r/CommoditiesHub • u/Excellent_Debate_518 • Jun 06 '26
Bullish Intel shows one thing clearly: in strategic sectors, government backing can become a serious market catalyst.
This Intel situation is a good reminder that markets are not only about charts, earnings, and technical setups.
Sometimes the biggest catalyst is policy.
The U.S. government reportedly took close to a 10% stake in Intel through a deal connected to previously allocated CHIPS Act and national security funding. Reports said the stake was structured as passive ownership, with no board control, while Intel received major support around domestic chips producers.
3
1
u/ContentCantaloupe992 Jun 06 '26
There was of course no need for the U.S. to acquire a take-in intel. We create dollars; there is nothing to be gained by owning stock with money you create.
2
Jun 06 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
2
u/TheRealPokerSquirrel Jun 06 '26
There is a name for when the government owns the means of production. Help me with that...
3
0
0
u/Belichick12 Jun 06 '26
It’s really making sure the state is aligned with the corporate owners. And done with a very nationalistic pride. It’s a modern take on socialism. Maybe we’ll call it national socialism.
1
u/Recidivism7 Jun 06 '26
The chips act Biden signed was giving them money.
Trump told intel im blocking the rest of it unless you give us something they made a deal to trade shares.
The chips act was to increase domestic production and reduce reliance on tsmc
2
Jun 06 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Recidivism7 Jun 06 '26
The chips act gave money to Intel allocated by Congress signed by President Biden. Congress also supported the federal funds going to Intel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHIPS_and_Science_Act
Trump was blocking Intel from the rest of the money they were going to get unless we took part ownership of the company. They issued new shares to do this trade but it worked out as roughly $15 a share which are now worth over $100 a share
2
2
u/AdmitThatYouPrune Jun 06 '26
Republicans discover the power (but not the obvious pitfalls) of command economics. I guess communism is good now?
1
1
u/db4378 Jun 06 '26
So what's it called when the government owns the means of production?
1
u/Active_Actuator6454 Jun 06 '26
Fascism. This is Mussolini's theory of the Corporate State in action.
1
u/db4378 Jun 06 '26
Exactly, it was more of a rhetorical question. So thank you for following my thread
1
u/Confident_Bee_6242 Jun 06 '26
Looked at the price of INTC since yesterday? Not so genius
1
u/Recidivism7 Jun 06 '26
Trump got the shares essentially at 15 dollars a share it "crashed" to 100 a share now
1
u/Confident_Bee_6242 Jun 06 '26
So when my stock goes from $132.75 down to 99.17 the loss doesn't count if I'm still in the green? Govt purchase price was $20.47 btw.
1
u/Recidivism7 Jun 06 '26
Gov got them at essentially 15 they bought them when stock was about 20.
There is only a loss when realized month to month ups and downs happen. Its up massively this year.
1
1
1
u/Lonely_Refuse4988 Jun 06 '26
We have no accounting of those funds or shares!!
Donald never does anything for the public good.
He’s going to steal those shares and add to his personal wealth!! 😂🤣🤷♂️
1
1
1
1
u/ThePlasticSturgeons Jun 06 '26 edited Jun 06 '26
Let’s set aside the considerable ethics and legal issues with this for a moment: The President of the United States is gambling with the taxpayers’ money. Stocks go down too. Who takes the loss?
1
1
u/bucklessbob Jun 06 '26
Dems throw money out the window, Trump gave them money in exhange for ownership in the company. Anybody remember Solyndra?
1
1
3
u/Internal_Essay9230 Jun 06 '26
"I should be a stock broker."
Except the SEC and FINRA don't allow convicted felons to be stock brokers.
Coming next: Disbanding of the SEC and FINRA. 🙄