> Unlike grants, equity comes at a steep cost to Intel. Transferring grants into equity therefore risks putting Intel at a cost disadvantage relative to other chip makers

A lot of this article seems to rely on this point but the possible cost isn't clarified. I can understand equity arrangements affecting shareholders but how would it reduce the product's competitiveness, notably the unit cost which seems to be the point regards to other chipmakers. If it's about stock price going down, employee comp going down and product effects from that, it seems too speculative?

On the flip side, it sounds like instead of cash over time it becomes a lump cash infusion, which seems like it could result in benefits of its own such as bringing forward timelines.

<< how would it reduce the product's competitiveness

It wouldn't. It is an opinion piece. On that basis alone, knowing what we know about media landscape, it exists as a means of forming opinion and allowable argumentation for the issue at hand.

If that premise is accepted then the piece is there to protect the poor shareholders, who until now were thinking Intel will be getting 'free' government money, but suddenly found the cost of government involvement may be higher. Suddenly, that is a bridge too far. You can grant them money, but, good heavens, think of what you will do if you demand that we give you equity of said money..

I mean.. sure WSJ intended audience, who is bound to nod on 'productivity' line of argumentation, but people with a sense of Intel history ( or most US industries that offshored and now talk reshoring for that matter ) might chuckle at the hutzpah.