Nvidia takes $5B stake in Intel under September agreement

Size and implications of Nvidia’s Intel stake

• Original September piece said ~4% post-issuance; commenters ask if that’s still accurate but no clear answer emerges.
• Some see it as a major symbolic shift: Intel’s key owners now include the U.S. government, Nvidia, and SoftBank (though others note large index-fund managers still hold more overall via funds).
• One concern raised: this may dampen Intel’s role as a meaningful AI competitor to Nvidia.

Could Nvidia just buy Intel? Antitrust and policy views

• Several argue a full acquisition would likely be blocked on global antitrust grounds, citing prior failure to buy ARM and the power of EU/UK regulators over global deals.
• Others think the current U.S. administration might tolerate it, especially to create a “US foundry behemoth.”
• There’s debate over how real foreign regulators’ power is in a de jure sense versus the huge de facto leverage they have through market access.

Intel’s technical position and “wizard” talent

• One thread stresses Intel’s problems are not primarily money but missing expertise: “wizards” in advanced manufacturing mostly sit at TSMC, with deep, tacit knowledge not externally published.
• Path to becoming such a “wizard” is described as long, specialized PhD work plus years under experts, often for modest pay and difficult hours.
• Some push back that Intel is closer to TSMC than portrayed: already doing high‑volume EUV since 2023–24 and advancing 18A.

Ownership structure, funds, and control

• Debate over whether large asset managers (BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street) should “count” as owners versus being proxies for millions of individuals.
• Clarifications: funds typically vote the shares (proxy voting guidelines), which raises governance concerns for some; others point out this is standard practice and not inherently conspiratorial.

Circular investments and risk to Nvidia

• Multiple comments worry about Nvidia investing in its own customers (OpenAI, Intel, others) while also selling them hardware, calling it a “tight circle” beyond normal money velocity.
• Critics argue this amplifies downside: if a customer fails, Nvidia loses both revenue and equity value.
• Others frame it as medium‑risk, high‑reward: a few breakout successes could more than offset failures—but there is no consensus.

Corporate ownership and limited liability (broader tangent)

• One subthread proposes banning companies from owning companies; only people would own companies.
• Lawyers and others push back:
  • Would complicate subsidiaries, cross‑border operations, joint ventures, and M&A.
  • Would force immediate “IPOs” of subsidiaries to individuals and reduce saleability/value of businesses.
  • Limited liability is defended as necessary for risk‑taking; critics counter that it mainly protects capital owners and socializes some risks.