Look, this intel press release makes no sense to me at all. Questions I have: 1) why would they sell shares at a discount? How is that ok? 2) how can the United States be a passive shareholder with no governance rights? 3) when is the transaction taking place? www.intc.com/news-events/...
Am I understanding this correctly that they are basically getting the shares for nothing? That the government is receiving the shares for the CHIPs money they already awarded them?
It’s not okay at all. National Security risk. Most corrupt regime in US history. No Justice
This is terrifying
4) How is this government extortion scheme legal?
Well the rule is: follow the money!
And, how is this not (partial) nationalization? If a South American country did this what would we call it? Just wondering!
And how is this not socialism.
i bet there’s some real interesting sh*t in the fine print, like who really owns it, where the money goes, who controls it.
It's genius! It's a bailout where the gov gets less for more money and MAGA still clap and say "you show them Trump!" Ironically the same trumpers cry their eyes out when the gov takes anything from them. It's hilarious to watch this from the outside
As of August 22, 2025, the U.S. government owns a roughly 10% equity stake in Intel, acquired via an $8.9 billion conversion of federal grants into shares. This stake is strictly passive, granting no governance control. It’s not a big enough investment to have governance C’mon it’s 10%.
Since it’s a passive stake, the U.S. doesn’t get board seats or decision-making power. If Intel mismanages itself, the government is just another shareholder stuck with losses. So a huge risk considering INTEL has fallen behind other chip makers, I live near intel they’re always laying off workers.
Collaborators get financial stitches
Every capitulation like this begs the question… is someone there in the files?
Really curious if there is ground for a shareholder derivative suit against a corporation for paying a bribe to the president?
Ask @annmlipton.bsky.social as she'd probably know best, especially as it seems like an action that the board can decide to do without stockholder input.
Yes I have a thread. This is an action a board can take without shareholder input. A separate question is whether they complied w/ fiduciary duties when taking it. Right now, no reason to think they didn't - they caved to Trump pressure but that's not a fiduciary violation bsky.app/profile/annm...
It sounds like they just effectively nationalized (stole) 5% of the company.
You are probably correct especially how the courts would treat this now. But this is a bribe and paying a bribe should be a breach of fiduciary duties. A subsequent government should be able to hold everyone involved (corp and officers) civilly and criminally liable for this. It must.
bsky.app/profile/annm...
More questions: Since he got away with this, is he going to do a lot more "nationalizing" of private corporations in the future? What name will be on the dividend checks? Something like, "Donald J. Trump, in trust, for the USA" ??
I can't imagine that shareholders won't sue over this
I think this is best understood as “no governance rights [beyond those of an ordinary common-stock shareholder].” As opposed to a transaction where a major new investor gets a seat on the board with their shares, for example.
Where's the clause which says the shares pass to Trump Inc on any change of president? There's bound to be one.
The CEO is saving his job.
You have questions? So does Chloe Wagner. bsky.app/profile/kdby...
This is a very funny meme, but I just can't bring myself to laugh about it.
Thanks. And I get that.
Maybe this could explain it somewhat… 🫏💋 www.cnbc.com/amp/2025/08/...
Socialism!!!
I actually don’t understand why anyone needs this? The federal government doesn’t need Intel’s money; it is the source of money. WTF IS THIS? WHY?!
The US government paid nothing.
Right. But why do they want the 10% stake? Trump was so happy about how much it’s worth. The US government doesn’t need this.
Trump was threatening to cut them off from the money they were supposed to get under the CHIPS Act, so they negotiated a scheme in which they sold the Government a 10% non-voting passive stake in exchange for the promised money plus a bit more, along with essentially zero oversight
No offense... I don't care. Trump opened the gates to a stronghold we should've invaded DECADES AGO. IMO, every company that relies on govt contracts should have to give up a portion to the USG. 10% is more than I ever expected, but fuck it, let's go for 20% (of Space X/Lockheed/etc.) #LFG
1) Common for share offerings to be at a discount to mkt - why else would you buy newly issued equity vs in the mkt 2) Share classes with econ but no voting rights are a thing. Although the language saying that the govt will vote with the BoD makes me think that this is just a shareholder agmt
Agreed, but the discount is particularly offensive because Intel didn’t really need to issue the shares to get the funding.
Right, money already awarded under CHIPS is now being retroactively converted into equity. Nonsense
TFG made an announcement that sounded like Intel gave TFG these shares. Why is the government buying stocks when we're trillions of dollars in debt? And cutting services for it's citizens. I see another bankruptcy on the horizon.
It’s not buying anything. It nationalized 10% of intel. This is no different than Chinese government coming in with the military and taking over a private factory.
Non-zero odds the stocks went to Trump directly
Without the claw backs, does Intel still have to build in the US? Also how can Trump commit the government to vote with the board of directors without Congress approving it? Isn't that a treaty?
Who benefits? Who collects? Follow the $$
Seems the shareholders’ rights are being violated.
📌
First Felonious Chump demands the CEO of Intel resign, they then have a meeting. Next the US Government acquires 10% of Intel. This is all normal…..right?!
How is this even legal?
Yeah that's the big one!
Selling a huge stake at a significant discount seems like the type of thing that might spur a shareholder lawsuit?
Yes ! And the president said it 'cost the government nothing'. So which is it ?
This is some mob shit
This press release is complete nonsense, hiding convicted felon trump’s further corruption.
And "have any Intel lawyers actually looked at this deal"?
2/ probably just means the govt can vote it's shares the same as any shareholder and this deal doesn't give them a guaranteed board seat or any rights above and beyond that
Correct, but they also agreed to vote with management (subject to limited exceptions).
📌
4) how are they doing this deal without some kind of shareholder approval? 5) what the heck is this?
Maybe I'm an idiot, but if this is mostly or all CHIPS funding that Intel was awarded already but Trump wouldn't release, why not just...sue?
Aside from "that costs time and money" it also assumes that there is a chancery system that actually works and that defendants actually pay the judgement and those two assumptions are simply not true until at least 2029.
Do they think the shareholders will just roll over because he's been playing mob boss with everyone else?
I thought we had antitrust laws in the US? But if you aren't market dominant the gov owns more of you as a threat seems to go against that.
What does "the foundry business" mean here? Foundry services are what Intel offers other companies to fabricate chips at Intel's fabs. Is this saying Intel must be 51% of the market? Or somehow would it own less of the contract service it provides. What is this?!
Foundries *in the US* maybe? The intent of CHIPS was to ensure the US had US-owned foundry. Which is not the same thing as an Trump administration *owning* them for sure but the law didn't say "oh also don't let a bad actor government buy them either."
Think this is Frankenstein legal thinking where they'll simultaneously claim they didn't spend money not appropriated for the purpose of buying shares on buying shares and simultaneously that Intel got the money so it's not an illegal taking.
Needless to say if a Democrat tried this a judge in Texas would be issuing a TRO any time now and it would never go into effect. Not sure that it won't get struck down even under Trump
So intel is treating the stock as a bribe they have to pay to get federal grant money they were already promised?
Raffi, I have so many questions
It's extortion
hey man remember the time you picked up those concert tickets for me in exchange for money I already owed you?
I'm so old I remember the time when the US private sector had major companies that USG didn't coercively take large stakes in
If I recall correctly, the feds took large equity stakes in the companies it bailed out in the GFC. This is post hoc, but I think can be seen in that light.
Sure but this is not a bailout
Isn’t it?
Ann floated that this could be construed as settling claims related to the CHIPS funds but that’s far more of a legal fiction than a bailout
Completely agree - just think one should avoid getting too exercised by the feds taking an equity stake in a distressed company in exchange for needed cash.
Right. It's not clear what Intel is recieving as consideration, given that the funds are already legally theirs. But, yknow, not my wheelhouse
Those were legal. Also, the government actually invested money, meaning they paid for their shares.
I refer you to the discussion of the grants. Trump is totally playing Calvin ball here, but Intel definitely is benefiting as well.
How?
Because they're dead without the funds. They're very broke, and likely will default completely without the funds, at which point the US government takes over anyways, since chips have always been a national security asset.
I’m old enough to remember when people who called themselves “Republicans” or “conservatives” were against government ownership of private business.
At what point do stock holders sue because the company isn't upholding their fiduciary duty?
The government taking a stake and releasing funds is better news than most shareholders could hope for last week, especially with the AI bubble collapsing rapidly.
Well that's unfortunately quite a technical question
def not clear they’ve violated a duty
Moral duty? Sure. But you can't always sue over those
Or I guess you can, but they don't always go your way
Yeah. "We issued the government $8.9B in non-voting stock to unlock the $8.9 billion in funding the President was arbitrarily withholding, and to placate the President from more retaliation that courts would invariably uphold" is probably within the Board's fiduciary duty.
*not clear it's nonvoting, actually
These disclosures will be a nightmare
Thing is, once federal courts held "the President can unilaterally terminate government appropriations, including federal employees, federal contractors, federal grants, even whole federal agencies" then it was all over. Any action to get your withheld money back is prudent and reasonable. 🤷♂️
it’s not even clear that this deal isn’t *prudent*
It's clearly prudent, on account of us living in a personalist authoritarian state with no reliable rule of law, but nobody wants to say that on TV
it’s cool. at least the money is going to a clear place for a clear purpose
It's a fun type of socialism. You know. The nationalist kind
Fun! And Workers are involved, too? It has been tried in other countries, I'm led to believe?
👆
i did not have trump nationalizing Intel on my 2025 bingo card i'll give them that
Can it be consideration if the recipient is already entitled to it, she asks facetiously
bsky.app/profile/crb1...
Obviously I find the idea of the US taking a stake in a private company incredibly offensive, but that is not relevant to the points above.
Raffi, when I tell you I have a long list of questions...
Section 151 of the DGCL be like whaaaaaat
How is this happening without any sort of Congressional involvement, even if perfunctory?
Congress authorized the admin to withold funds as they please.
So I am paid partially in discounted stock, and how that works is that I buy some stock with my wages, the company then buys more with the discounted amount, which they give to me. Causes weird tax issues. It almost looks like this deal has a similar structure.
Would a current shareholder have standing to sue?
Boards can issue stock without shareholder approval. That's fundamental as long as they don't issue more shares than the maximum amount authorized in the charter. Boards can decide how to value stock for the purposes of selling it.
But how can the consideration for the stock be something that they were already supposed to get?
Because Trump was withholding the funds and a fight would be drawn out and expensive with an uncertain outcome. For the same reason you settle a lawsuit. I'm not saying that's good; I'm saying it's the kind of business decision boards are charged with making.
lol, sounds like economic duress, maybe they can rescind later.
I mean yeah but that's not a corporate law problem, is, they're acting within the boundaries of what corporate law permits. The issue here is the external pressure being placed.
I understand, and it probably makes sense from a fiduciary sense, but it's so gross. But then I remember they're trying to get rid of the foreign corrupt practices act, too.
They "settled" by paying more than the amount they were owed.
I would think that usually said boards would engage an independent committee to decide whether this is a good deal or no
An independent committee just means a subset of the board. It may or may not be necessary.
Yes I know - but in my experience something of this size causes many boards to want a CYA analysis
Thank you! This part had me scratching my head.
In this case they're giving it at a discount in exchange for something. That's totally normal. What's not normal is the something - the right to receive grants they were already entitled to receive. Ie, same thing universities are being asked for. But that's not a corporate law problem.
If the company is already entitled to the supposed consideration, how is it a rational thing to agree to this deal and give those shares away? Like...if they did *no deal*, they would get the same compensation. Would share holders have a claim for diluting their shares for no reason?
If they did no deal they wouldn't get the cash because the Trump admin is withholding it.
I think there’s a problem with this because why would any consideration be good, as long as you haven’t paid in advance.
What good is a contract? Why stop renegotiating
If they did no deal, they would have gotten *more* consideration, -$8.9 billion instead of -$11 billion (which still might be -$19.9 billion unless the Fedwire cleared).
This looks written to obfuscate not only that no cash has been paid, but probably that it won't be paid and all that is "agreed" is a promise that it will be paid on the original grant disbursement schedule. The 8-K on this should be interesting.
Ok that helps me start getting my head around it. Thank you
Shareholders can sue, I assume, when boards do BS stuff like undervaluing stock that they hand free of charge to a crazy person.
I can only assume Intel is hoping/planning on sharefolders suing and unraveling the deal...after Intel has the money.
How can it be grant and investment too?
Perhaps, like mainly other Trump deals, there is no actual deal? Hence the confusing language?
Usually if you're plugged in to @justinwolfers.bsky.social feed, (or @josephpolitano.bsky.social ) he usually breaks down things like this. Haven't seen anything yet though.
Where in the government will the accounting be done for this investment? Where will any dividends go-a general fund of some sort? How and when will it be reported to the public?
A Felonomics trick, no treat.
Underrated as a reply and as vocabulary. @merriam-webster.com please take note.
Thank you. It encapsulates so much about Trump, or any other crime boss masquerading as a legitimate administration.
The whole deal is fishy AF, and has been from the second Trump first mentioned it.
Let's recall the "deals" Trump has announced he's made with the EU and Japan, claiming they will be giving him $100s of billions to invest at his whim. Also Korea, but the amount Trump has claimed he's getting is larger than their annual budget.
It sounds like he's extorting them for releasing CHIPS dollars
On the other hand, with Trump it is more important to look like he made a deal than to actually have a deal. So here's my hypothesis: The counterparties, rather than saying, "NO, we didn't agree to that!", they let Trump make whatever claim he wants, b/c if they don't, he'll make another stink.
What I still haven't figured is: When Trump makes hyperbolic claims about deals with other countries, how does the top person in each of those countries deal with their domestic politics, their domestic press.
The only cases I can think of where this happened previously would be when the US gov nationalized German Merck during the war and during the Great Recession.
*should be obvious but I mean the car acquisitions during the great recession
The warrant will be stored in a closet at Mar-a-Lago.
Is it legal? No. Does Intel care? Not really. Does the trump administration even understand the US Constitution? Not a fucking chance.
Shares are often sold at a discount to the market price when it's an institutional investment or capital raising.
Yeah, I had questions too.
Sounds like a scam to me. Why sell stock at a discount when you are are profitable already. Just another crime family kind of deal.
bsky.app/profile/meid...
Fascism.
Raffi, the statement reads as though Intel is giving away 10% of the company
Yes.
This is insane. Intel just did a massive dilution for nothing. The entire board should be gone by Monday
This part makes it harder to get rid of the board, right? "The government also agrees to vote with the Company’s Board of Directors on matters requiring shareholder approval, with limited exceptions."
Yeah, assuming they were able to give away 10% of the company without a vote
Erm the board is gone. They did that part first, in mid-March.
Shareholder derivative suit dropping in 3, 2, 1….
Intel has been financially shaky for years and is floundering. It's increasingly apparent that the future of microprocessors is not going to be the x86 platform, which is >60% of Intel's revenue. With the news that their foundry is going nowhere fast, they're on life support at this point anyway
If Intel believes there will be a tech crash soon when the AI bubble bursts, a bunch of cash on hand would be pretty useful, and $20 a share might turn out to be a discount at all.
It doesn’t look like they’re getting any net new cash though. It looks like they’re giving away the stake in exchange for the government releasing already awarded grants. They gave it away for free—I think
Not nothing. Without the claw backs and profit sharing, Intel may not have to spend that money on US investments and they might be able to do a stock buyback or dividends that they were prohibited from doing under the chips act.
judging by the market reaction, apparently shareholders *love* this sort of thing
I’m flummoxed
My sense is that Intel was not going to be able to meet the requirements to receive the rest of the CHIPS money, so this is how they got it (not that the CHIPS Act allows for it of course).
Where do you see that Intel was not going to meet the requirements? I mean if that were true it would mean Intel really is getting something valuable but I don't see that in the statement.
Their last 10-Q, regarding their A14 process which is tied to the CHIPS money, and is at risk if they can’t find a customer for it.
Page 41 here www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Arch...
I read that as a standard risk factor not a disclosure of a real problem. I mean maybe I'm wrong but that doesn't read like much beyond your usual boilerplate. Esp given that the press release doesn't suggest anything like that.
the press release is a PR document; they're going to put the best possible spin on everything there. read between the lines, you can smell the desperation in the coffee
Given how bad their earnings were, and the fact they raised $2 billion just earlier this week, I think things were a bit more precarious than they’ve let on (so far). Still not legal for Trump to do it of course.
I’m sure Trump told Intel he’d withhold the remaining grants if the government wasn’t given equity.
And the government could guarantee huge other problems as the single largest purchaser of computers in the world
