Connect with us

Business

Trump’s Intel deal gambles with the perils of picking national champions

Published

on



Good morning. What just happened? Only 15 days after President Trump posted that Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan “is highly CONFLICTED and must resign,” the two men had seemingly become best buds, and the U.S. sent Intel $8.9 billion in return for a 9.9% stake in the company. Then, yesterday, National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett told CNBC, “I’m sure that at some point there’ll be more transactions, if not in this industry, in other industries.” He likened the deal to a “down payment on a sovereign wealth fund.” 

But why? Why now? What’s next?

For answers, I spoke with three experts on government investments in companies. Three themes came through—though answers were harder to find.

This deal is like none other. “It is entirely unusual, if not unprecedented, for the United States government to take a significant ownership stake in a major company in the United States, particularly one in a strategic industry,” says Douglas Rediker, a lawyer and economist with long experience in global finance, sovereign wealth funds, global capital flows, and their impact on foreign policy. Luigi Zingales, a professor at the University of Chicago business school, says, “The thing that, to me, is shocking and unbelievable is that it starts as an attack to the CEO based completely on his potential self-dealing—which might be true, might not be true—but if that’s the problem, it cannot be solved by giving some stock to the U.S. government.”

The deal’s objective is far from clear. William Megginson, a professor at the University of Oklahoma business school, has researched the privatization of state-owned enterprises and sovereign wealth funds. He notes that the $8.9 billion paid to Intel is an advance of money earmarked for Intel in the Chips Act, so “the government is not bringing any new capital.” But then “what is the government bringing if it’s not bringing capital to catch up with Taiwan Semiconductor, which is probably going to invest something like $40 billion just this year—three or four times what Intel can spend?” Zingales says, “That is the biggest problem. If you have an objective, you can say it is right or wrong, feasible or not feasible. But without a clear objective, it’s kind of a mess.”

Intel’s competitors won’t like this deal, and they can’t know what to expect. “Are we now in an era in which the U.S. government is literally picking national champions, and if so, what does that say to other companies?” Rediker asks. “Does that mean Intel will now be given preferential treatment in, for example, government contracts? if you’re Intel’s competitors, you might be scratching your head and saying, Maybe we want to go in a different direction if we’re going to be compromised or disadvantaged because Intel is now the favorite son of the industry.”

If you’re a CEO, have worked for Intel in the past (or compete with them), I’d be particularly curious to hear your thoughts on the state of affairs. You can email me directly at Geoff.Colvin@fortune.com.

Top news

President Trump fires Fed Governor

President Donald Trump announced via Truth Social Monday night that he is firing Fed Governor Lisa Cook after she was accused of taking out two home loans in which she attested that both were her primary residence. Cook has not been accused of wrongdoing in any formal legal process. The move casts doubt over the Fed’s independence as Trump-appointed Fed governors would represent a majority on the Fed board if Trump appoints a replacement. Cook says she will not leave her post, setting up a legal conflict over whether the president has a right to remove a governor “for cause.” The NYT has a useful bio describing Cook’s career as an economist.

Wall Street is aghast

What they’re saying today: “This is an extraordinary act of aggression that violates the Fed’s independence,” Eswar Prasad, a professor at Cornell University, told the FT. “Trump has now declared open war on the US institutional framework, which underpins the dollar’s dominance in global finance.” … “This is unprecedented,” Lev Menand, a Columbia Law School professor said. “If this removal sticks . . .  it spells something close to the end of central bank independence in the U.S.” … “It’s an authoritarian power grab that blatantly violates the Federal Reserve Act, and must be overturned in court,” said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).

“They have to give us magnets”

President Trump has hit a wrinkle in his trade negotiations with China: China controls 90% of the supply of rare earth minerals that are crucial for electronics and military equipment that depend on high-powered magnets. “They have to give us magnets, if they don’t give us magnets, then we have to charge them 200% tariffs or something,” Trump said yesterday. The Economist has a good article about China’s export strategy here. The bottom line: China has what the U.S. needs and thus holds a strong hand in the tariff talks.

Canada and German pledge cooperation on mineral supply

Unsurprisingly, the E.U. and Canada are maneuvering around the U.S. and developing trade ties to increase the supply of minerals without involving the U.S. “For too long, Canada’s vast reserves of nickel, cobalt, and other critical minerals have been underdeveloped, allowing Russia and China to dominate the global market,” Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said yesterday. “Canada is ready to be a reliable supplier for our allies — particularly Germany as Europe’s largest economy and Canada’s largest trading partner in the European Union.”

Postal services, parcel shippers drop deliveries to the U.S.

The “de minimis” exemption to Trump’s tariffs (which allows small businesses and individuals  to send parcels to the U.S. worth less than $800 tariff-free) comes to an end this week and at least 19 countries in Europe are pausing or dropping service to the U.S. as a result. Asian services are following suit, Axios reports.

Tesla rejected $60 million deal before losing $243 million case

Tesla rejected the opportunity to settle a lawsuit over a fatal crash involving Tesla Autopilot for $60 million, before losing a jury verdict that awarded $243 million in damages against the company. The verdict, if upheld on appeal, threatens to impose massive, long-term liabilities on Tesla in car crashes involving the company’s driver assistance software. Tesla said it would appeal.

CBO: Tariffs will cut $4 trillion from federal deficit

The Congressional Budget Office believes that the Trump Administration’s tariffs will cut federal deficits by $4 trillion over the next decade. In June, the nonpartisan agency put savings at just $4 billion. 

Coinbase CEO’s AI mandate

In a recent appearance on the Cheeky Pint podcast with Stripe cofounder and president John Collison, Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong noted that he mandated every engineer at the company to use AI coding assistants within a week’s time and fired those without a good reason for ignoring the mandate. “Even as CEO, by the way, I use it a lot,” Armstrong also said.

More Epstein documents subpoenaed

The House Oversight Committee has demanded documents from Jeffrey Epstein’s estate in hopes of discovering more about the “birthday book” given to Epstein that reportedly contained a warm message from Trump to his former friend. (Trump denies he wrote it.) The DOJ has already delivered thousands of pages that it held on Epstein. Here’s a list of likely names inside the book.

The markets

S&P 500 futures were down 0.13% this morning, premarket, after the index closed down 0.43% yesterday. STOXX Europe 600 was down 0.71% in early trading. The U.K.’s FTSE 100 was down 0.52% in early trading. Japan’s Nikkei 225 was down 0.97%. China’s CSI 300 was down 0.37%. The South Korea KOSPI was down 0.95%. India’s Nifty 50 was up 0.72% before the end of the session. Bitcoin fell to $110.2K.

Around the watercooler

Millions of Gen Zers are jobless—and unemployment is mainly affecting men by Emma Burleigh

New Zealand has the best work-life balance in the world—here’s what works by Jessica Coacci

Kind’s billionaire founder says he still picks up pennies off the street because ‘ego is the only thing more powerful than greed’ by Dave Smith

You won’t get more money from quitting in this economy, BofA says, as job-hopping freezes in white-collar America by Nick Lichtenberg

CEO Daily is compiled and edited by Joey Abrams and Jim Edwards.

This is the web version of CEO Daily, a newsletter of must-read global insights from CEOs and industry leaders. Sign up to get it delivered free to your inbox.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Kimberly-Clark exec says old bosses would compare her to their daughters when she got promoted

Published

on



Women have their own unique set of challenges in the workforce; the “motherhood penalty” can set them back $500,000, their C-suite representation is waning, and the gender pay gap has widened again. One senior executive from $36 billion manufacturing giant Kimberly-Clark knows the tribulations all too well—after all, she’s one of few women in the Fortune 500 who holds the coveted role. 

Tamera Fenske is the chief supply chain officer (CSCO) for Kimberly-Clark, who oversees a massive global team of 22,665 employees—around 58% of the global CPG manufacturer’s workforce. She’s in charge of optimizing the company’s entire supply chain, from sourcing raw materials for Kimberly-Clark products including Kleenex and Huggies, to delivering the final product into customers’ shopping carts. 

It’s a job that’s essential to most top businesses operating at such a massive scale; around 422 of the Fortune 500 have chief supply chain officers, according to a 2025 Spencer Stuart analysis. However, most of these slots are awarded to white men; only about 18% of executives in this position are women, and 12% come from underrepresented racial and ethnic backgrounds. It’s one of the C-suite roles with the least female representation, right next to chief financial officers, chief operating officers, and CEOs. 

In fact, Fenske is one of just 76 Fortune 500 female executives who have “chief supply chain officer” on their resumes. However, the executive tells Fortune it’s an unfortunate fact she “doesn’t think about” too often—if anything, it motivates her further.

“Anytime someone tells me I can’t do something, it makes me want to work that much harder to prove them wrong,” Fenske says. 

The first time Fenske noticed she was one of few women in the room

Fenske has spent her entire life navigating subjects dominated by men—something she didn’t even consider until college. 

Her father, aunts, uncles, and grandfather all worked for Dow Chemical, so she grew up in a STEM-heavy household. Naturally, she leaned into math and science as well, eventually pursuing a bachelor’s in environmental chemical engineering at Michigan Technological University. It was there that her eyes first opened to the reality that she was one of few women in the room. 

“It definitely was going to Michigan Tech, where I first realized the disparity,” Fenske said, adding that there was around an eight-to-one male-to-female ratio. “As you continue through the higher levels and the grades, it becomes even more tighter, especially as you get into your specialized engineering.” 

Once joining the world of work, it wasn’t only Fenske who noticed the lack of women in senior roles—some bosses would even point it out. 

The Fortune 500 boss is paying it forward—for both men and women

After Fenske graduated from Michigan Tech, she got her start at $91 billion manufacturer 3M: a multinational conglomerate producing everything from pads of Post-It notes to rolls of Scotch tape. Fenske was first hired as an environmental engineer in 2000. Promotion after promotion came, but all people could seem to focus on was her gender.

“It would come to light when I moved relatively quickly through the ranks. Some of my bosses would say, ‘You’re the age of my daughter,’ and different things like that. ‘You’re the first woman that’s had this role at this plant or in this division,’” Fenske recalls. Over the course of 2 decades, she rose through the company’s ranks to the SVP of 3M’s U.S. and Canada manufacturing and supply chain. 

And anytime she was asked about her gender? She’d flip the questions back at them while standing her ground. “I would always try to spin it a little bit and ask them questions like, ‘Okay, so what is your daughter doing?’…I always try to seek to understand where they are coming from, but then also reinforce what brought me to where I am.”

Now, three years into her current stint as Kimberly-Clark’s CSCO, the 47-year-old is paying it back—but not just to the women following in her footsteps.

“I never saw myself as necessarily a big, ground-breaker pioneer, even though the statistics would tell you I was,” Fenske says. “I tried to give back to women and men, to be honest. Because I think men [are] one of the strongest advocates for women as well. So I think we have to teach both how to have that equal lens and diverse perspective.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

SpaceX to offer insider shares at record-setting $800 billion valuation

Published

on



SpaceX is preparing to sell insider shares in a transaction that would value Elon Musk’s rocket and satellite maker at as much as $800 billion, people familiar with the matter said, reclaiming the title of the world’s most valuable private company. 

The details, discussed by SpaceX’s board of directors on Thursday at its Starbase hub in Texas, could change based on interest from insider sellers and buyers or other factors, said some of the people, who asked not to be identified as the information isn’t public. SpaceX is also exploring a possible initial public offering as soon as late next year, one of the people said. 

Another person briefed on the matter said that the price under discussion for the sale of some employees and investors’ shares is higher than $400 apiece, which would value SpaceX at between $750 billion and $800 billion. The company wouldn’t raise any funds though this planned sale, though a successful offering at such levels would catapult it past the record of $500 billion valuation achieved by OpenAI in October.

Elon Musk on Saturday denied that SpaceX is raising money at a $800 billion valuation without addressing Bloomberg’s reporting on the planned offering of insiders’ shares. 

“SpaceX has been cash flow positive for many years and does periodic stock buybacks twice a year to provide liquidity for employees and investors,” Musk said in a post on his social media platform X. 

The share sale price under discussion would be a substantial increase from the $212 a share set in July, when the company raised money and sold shares at a valuation of $400 billion. The Wall Street Journal and Financial Times earlier reported the $800 billion valuation target.

News of SpaceX’s valuation sent shares of EchoStar Corp., a satellite TV and wireless company, up as much as 18%. Last month, EchoStar had agreed to sell spectrum licenses to SpaceX for $2.6 billion, adding to an earlier agreement to sell about $17 billion in wireless spectrum to Musk’s company.

Subscribe Now: The Business of Space newsletter covers NASA, key industry events and trends.

The world’s most prolific rocket launcher, SpaceX dominates the space industry with its Falcon 9 rocket that lifts satellites and people to orbit.

SpaceX is also the industry leader in providing internet services from low-Earth orbit through Starlink, a system of more than 9,000 satellites that is far ahead of competitors including Amazon.com Inc.’s Amazon Leo.

Elite Group

SpaceX is among an elite group of companies that have the ability to raise funds at $100 billion-plus valuations while delaying or denying they have any plan to go public. 

An IPO of the company at an $800 billion value would vault SpaceX into another rarefied group — the 20 largest public companies, a few notches below Musk’s Tesla Inc. 

If SpaceX sold 5% of the company at that valuation, it would have to sell $40 billion of stock — making it the biggest IPO of all time, well above Saudi Aramco’s $29 billion listing in 2019. The firm sold just 1.5% of the company in that offering, a much smaller slice than the majority of publicly traded firms make available.

A listing would also subject SpaceX to the volatility of being a public company, versus private firms whose valuations are closely guarded secrets. Space and defense company IPOs have had a mixed reception in 2025. Karman Holdings Inc.’s stock has nearly tripled since its debut, while Firefly Aerospace Inc. and Voyager Technologies Inc. have plunged by double-digit percentages since their debuts.

SpaceX executives have repeatedly floated the idea of spinning off SpaceX’s Starlink business into a separate, publicly traded company — a concept President Gwynne Shotwell first suggested in 2020. 

However, Musk cast doubt on the prospect publicly over the years and Chief Financial Officer Bret Johnsen said in 2024 that a Starlink IPO would be something that would take place more likely “in the years to come.”

The Information, citing people familiar with the discussions, separately reported on Friday that SpaceX has told investors and financial institution representatives that it’s aiming for an IPO of the entire company in the second half of next year.

Read More: How to Buy SpaceX: A Guide for the Eager, Pre-IPO

A so-called tender or secondary offering, through which employees and some early shareholders can sell shares, provides investors in closely held companies such as SpaceX a way to generate liquidity.

SpaceX is working to develop its new Starship vehicle, advertised as the most powerful rocket ever developed to loft huge numbers of Starlink satellites as well as carry cargo and people to moon and, eventually, Mars.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

National Park Service drops free admission on MLK Day and Juneteenth while adding Trump’s birthday

Published

on



The National Park Service will offer free admission to U.S. residents on President Donald Trump’s birthday next year — which also happens to be Flag Day — but is eliminating the benefit for Martin Luther King Jr. Day and Juneteenth.

The new list of free admission days for Americans is the latest example of the Trump administration downplaying America’s civil rights history while also promoting the president’s image, name and legacy.

Last year, the list of free days included Martin Luther King Jr Day and Juneteenth — which is June 19 — but not June 14, Trump’s birthday.

The new free-admission policy takes effect Jan. 1 and was one of several changes announced by the Park Service late last month, including higher admission fees for international visitors.

The other days of free park admission in 2026 are Presidents Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Constitution Day, Veterans Day, President Theodore Roosevelt’s birthday (Oct. 27) and the anniversary of the creation of the Park Service (Aug. 25).

Eliminating Martin Luther King Jr. Day and Juneteenth, which commemorates the day in 1865 when the last enslaved Americans were emancipated, removes two of the nation’s most prominent civil rights holidays.

Some civil rights leaders voiced opposition to the change after news about it began spreading over the weekend.

“The raw & rank racism here stinks to high heaven,” Harvard Kennedy School professor Cornell William Brooks, a former president of the NAACP, wrote on social media about the new policy.

Kristen Brengel, a spokesperson for the National Parks Conservation Association, said that while presidential administrations have tweaked the free days in the past, the elimination of Martin Luther King Jr. Day is particularly concerning. For one, the day has become a popular day of service for community groups that use the free day to perform volunteer projects at parks.

That will now be much more expensive, said Brengel, whose organization is a nonprofit that advocates for the park system.

“Not only does it recognize an American hero, it’s also a day when people go into parks to clean them up,” Brengel said. “Martin Luther King Jr. deserves a day of recognition … For some reason, Black history has repeatedly been targeted by this administration, and it shouldn’t be.”

Some Democratic lawmakers also weighed in to object to the new policy.

“The President didn’t just add his own birthday to the list, he removed both of these holidays that mark Black Americans’ struggle for civil rights and freedom,” said Democratic Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada. “Our country deserves better.”

A spokesperson for the National Park Service did not immediately respond to questions on Saturday seeking information about the reasons behind the changes.

Since taking office, Trump has sought to eliminate programs seen as promoting diversity across the federal government, actions that have erased or downplayed America’s history of racism as well as the civil rights victories of Black Americans.

Self-promotion is an old habit of the president’s and one he has continued in his second term. He unsuccessfully put himself forwardfor the Nobel Peace Prize, renamed the U.S. Institute of Peace after himself, sought to put his name on the planned NFL stadium in the nation’s capital and had a new children’s savings program named after him.

Some Republican lawmakers have suggested putting his visage on Mount Rushmore and the $100 bill.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.