US Govt's sluggish Chips Act payouts slam the brakes on Samsung's fab, delayed to 2025
US Govt's sluggish Chips Act payouts slam the brakes on Samsung's fab, delayed to 2025
CHIPS Act running into more problems.
You're viewing a single thread.
Sounds like they're delaying because their Exynos chip is wildly unpopular compared to Snapdragon and simply blaming it on the CHIPS Act as cover. They're claiming it's because they need this couple billion in subsidies while also claiming they plan to invest $200 billion here? Seems like Samsung should be able to cover the tab in the interim if they really wanted to build here. This bill is already signed into law so why wouldn't they receive the funds at some point? Is this 1% of their total investment really that critical?
This is just like Walgreens and RiteAid claiming they have to close stores due to theft, only to later admit that was a complete fabrication.
Samsung fab is different from Samsung's Exynos team
TSMC has also not received a cent. Their chairman got kicked a few weeks ago for being stupid enough to trust American promises of money.
TSMC can't get their fab build because they think US workers should be receiving Chinese wages. Everyone is entitled to a share of the money of they build a US fab. Intel is already in the middle of building a completely new campus in Ohio even though they've had a terrible couple years financially and haven't received their subsidies either. You'd think TSMC, the company that makes virtually every other companies chips, would be able to front a few billion on their own facility.
Would you rather it end up like Foxconn's Wisconsin deal where the city demolishes an entire neighborhood of homes, kicks the residents out, and gives billions in subsidies only for them to scale back the plant and only hire a couple hundred people to build outdated products? These companies are already absolutely massive and can afford this stuff on their own. The subsidies are just supposed to be a small incentive for doing so, not their primary source of funding.
This is just like Walgreens and RiteAid claiming they have to close stores due to theft, only to later admit that was a complete fabrication.
Thought this was interesting, so I tried looking for more information. Didn't find anything other than people speculating. If you have a link or search terms I could use to find of an article of these or similar companies saying the closings were actually because of something else, I'd appreciate it.
I did, yes. The second link has the relevant quote from the CFO - "We're probably -- you know, maybe we cried too much last year when we were hitting numbers that were 3.5% of sales".
Though looking at the context, it looks like he regrets the actions (specifically increased security hired) that came from that. There doesn't seem to be anything about the link to store closures.
The actual link came from an article Shepard Pie below you provided here (Is Shoplifting Really Surging?). Apparently nationwide, shoplifting is down - except in certain cities
But the increase in shoplifting appears to be limited to a few cities, rather than being truly national. [..] There are some exceptions, particularly New York City, where shoplifting has spiked.
Out of the 24 cities, 17 reported decreases in shoplifting.
I'm guessing the 7 remaining cities are where the stores were closed.