Sorry, Sam.

I missed your question in this weekend’s Q&A.

Sometimes questions slip through the cracks. This was one of those times…

Let’s make it right by answering it today.

Here’s the question:

“What do you think about the government taking a stake in Intel?”

It’s a fair question.

And the answer says a lot about where Intel stands today – and why I don’t want to own the stock.

Let’s start with the deal itself.

On the surface it’s awful for Intel.

The U.S. government had already awarded Intel $8.9 billion in grants. Free money.

It hadn’t yet hit Intel’s bank account… but it was theirs.

Then President Trump decided to rip up that arrangement and rewrite the terms.

Now to get the money, Intel is handing over 9.9% of its stock.

Why 9.9%?

Who knows. It looks like an arbitrary number.

The stock closed at $24.80 before the deal but the government got its stake at $20.47.

In other words, the government ended up with about $10.7 billion worth of stock for an $8.9 billion outlay.

On the surface, paying $10.7 billion of stock for $8.9 billion of already-promised cash is a terrible deal for Intel.

But here’s the thing…

In a world where President Trump can punish companies he dislikes and reward those he favors (and he’s shown to do both regularly), handing him a 9.9% stake might actually be worth it.

Give him equity and suddenly he’s in your corner, right?

Even so, the bigger problem is Intel itself.

This is not a healthy company being temporarily misunderstood by investors.

It’s a company in decline.

Sales have dropped four straight years. 

They lost nearly $20 billion last year.

The company has become irrelevant in AI.

Its core CPU business is bleeding market share to AMD.

And then there’s the foundry business.

On paper, I actually think Intel trying to reinvent itself as a foundry is a good idea.

But the reality is harsh: it doesn’t have any customers.

Sure, the government can shovel billions into Intel to keep the dream alive.

But money alone doesn’t guarantee success.

If chip designers don’t want to use Intel’s fabs the whole thing collapses.

Some optimists argue that Trump will bully chip designers into building their products on U.S. soil with Intel.

That sounds nice but here’s the problem: Intel’s new fabs won’t even be operational until long after Trump leaves office.

So what are you really betting on if you buy Intel?

A struggling company with shrinking sales, mounting losses, declining relevance, and no real timeline for a turnaround.

Contrast that with Nvidia (NVDA) or Broadcom (AVGO).

These are companies actually riding the AI wave, not watching it pass by.

Nvidia is selling out of every chip it makes.

Broadcom has positioned itself as a critical supplier in the AI ecosystem.

And here’s the kicker – they’re both cheaper today than they were just a week ago.

That’s where you want to be invested.

Not in a politically propped-up company hoping for a miracle.

So to answer Sam’s question directly: The government’s stake in Intel might look like a show of support, but to me it just underscores how weak the company is on its own.

Washington can throw money at Intel, but it can’t fix the fact that the company has no customers, no competitive edge in AI, and no near-term path out of decline.

If you want exposure to semiconductors, own Nvidia or Broadcom.

If you want a lottery ticket on government protectionism, go ahead and own Intel.

I know which side of that trade I’m on.