Is there a difference between this and nationalization? Just a matter of degree?

> Just a matter of degree?

That and when most governments "nationalise" corporations they seize them and don't give the owners/shareholders anything.

▲

Starman_Jones 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

What are the shareholders getting out of this?

▲

kelnos 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Better to be diluted than continue to invest in a company that goes to zero.

And it's the standard refrain: if this money helps Intel get back on its feet, the stock price will go up, presumably to the point dilution won't matter.

But who cares, really? If it's true that Intel is actually strategically important to the US, the shareholders are irrelevant if need be. It's not a great outcome, sure, but Intel has been mismanaged for a long time, and investors should have known the risks of investing in a company like that.

▲

dismalaf 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Maybe their shares get bought, in this case it looks like Intel might have simply issued the shares. In this case, shareholders have equity in a company that just had $10 billion added to the balance sheet and which the government signalled can't fail. INTC was up over 5% on Friday, obviously shareholders think the government investment is good for them.

Versus in most nationalisation events their shares simply get taken away or diluted to pennies.

▲

WillPostForFood 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

They get $11.1 billion dollars invested into Intel.

https://www.intc.com/news-events/press-releases/detail/1748/...

	▲	Snafuh 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		The money was already granted without being tied to 10% equity. This looks like the government retroactively changing the deal.

▲

aspenmayer 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> That and when most governments "nationalise" corporations they seize them and don't give the owners/shareholders anything.

First you get the money, then you get the power.

Money is fungible, but power isn't. Arguably, taking away my power is an affront to my human rights. Taking my money is an affront, but it never was my money to begin with, as I don't control the value or creation of it. My rights are inalienable.