I asked Google AI: As an entity owning 10% of Intel, the U.S. government is viewed by the SEC as a "beneficial owner" and would be subject to specific disclosure requirements. While government-owned securities are generally exempt from SEC registration, this stake is in a public, non-governmental corporation, making the government's holding subject to the same public disclosure rules as other large shareholders.
Reporting requirements
The SEC's primary concern is ensuring market transparency and preventing insider trading. The U.S. government is required to disclose its 9.9% stake through filings with the SEC.
Schedule 13D: As an owner of more than 5% of a class of a company's registered securities, the government must file a Schedule 13D. This filing is required within 10 days of the acquisition and must disclose the purpose of the investment, among other details.
Schedule 13G: This short-form beneficial ownership report can be used instead of Schedule 13D by institutional investors who acquire more than 5% of a company's voting securities as a passive investment. Since Intel has stated the government's stake is passive, a Schedule 13G filing would be appropriate.
Forms 3, 4, and 5: These forms are required for officers, directors, and beneficial owners of more than 10% of a class of a company's stock. If the government's stake were to exceed 10%, it would be required to file these forms to report initial ownership and any subsequent changes.
Preventing insider trading
The government's ownership and involvement in Intel raise potential concerns about the misuse of "material, non-public information" (MNPI).
Restrictions on government officials: The federal Ethics in Government Act requires officials across all government branches to make their financial interests public. It prohibits them from acting on matters in which they hold stock and may even prohibit them from owning certain individual stocks altogether.
Agency oversight: The Securities Exchange Act of 1934's Section 16 mandates that senior executives, directors, and large-block shareholders regularly report their company stock holdings and any changes. This is particularly relevant as government agencies, such as the Department of Commerce, will have unique access to Intel.
Information firewalls: The government and Intel may need to establish internal procedures and information barriers to prevent employees with access to MNPI from using that information for trading, a common requirement for registered investment advisers under the Advisers Act.
Broader SEC considerations
The government's stake in Intel raises other considerations for the SEC and other regulators.
Fairness: Questions may be raised about the fairness of a public/private partnership where a company receives government funding and, in return, the government obtains an equity stake at a discounted price.
Passive vs. active ownership: Intel has emphasized that the government's stake is a "passive ownership," with no board representation or governance rights. The SEC would monitor the government's actions to ensure this remains the case, as any active influence could change the reporting requirements and scrutiny.
Market distortion: The government's involvement, even as a passive investor, could raise concerns about market distortion. The SEC and other agencies would need to monitor for any favoritism or unfair practices resulting from this unique arrangement.

I have a theory about what will (may) happen in energy market.
- Russia will build more gas pipelines to China, China will go from largest LNG buyer to not buying much LNG at all, global LNG market will be oversupplied.
- The lowest cost LNG producer is Qatar who will get most of the Asian market and do fine.
- Australian LNG producers will suffer.
- US LNG producers will benefit from EU commitments to buy lots and lots of US energy. Demand for US nat gas will be supported.
- Data center power demand will be another support for US nat gas. Especially with wind and solar projects being canceled, and nuclear a decade from producing significant new power.
- US NG price will go up. US gas production can be increased with more drilling, but pipeline capacity is a bottleneck. Not just pipelines from production to LNG terminals in TX/LA, but also pipelines from production to data center locations.
- Meanwhile, global oil market is oversupplied, Saudi not giving up share any more, and Russia leaning even heavier on oil sales, so oil price stays low and US oil producers will hold down drilling and production, which will limit increases in NG production.
- So . . . I think I want to own US NG names, upstream (producers) and midstream (pipelines). Possibilities include KMI OKE EQT CTRA AR.
- I think I want to cut my exposure to US oil names and to global oil, gas, LNG names.
- None of this feels likely to pay off anytime soon. More like over next year or two.
- I also think US electric rates will go up and up, partly from higher NG price but more from the investment needed to supply AI datacenters, which ordinary ratepayers will have to fund. I can’t really figure out a way to profit from that.

^^^ I was thinking along the lines of companies like GE Vernova that produce the NG turbines or like Baker Hughes. Problem is, GE Vernova seems like the NVIDIA of its sector. I need to find the AMD or Intel comparable.

Yeah, GEV is very expensive. Look at other gas turbine makers? https://nipponbusiness.com/top-10-gas-turbine-manufacturers-dominating-the-global-market/

I’d guess BKR is exposed to both oil and gas rigs.

I'm going to look into suppliers for GE Vernova. Too bad I wasn't thinking about gas turbines last year!! GEV skyrocketed last year from $182 last August to $607 today. :eek:

Longtime holder of GE, so when company split up three-ways, I got shares of GEV and GEHC at a great price. GEV has blistered the market, almost too much.

I've done a bit of reading on GEV. From what I've found their increase in stock price stems from what we've been discussing, the demand created by data centers. I wonder if a point of use company like Baker Hughes could benefit from this demand? Could a data center buy essentially a point of use turbine to generate its own power?

Haven’t looked into it but I think whatever generators BKR sells to power remote drill sites etc would be totally inadequate for a data center.

The gas turbine names have flown the coop, as far as I can tell. Shrug, move on to a idea where you’re early not late.

I was late with NVIDIA but I'm still showing a nice return. Maybe "better late than never" applies.

I asked the all knowing Google about data center on site power generation.
Answer:
"Yes, data centers are increasingly installing on-site power generation, with significant growth predicted by 2030, to meet soaring energy demands from AI and overcome limitations of the traditional power grid. This shift involves implementing various technologies, such as gas-fired plants, fuel cells, and even microgrids, to provide power with greater reliability, faster deployment, and better integration with on-site cooling systems for efficiency. "

I then asked how many MW the typical data center requires.
Answer:
"Data centers vary significantly in their power requirements, but they can range from a few megawatts (MW) to over 100 MW. Small data centers might consume 1-5 MW, while large or hyperscale facilities can exceed 100 MW. Some of the largest facilities can even reach 200 MW or more"

Finally, I asked what the highest MW output of a Baker Hughes gas fired turbine was.
Answer:
"Baker Hughes' LMS100PB+ gas turbine appears to be their highest power output model, with a power generation capacity of 110 MW (110,000 kW). This aeroderivative turbine is a powerful option designed for large-scale power generation applications, offering high efficiency and performance in that power range."

Might be worth keeping an eye on while also looking into other stocks for companies that provide point of use solutions.

Nailed it. Surprised the company I work for hasn't been mentioned yet - VST. Check out the 5 year chart....

I tend to not buy someone else’s ten-bagger. I know, sometimes it works. Just not my style.

Hmm. That sounds interesting.

Looking more at BKR, the number of institutional investors buying their stock increased over the last 12 months. Not sure how much that really means but there's a theory of putting money where the big boys are.

I'm going to do some more digging into the other sources used to power data centers. It seems like there has to be an opportunity here.

JYL and William, any help you can provide would be appreciated. My ability to research only goes so far. I don't fully understand how to evaluate a potential investment.

Looked briefly at BKR.

They are a bit player in the overall gas turbine market. They are only in the "sub-utility scale" market with aeroderivative turbines (derived from aircraft engines). YTD (through 2Q25) I think they may have booked around $1BN in gas turbines (disclosed $650MM in gas turbines for data centers, add something for LNG) vs GEV YTD booked $7BN in total gas turbines (aeroderiv and heavy-duty). Consider Siemens and Mitsubishi are GEV peers, seems like BKR might have a couple-few percent of the total market.

However, BKR may be very large in the market for gas turbines at data centers (co-located, distributed, behind-the-meter are terms used). In 2Q they booked 79# gas turbines vs GEV booked 27# aeroderivative gas turbines (the rest of GEV bookings were heavy-duty utility scale).

So, how large is the data center gas turbine market going to be? Read this https://www.bloomenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2025-Data-Center-Power-Report.pdf which says 4.2GW of co-located data center power has been announced to be built by 2030, and seems like up to half of that - maybe 2.0-2.5GW? - might be gas turbines (fuel cells, diesel generators, solar are other near-term options, with geothermal and nuclear out past 2030). But . . . YTD BKR has already booked 1.2GW of data center gas turbines. I'm not sure how much they've booked total, need to go back and look at 2024, 2023.

My point is, unless the co-located data center gas turbine (coloDCGT) market grows a lot, these could be a risk that BKR run out of orders to book or at least see their coloDCGT bookings slow down. I would think any slowdown there would make some investors unhappy . . . the ones who bought it as a groovy forever-growing AI play or a cheap and less-recognized play on gas turbines.

What would make the coloDCGT market grow a lot, like double in planned installs by 2030? Maybe utilities can't add power generation and transmission lines fast enough, maybe fuel cells prove less suitable than the Bloomenergy report makes it sound, maybe AI data center capacity add is much larger than currently planned. On the other hand, notice that BKR decided to spend $12BN cash buying GTLS, rather than massively expanding its production capacity for its LM-series gas turbines, why is that (do we know if BKR actually produces its aeroderivative gas turbines, or are they dependent on GE to supply?).

Anway, that's something to put on the "list of things to worry about". It doesn't make the investment decision for me but might affect how much risk I take in the name. Near-term, I want to know why BKR's 2025 and 2026 EPS estimate have been declining (I assume from crappy oilfield services market), if estimates will start rising (feels like maybe at the inflection point now?), what to think about the GTLS acquisition (seems sensible though BKR stock went down on the news, like FLS' did when it was going to acquire GTLS), and if biz for the IET segment is so strong why was 2Q book-to-bill only 1.2X. I'd also like to know if GTLS already has strong business in datacenter cooling, or if that is just a hope-for.

That said, I'm interested in the idea, as a seemingly cheap-ish play on AI and LNG, and think it deserves more examination. Becoming seen as more of an industrial equipment name with reasonable exposure to growth markets like AI and LNG and less of a boom-bust oilfield services name might get it a wide investor audience and higher multiple. What would be nice is if, after the GTLS deal closes, they can get S&P, GICS, and Russell to reclassify the stock from Energy to Industrial.

The more I look, the more I like the theme.

To be specific, thesis is prices have hit clearing level, either weakening economy or political pressure or both will force Fed into a major rate cut cycle and potentially even resuming QE to bring long rates down, and a new CRE cycle starts from the extremely depressed levels of 2023-2024.

I have little idea if this thesis is actually going to be true . . . but the more relevant near-term question is do enough other investors think it is going to be true.

Same. I tell people how much GE and it's spinoffs have appreciated and most people don't believe me.

Tho' not in equities, I do enjoy reading JYL and Crabman "tea leaves" regarding the future and high tech. Sorta remind me of when I was... and it's prolly just a freakin' crap shoot imo....

I "accidently" knew about leading edge stuff from inside high tech... before the sheep or even pros like John analyzed them. Still below the radar back then... Cisco, Google, Red Hat, etc. Apple & Tesla at ($20)... and then there's Lucent, Enron, and Canadian Pot... but I digress...

Ya win some, you lose some, and my hind-sight isn't even close to being 20-20 either.

Pick a basket imo... some eggs will crack and some will eventually poop golden eggs too ....so I just winged it and flew like a turkey :D

Thanks for sharing your perspectives...

^^^ My cousin invested like that. I'm really just getting into investing in stocks. I'm not trying to hit any home runs, just looking for solid future growth. My hope is that once I have some loose ends tied up, I'll have more time to spend researching stocks that represent opportunity for growth.

Some interesting points in the linked Bloomberg article
"If the US continues to build high-voltage transmission infrastructure at its current rate, it will take at least 80 years to deliver what we need over the next decade."

"In the US, 55 GW of data center IT capacity is expected to come online in the next five years. For comparison, this is 10 times the average power capacity used by New York City"

The share of data centers projected to have at least some on site generation by 2030 went from 13% to 30%.

The thing I'm going to try to research is which source, whether that's gas turbine, fuel cell, or other technology represents the fastest installation to service time. The article touches on timely access to power. It would seem to me that removing diesel fired as an option due to cost puts natural gas fired turbines in the lead from a standpoint of cost to operate and time it would take to bring the power on line.

I invested in solid companies mostly... with a few WAGs... just hitting singles & doubles with a few homers and strike-outs.

I don't have the time, inclination, or smarts to keep up with John or other pros :D

But I do like analytical analysis ... just because ;)

Looking at fuel cells, Bloom Energy seems to have made the jump. Haven't looked, but based on their stock price jump, they must be a big player in data centers. Don't know about more upside. Fuel Cell Energy stock is cheap.

Companies that build transmission lines. Quanta Services, Mastec, MYR Group, Michels Power

I'm thinking ETF might be a good way to go to gain exposure to the bigger players.