On September 5th， according to Kuaikeji， news broke last month that the U.S. President announced the U.S. government would acquire a 10% stake in Intel， a move that sent shockwaves through the industry and raised concerns about government involvement potentially impacting the company’s operations.
Intel’s CFO， David Zinsner， recently defended the decision at the Citi TMT Conference， stating that Washington will not interfere with the company’s affairs and pledged to vote in accordance with the board’s recommendations. This assurance from Intel’s senior management suggests that the U.S. government’s investment is purely financial and will not lead to operational interference. Even as the largest shareholder， the government is expected to align its voting power with the board’s decisions rather than dictating company strategy.
According to previous announcements， the U.S. government will convert funds from the CHIPS and Science Act into equity. An initial tranche of $5.7 billion has been allocated， with $2.2 billion already received and an additional $3.2 billion anticipated from other federal programs. This brings the total investment to $11.1 billion for a 10% stake， equivalent to 433 million shares in Intel.
However， a crucial clause in this agreement grants the U.S. government the right to receive warrants for an additional 5% equity. This right can be exercised if Intel’s ownership by the government falls below 51% in the future. This provision is likely designed to prevent Intel from fully divesting its manufacturing operations. Given Intel’s prior emphasis that it is unlikely to hold less than 50% of its own stock， this particular clause may ultimately hold little practical significance.
Furthermore， following the government’s investment， Intel also issued a filing with the SEC， acknowledging that the transaction might elicit unfavorable reactions from investors， employees， customers， and international partners， thereby posing risks to shareholders and future business. However， Intel clarified that this risk disclosure was a standard legal requirement to detail potential risks， and it does not indicate that management anticipates such risks materializing.
