1. Sure, the USA NEEDS INTEL, as Intel is the one U.S. firm able to offering state-of-the-art logic manufacturing.
2. Neither Samsung or TSMC plan to carry their state-of-the-art manufacturing to the U.S. within the close to time period.
3. U.S. prospects like Nvidia, Apple, Google, and so forth wants and will perceive they NEED a second supply for his or her lead product manufacturing attributable to pricing, geographic stability and provide line safety causes.
4. Intel is money poor and may’t afford to put money into the capability wanted sooner or later to exchange TSMC or perhaps a cheap fraction of TSMC capability. They most likely want a money infusion of $40B or so to be aggressive. Realistically that funding is 100% of the Chip Act Capital grants so unlikely the USG is the savior.
5. The one place the money can come from is the shoppers. They’re all money wealthy and if 8 of them have been prepared to take a position $5B every then Intel would have an opportunity.
6. The present Intel CEO’s feedback about not investing in new know-how (14A) till prospects enroll is a joke. To win on this house you could be the chief in know-how not the follower. It takes a number of years to create considered one of these applied sciences and no buyer needs to join one thing that’s second greatest.
7. Luckily Intel has good know-how to work with (excessive NA EUV, bottom energy, and so forth) so that they have a sensible shot at management IF THEY INVEST NOW. They only want the cash.
8. The place does the cash come from? The purchasers make investments for a chunk of Intel and assured provide. Why ought to they make investments? Home provide, second supply, nationwide safety, leverage in negotiating with TSMC, and so forth. AND IF THE USG GETS ITS ACT TOGETHER, they catalyze the motion with a 50% (or no matter quantity Trump picks) tariff on state-of-the-art semi imports. If we are able to assist home metal and aluminum, absolutely we are able to assist home semiconductors.
9. The FFWBMs (4 former sensible board members) of Intel proceed to say it’s a must to break Intel into two items earlier than any buyer will put money into Intel. Be severe. There are a lot of firm interactions that contain each provide and competitors. Additionally it is extraordinarily laborious to think about Intel actually competing with the likes of Nvidia, Apple, Meta, Google, Dell, and so forth of their nicely established product strains. By all means, if you wish to complicate the issue, then take the time to separate up Intel and make the FFWBMs pleased however should you’re within the enterprise of saving Intel and its core manufacturing power for the USA then remedy the true downside – quick funding in Intel, dedicated prospects, nationwide safety, and so forth.
10. POTUS and DoC can set the stage, the shoppers could make the mandatory investments, the Intel Board can lastly do one thing constructive for the corporate, and we cease writing opinion items on the subject.
The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary items are solely the views of their authors and don’t essentially mirror the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.
Learn extra Fortune protection of Intel’s disaster:
How once-iconic Intel fell right into a 20-year decline
The day after Trump known as Intel’s chief ‘conflicted,’ former administrators name for a brand new firm, a brand new board, and a brand new CEO
Trump accuses Intel CEO of being ‘extremely conflicted,’ calls for resignation as Tom Cotton highlights reporting into China ties
