controlling interest, I posted "controlling share" as the underlying beneficial owner.
You can be a UBO without holding a controlling interest. As an accountant, I'm sure you recall that beginning on Jan 1 2024, the UBOs of entities with 25% or more were supposed to register with the federal government (via FinCEN) due to address money laundering concerns, until they reversed the ruling later in the year. So the executive branch sees this lower threshold of power, influence, and profit of the entity through a similar framework.
[My firm requires documentation for shareholders of entities with a 10% or greater stake for AML purposes. When the customers are public companies, the 10% shareholders are minority controlling interests but are considered controlling shareholders subject to reporting, disclosures, and documentation.]
And yes, they hold a purposefully 9.9% stake. So, we should now appreciate that Intel has to manage its outstanding share count to keep the government within the 10% threshold, which may heavily influence the company's decision-making. And don't forget that the government bought warrants allowing the purchase of an additional 5% of shares at $20 per share,
only if Intel no longer owns at least 51% of its foundry business at some point in the next 5 years. So the soft influence is there, and is making my point.
