Latest News

Investors are worried that Trump's Intel deal will kick off an era of US Industrial Policy

Investors are worried that the U.S. Government's new stake is Intel heralds a new era of government interference in private industries, especially since the deal was made after President Donald Trump called for the resignation the CEO of the computer chip manufacturer.

The deal announced on Friday converts government grants, including the Chips Act, worth $11.1 billion into a 9.9% stake in Intel. In the press release that announced the deal, the company included statements by the CEOs from Microsoft, Dell and others praising it.

Investors noted that this level of transparency is not typically associated with business-Washington relations. Trump said on Twitter that Intel CEO Lip Bu Tan wanted to stay in his job, and "ended giving us $10 billion dollars for the United States."

James McRitchie is a shareholder activist and private investor in California, who owns Intel stock. He said that the threat to the CEO sets a precedent. He said that the statement effectively sent the message "we love Trump and we don't wish to lose 10% of our company."

Intel shares closed at $24.56 in August 15th, the last trading day prior to Trump's announcement. On August 6, Intel shares closed at 20.41. Intel's Tuesday closing price was $24.35 down 1%. According to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the deal does not grant the U.S. Commerce Department any board seats. Commerce is required to support the board's nominees and proposals for directors. Commerce, however, can vote on other issues "as they wish".

Fitch Ratings stated that the deal did not improve Intel’s BBB credit score, which is just above junk status. Fitch Ratings said that while the deal provides more liquidity it doesn't fundamentally improve demand for Intel chip, they stated in a research report on Tuesday.

Reduced Voting Rights

Intel's filing states that the deal could also subject the company to new regulations or restrictions outside the United States. Tan also said that Intel didn't need the money. SoftBank invested $2 billion in the chipmaker just three days before Trump's announcement.

The White House's latest intervention was in a private company, after a military deal announced in July for a mining stake and the influence it had over U.S. Steel in connection with its acquisition by Japan's Nippon Steel. U.S. Commerce secretary Howard Lutnick stated on Tuesday that the Trump administration could take stakes in defence contractors.

The U.S. move could be seen by some European and Asian governments as business as usual, as they already own large chunks of companies. Lower Saxony, a German state, owns 20% of Volkswagen.

Richard Hardegree is vice chairman of UBS' technology investment banking. He said that the Japanese, Korean, Taiwanese, Singaporean, and Malaysian governments have been doing this for many years. "In France and Italy, there have been massive industrial policies around the semiconductor industry for the past 40-50 years ever since people realized the importance of the semiconductor."

Washington took temporary equity positions in several vital companies during the financial crisis of 2008-2009, but these arrangements were only temporary. Washington's unprecedented move to pressure otherwise healthy companies into long-term ownership stakes has alarmingly alarmed investors.

BLURRED LINES

Rich Weiss said that future federal investments will need "regulations and guidelines" to limit abuses like insider trading.

He said that if government investments were not checked, the trading of these companies would be more risky for investors.

Investors and representatives have cited similar risks, such as when boards balance competing interests in decisions like where to locate a plant, whether or not to layoff workers, or the degree to which they push into overseas markets.

Robert McCormick said that company and national goals can easily clash on these matters. The Council of Institutional Investors includes state pension funds, among other large shareholders.

He said that a government stake in a private company could create a conflict between the interests of the company and the nation.

Kristin Hull is the chief investment officer at California-based activist Nia Impact Capital. She said that she had "more doubts than confidence" regarding the equity stake. Nia owns stakes in Advanced Micro Devices, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing. It also manages Intel shares for its clients.

Hull stated in an interview that "I believe the lines between the government and the private sector are blurred here."

A representative of Intel said that the board of directors approved the deal for the issue of shares. The representative declined to comment further. When asked about concerns over insider trading, the representative quoted a press release that stated the U.S. Government would not have any board representation and "other governance rights or information rights."

Microsoft's representative declined to comment. Dell representatives did not answer any questions.

A large institutional investor who spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the situation said that the deal would protect Intel against pressure from activist investors.

The person warned that the U.S. Government could take a worrying step towards state capitalism if it continues to invest in other companies.

"Seening it once for a firm like this doesn't raise any red flags. It raises an eyebrow. If this tool becomes more common, we will have to examine why it is used and why capital markets don't provide financing", the investor stated. (Reporting from Boston by Ross Kerber and Dawn Kopecki. Dawn Kopecki, David Gregorio and Dawn Kopecki edited the article.

(source: Reuters)