I don’t see the problem. If the US government shows a potential interest in subsidizing fabs, the expected outcome is that chip makers would explore their options for building fans here.

That’s the entire purpose of the subsidies.

Wouldn't the goal be to not apply, before the law passes?

The touted concept is, no one will build without subsidies. Yet without them, Samsung is planning to build! The proof? Well, they spent cash to plan, pay for application prep, and apply.

So yes it seems weird. If anything, it could kill the bill.

Planning is not doing. Subsidies are only useful if fabs are on the verge of being built, but are being held back. If no one would ever build a fab in the US, then any subsidies handed out will be wasted. If fabs are being built anyways, then there isn't much benefit. Samsung is saying they might build a fab, and thus could be enticed by subsidies.

> Samsung is saying they might build a fab, and thus could be enticed by subsidies.

but then if they might build, subsidies are already not required. Subsidies isn't meant to "push plan over the edge" for something.

To me, subsidies are meant to encourage fabs when it would not actually have been built - that is, it's a transfer of some wealth to the corporation building it, in exchange for some other social benefit (such as self-sufficiency, or redundancy of manufacturing).

Their actions say otherwise, because to plan means you think it worthwhile.

Unless their plan is “let’s get permissions so that if the subsidy is put in place, we’re ready to build.”

That doesn’t suggest that they’d build without the subsidy, but that they want to be able to take advantage of the subsidy right away, if it gets put in place.

They could officially ask, to lend weight to passing the bill, it passes, take money, never build.

See Wisconsin and Foxconn.

Right. So spend time designing plants specific to local build codes, environment and terrain, paying architechs, examining land conditions, paying legal and lawyers, all to get permits to build, when you can wait until after, and do the same?!

Sure, companies love to spend hundreds of thousands on unknowns, for no real reason.

There could be a time advantage, where the probability weighted expected benefits of starting N years ahead of time is much larger than the sum spent preparing.

You could think of it as purchasing an option, which businesses definitely do.

Hundreds of thousands out of a possible expenditure in the tens of billions is literally nothing.

By that logic, why don't they just gove me, or you, 500k right now?

Hmm?

Why not?

Because any company behaving that way, would be bankrupt in a year. 500k is nothing on terms of overall expenditures, but companies drool over cutting production costs by .1 cents, here and there.

Because it adds up! Because spending 500k for Silly Reasons, done over and over, means profit disappears.

500k is nothing to waste. $1 is nothing to waste.

The arguments in this thread are bizarre. They boil down to Samsung spending cash, just in case subsidies appear.

Yet there is no difference in terms of getting a subsidy, if they do the work before, or after it becomes law!

None! No difference! If there was, everyone would be doing it.

So I am expected to believe, Samsung is spending loads of cash, because maybe a bill might be passed, sorta possibly hopefully?!

Where instead, they could wait until the bill is passed, and spend the cash for a guaranteed return.

Competent companies don't spend money this way. Especially, they don't posture that they are ready to build, when there is no subsidy in place, and may never be one!

Is everyone here a Samsung fan or some such? Totally bizarre logic.

Companies spend hundreds of thousands on unknowns that don't pan out all the time. Sometimes their reasons are even pretty good!

Samsung might want the bill dead because it is in relatively better shape.

In this case, however, samsung has specifically said they don't have plans to build at this time, and only one fab they applied for has a start build date prior to 2029 (and online dates are in the 203x timeframe).

It could be to incentivize local politicians to vote for it.

Let me fix that for you

>Samsung asks permission

to signal no subsidies are necessary

> right before Washington votes on whether to subsidize

Intel directly and pretty much nobody else.

Why would Samsung want this bill dead, hmmmm?

Wouldn't it be prudent for them to ask for 11 fabs in 11 states, and get 11x more politicians lobbying for them?

Maybe they like the laws in Texas more, alot companies have been moving to Texas for that reason. Although that is conjecture. Also having them geographically close has perks for logistics.

I hope they are bringing their own power grid along with those fab plans. Power bumps and brownouts are terrible for fabs.

Next to the $B that is a modern fab, running an electrical generation station is a minor investment. I also wouldn't be surprised it Samsung has a division which builds power plants, given that in SK they build apartment buildings and air conditioners.

They won't plan to build 11. There's years between approval and earth being turned on the couple they do decide to build.

As a sibling comment points out, I don’t think it’s disingenuous at all, and I agree with your point in all but that remark. Almost seems like the brass at Samsung are on top of things, and it doesn’t seem like they’re trying to “pull a fast one” at all. Disclaimer: I buy Samsung things but have no affiliation.

Well I personally know several Samsung people in the area. Samsung is very serious about expanding into Texas in a big way. I'm not sure if recent attempts by Texas government to promote Christian Nationalist/Qanon ideas has dissuaded them, although I consider that the biggest detriment for businesses going forward in Texas (attracting young people to a state where half the population and their rights is considered less valuable than the other half)