Semiconductor manufacturer designing and producing CPUs, chips, and computing hardware.Yahoo Finance ↗intel.com ↗
4 takes · first discussed Aug 23, 2024 · last Aug 29, 2025
Every call, plotted at the price the day they made it.
Chamath argues the US government taking a 10% equity stake in Intel—rather than giving free grants—is a smart model that gives taxpayers upside while strategically supporting domestic chip manufacturing to compete with China.
Sacks supports the government taking equity in Intel rather than giving outright grants, arguing it's a better deal for taxpayers, creates the right incentives, and addresses the national security imperative of onshoring chip manufacturing.
Friedberg flags Intel as 'imploding' and unable to manufacture, casting doubt on whether CHIPS Act investment in Intel can succeed even with government incentives.
Thomas Lafont characterizes Intel's decline as a complete abdication of corporate governance at the board and CEO level, contrasting it with Broadcom's strong performance over the same period.
The hosts are divided on Intel, with views shifting notably over time. Friedberg (2024) and guest Thomas Lafont (2025) are bearish, with Friedberg citing Intel's manufacturing struggles as potentially fatal even with government support, and Lafont attributing the company's decline to a wholesale failure of corporate governance at both the board and CEO level. By contrast, Chamath and Sacks (both August 2025) have turned cautiously bullish—not on Intel's fundamentals per se, but on the U.S. government's decision to take a 10% equity stake rather than issuing free grants; both argue this model gives taxpayers upside, creates better incentives, and serves the national security goal of onshoring chip manufacturing to compete with China. The result is a split where the bears focus on Intel's internal dysfunction and execution failures, while the bulls frame their optimism around the structure of government intervention rather than Intel's own merits.
Chamath argues the US government taking a 10% equity stake in Intel—rather than giving free grants—is a smart model that gives taxpayers upside while strategically supporting domestic chip manufacturing to compete with China.
I think that this approach is the much better approach, which is to say we can do exactly what China did with a couple of tweaks... own something on the balance sheet of the United States, not have a golden vote, have complete”40:50
Sacks supports the government taking equity in Intel rather than giving outright grants, arguing it's a better deal for taxpayers, creates the right incentives, and addresses the national security imperative of onshoring chip manufacturing.
If you are going to hand out billions of dollars to these companies, you're better off at least getting something for it, having the taxpayers have some upside in it, allowing the government to recoup, and creating the right incentive for”43:27
Thomas Lafont characterizes Intel's decline as a complete abdication of corporate governance at the board and CEO level, contrasting it with Broadcom's strong performance over the same period.
I think Intel really missed. It's a complete abdication of corporate governance at the board level and the CEO level.”1:47:34