Intel's stock drops 30% overnight —company sheds $39 billion in market cap | As of now, Intel's market value is a fraction of Nvidia's worth and less than half of AMD's

ForgottenFlux@lemmy.world to Technology@lemmy.world – 1084 points – Intel's stock drops 30% overnight —company sheds $39 billion in market cap
tomshardware.com

Intel's stock dropped around 30% overnight, shaving some $39 billion from the company's market capitalization since rumors of a pending layoff first emerged. The devastating results come after the chip giant reported a loss for the second quarter, complained about yield issues with the Meteor Lake CPU, provided a modest business outlook for the next few quarters, and announced plans to lay off 15,000 people worldwide.

When the NYSE closed on July 31, Intel's market capitalization was $130.86 billion. Then, a report about Intel's massive layoffs was published, and the company's market capitalization dropped sharply to $123.96 billion on August 1. Following Intel's financial report yesterday, the company's capitalization dropped to $91.86 billion. Essentially, Intel has lost half of its capitalization since January. As of now, Intel's market value is a fraction of Nvidia's worth and less than half of AMD's.

As Intel's actions look rather desperate, analysts believe that Intel's challenges are existential. "Intel's issues are now approaching the existential," Stacy Rasgon, an analyst with Bernstein, told Reuters.

275

When I had to flash my BIOS and pray that it didn't brick my PC I cursed them, saying "Fuck Intel, I hope their stock plummets!"

You're welcome everyone.

can you do reddit next please

Tiktok afterwards please.

Then all oil companies

Let's do these before everything else

Then we move on to private equity firms

Alright, alright. This is getting out of hand.

We need to make a list and then do like a reverse Kantian calculus to figure out which ones are doing the most harm and start from the top in descending order.

Everyone’s acting like this guy said he’s taking requests.

Well we're not all fucking witches here, I'm sure he'll do something if someone gives him their firstborn.

It certainly doesn't help Intel has been intentionally selling defective product in the 13th and 14th gen lines. People are quite reasonably going to AMD more and more.

Does AMD have anything to compete with Intel QSV? I'm looking to upgrade my Plex server and was looking at a newer Intel CPU.

The latest AMD cpus do have transcoding, but Amd transcode isn't very good and isn't very compatible with Linux.

You can pick up an Intel A310 single slot GPU for $100 and it has AV1 encode, which is something that the igpu QSV doesn't have. Works very well in my Epyc motherboard with 76 pcie lanes. I definitely recommend going with an ATX 1st gen Epyc cpu+motherboard if you want something that can do NVMe raid.

Amd transcode isn’t very good and isn’t very compatible with Linux

It's compatible just fine. But the quality... well, it's not the worst, but definitely not the best quality.

Politely, not the worst compared to what, exactly?

It's way worse than qsv, nvenc, x264 or x265 which are basically the only hardware or cpu options you're likely to run into doing plex transcoding.

I don't have QSV or NVENC hardware to compare, but AMD is perfectly fine in most cases.
I mostly noticed quality drop with very busy scenes and some scene transitions.
Outside of those the quality was acceptable.

I'd say on my setup it's comparable to software encoding with x264 veryfast preset.

And my GPU is 5 years old now, so I'm sure newer cards have improved.

QSV is a very good product, high-quality and efficient. It’s also very mature, lots of signage in large deployments. I’ve tried AMD’s AMF streaming and at lower bit-rates you get a lot more blocking. It’s fine but QSV has an edge.

https://www.pcworld.com/article/827992/tested-intel-arc-av1-video-encoder-vs-nvidia-amd.html

Lower quality at any given bitrate was my experience too. For local stuff it didn't really matter: if I could do 3x the bitrate to get the same quality, then meh, who cares.

If you're streaming/doing shit over the internet/encoding for something like Youtube, though, it's uh, not a good tradeoff because you can't necessarily even make that tradeoff.

I think AMF is still faster/better quality than CPU transcoding, depending on the preset.

You can pick up an Intel A310 single slot GPU for $100 and it has AV1 encode, which is something that the igpu QSV doesn't have.

That's still an Intel product though...

It's the best option on the market right now and the most compatible one. The drivers are owned by the Linux Foundation, and there are no known hardware bugs with Intel GPUs, unlike with Intel CPUs. You have so much flexibility; Buying an Intel GPU doesn't prevent you from using another CPU, even GPU-less AMD Epyc CPUs that have the cheapest PCIe/$. All you need is a PCIe slot and you get all the benefits of Intel with none of the drawbacks.

I'm a bit of an AMD fanboy sometimes and I own AMD stock, but the A310 can't be beat for Jellyfin transcoding. If you really hate Intel, keep in mind that Intel probably loses money on every GPU they sell 😉

AMD have anything to compete with Intel QSV

I believe AMD VCN does the same thing. Though I haven't looked into it. AMD chips also have pretty decent onboard video cores, so you might be able to do hardware accelerated encoding that way too.

was looking at a newer Intel CPU

Just stay away from Intel 13th and 14th gen chips. They have oxidation issues from the factory and are also over-volting themselves. The former is unfixable and the latter causes unfixable damage.

Does laptop cpus have same problems? I've found mixed results.

We don't know and Intel is being incredibly mum about the entire situation.

Which probably means a lot of corporations that have Intel inside their everyday computers may be less than enthusiastic about what they spent money on.

Read somewhere that everything 65W TDP and up is affected. Laptop CPUs should be mostly fine then.

OK, glad to hear this. Thank you. (Also hope it's not another intel's lie.)

IIRC Intel confirmed all Gen13/14 CPUs with 65W TDP or more have the same issues K series do.

I use the onboard CPU of my ryzen 5600g for my jellyfin and nextcloud (memories app) duties and it works flawless.

I hardly ever transcode at home. I mostly use ffmpeg on a crappy old i5 server that I use for other beataround stuff too. I tend to do that in batch mode and it's fast enough for my purposes. That's an approach to consider. Or you could spin up Intel VM's as needed on Hetzner unless you're doing a totally ridiculous amount of transcoding.

I need on-location transcoding because my internet is garbage (~50 mbps). Sometimes my users need to transcode the show if the bit rate of the file is too high for my internet to keep up.

Wait you're literally serving other users from a home internet? Oh man, get a VM or some colo space or something. Or faster internet. Your internet is much faster than mine and one reason I transcode remotely is to drop the bit rate enough that I can download the transcoded version without waiting all day.

I mean, I can stream 4K HDR if the player supports the video format, but clients don't always jive well with whatever Radarr decided. I know I can fine tune it but everything works well enough right now and I don't have time to change it.

I move around too much to do colocation. A VPS/VM isn't worth the cost to me. My server is all old parts and I don't pay for power usage.

I find software reencoding/remux instead of doing it on the fly is easier for my brain to manage over alignment of the hardware stars.

Eh... I will probably go with a used 9th or 10th gen i7 or something. Intel still gets no money and I get a good CPU.

That's true as well. I'm using an older 7th gen Intel for remuxing, but do software AV1 encodes which take like 11 hours lol

These fucking idiots. All they had to do was pretend they gave a fuck about the chip debacle and play everything slowly. They couldn't even do that. They couldn't even pretend to give a fuck about anyone. Neither their customers nor their employees.

If they replaced the C-suite with the custodial staff, they would be in a significantly better position than they are now. Executives are always dumb as fuck, with very few exceptions. Pre-requisites for the job: narcisism, sociopathy and idiocy.

If they replaced the C-suite with the custodial staff, they would be in a significantly better position than they are now. Executives are always dumb as fuck, with very few exceptions. Pre-requisites for the job: narcisism, sociopathy and idiocy.

Are we still talking about Intel, or...?

The funny thing is that there are executives who know what they're doing, but they may be outvoted by people who failed upward due to connections or a "good background" (ivy league, internship, etc.).

I always thought "what does a brand name education prove?" This isn't the 1800s. Community college now is almost as good as Harvard was in the 1800s. Back then, just being able to read meant that you were educated.

Also, what does an internship prove? You know how to carry 8 coffees at once? You can wear a cheap suit? No, it's all cover for connections. If businesses wanted the best people (say the top 10%) you could literally just set up a table outside a subway station and interview random commuters, getting probably 10 good prospects in a day.

Ivy League, internships etc. prove exactly what you are critizising. They prove to have the connections. They prove to be part of the in-group. They prove that you will defend your class interests against the lower classes. And if you are one of the very few people who achieve upwards class mobility, they prove that you will be betraying them.

This is not about running the best company or running the best economy. It is about maintaining class power and privilege.

This is not about running the best company or running the best economy. It is about maintaining class power and privilege.

I understand your point, but neo-marxist perspectives like this fundamentally misunderstand what companies care about (for obvious reasons). No company cares about "class power" or "privilege" because shareholders only care about their own money.

Their "class" is not important when it comes to investing. If they could fire all the nepo babies and use AI instead, they would do it in 1 second.

Their “class” is not important when it comes to investing. If they could fire all the nepo babies and use AI instead, they would do it in 1 second.

Firing the nepo babys remains consistent with being the owning class. And they put the nepo babies so they dont have to put rising middle and lower class people there.

It's not. Investors literally only care about money.

Rich people don't have "class consciousness" because they all want to be better and richer than other rich people. That's what "keeping up with the Joneses" (or Kardashians) is. You don't want the Joneses to improve, because that hurts you.

It's a zero-sum game at the top. If your neighbor buys a Mercedes, you need to buy a Maserati. Like I said, neo-marxism fundamentally misunderstands rich people.

I think you misunderstand rich people. Why do you think they make PACs? Why do you think they make Ivy Leagues and send their kids there? Why do you think they keep up all these illusions. Do you think they are too stupid to realize that you can get an equivalent education for a fraction of that money?

Rich people don't think these things consciously. The wealthy don't think, "How can I best ensure the worker class remains oppressed?" They simply act selfishly, and their actions together with the actions of other selfish people lead naturally to oppression.

Until they get wealthy enough to buy politicians, at which point it does consciously become "How can I best ensure the worker class remains oppressed?"

Brutal, nearly the lowest since 2008. Makes me want to buy in at this point.

Edit: I bought a few shares, so now they're sure to go bankrupt by tomorrow.

Edit 2: ayyy did I actually catch a falling knife for once? It's still going up after hours.

The market does tend to overreact so this is possible a sign to buy low. I can't be bothered to check the fundamenals but it seems unlikely that amd is a better investment long term. If you are not looking at least 5 years to the future stocks are a bad idea.

OTOH: Boeing. Had the 737 Max bug been a one-off incredibly bad fuck up, they would have been a good buy. Then it turned out that that bug was just the first sign of many deep seated issues with their production process. Boeing 100% deserves everything they're getting. Management skipped right over lawful, chaotic, and neutral evil and went into stupid evil, and decided that sacrificing QC/QA on aerospace equipment would be a great way to get returns for shareholders.

They didn't skip those steps. The market just ignored the fact that they've been stepping through those options for the last 30 years because that's what the market as a whole has been doing. As cliche and annoying as it sounds, this is exactly what late stage capitalism looks like. Once growth through sales becomes difficult, usually from approaching monopolistic size in a market, they only have two options left. They can either cut corners and headcount to save on operational expenses or they can decrease revenue growth. Considering the fact that the central thesis of our economy is the idea that infinite growth is not only possible but the only valid pursuit of any corporation it's easy to guess what they're going to do when faced with declining sales or any other detriment to growth.

Haha stupid evil

I'll use that any time I think about politicians as well. Trademark that fast mate

Fundamentals: Intel powers the US military industrial complex, they’ll weather this storm.

And the frank truth is, if things heat up on the Taiwan strait, TSMC is toast and Samsung won't be able to pick up the slack.

It's going to take 3d chess from China to put their hands in TSMC without US bringing in "democracy". That factory is more strategic than oil.

It ain't worth a nuclear war. Why do you think the feds are so focused on domestic manufacturing? The Arizona TSMC factory is just shipping workers from Taiwan it's so dependent. I'd hate to see what the actual supply chain looks like.

For each politician doing something good there's 10 to undo it. Let's see.

Nah a lot of companies dead to economy power obsolete government things (army is part of govt by the way) and they just get special contracts and otherwise just fully die.

AMD is super hot right now. Not in a good way.

I bought AMD at $8/share (and am still holding it), and I'm getting a similar vibe from Intel now...

I bought AMD at $8/share (and am still holding it)

Wow, I'd have dropped that hot potato ages ago.

I am glad I didn't lol. Still not, the datacenter GPUs are something else, and so is their multi-chip design prowess.

And some moron on Wallstreetbets just invested his $700k inheritance in shares yesterday. He's -200k rn

The stock market is the least stupid way to be addicted to gambling but it’s still one of the dumber addictions to develop.

For real. At least the odds aren't explicitly against you like casinos.

Except unlike casinos, there are breakers in place to prevent crazy jackpot earnings. Don't expect to 10x your money in a day... Or month.

Expect? No.

Possible? With trading in puts and calls options definitely.

Still stupidly risky gambling where you loose most of the time? Absolutely

Depends of how you look at it, it might be even worse.

At least with casinos you know that mathematically, the more you play the more you lose. With stocks though, you have the hope that you can win it back.

When you ain’t got nothing, you got nothing to lose bud. That’s where I’m at in this moment. If I lose every penny I have I’m still poor. If I don’t, maybe I can get a start on a damn house or something.

Unless you short. Then you can be -200k!

Oh no I don’t play games with money I don’t have. I’m ok losing what I already have though. Beats a lottery ticket.

Wow I am glad I only lost 10k and called it expensive stock market crash course. Apparently minute trading is not that easy

And that person is waiting for recovery, classic move. Next phase is trying to win it all back

I am so glad I got this lesson before the inheritance, I would 100% do something similar

I lost a grand myself n was mad about it lol

I am not exactly super good with money to be honest, recently I bought like full set of apple pro devices and now I am thinking how to get liquidity for UV skincare and clothes, I desperately need clothes, and body laser and several plastic surgeries and… yeah.
But I learned something from all these sprees I hope. It’s that I am not rich and shouldn’t behave like I am. I may be slightly stupid tho, in an adhd way.

As long as the jackass doesn't sell, they're solid.

I had a roommate who invested, when his stuff went down more than 5% he'd sell it, "Don't wanna be too risky," he'd say, unaware that he was breaking the cardinal rule of investing..

Then, "Omg it's up again, I better buy high before it goes higher!" then repeat pattern A again.

Moral of the story, if you actually believe in a stock, unrealized losses are not something to react to. Or do, and become a warning tale told to others, ha. Them -5% hits add up QUICK.

It's not everyday that I'm thankful that grandma didn't leave me $700,000 but today is one of those days

And people will continue to buy the 14900k and have the shocked pikachu face.

Well a lot of products have these things in them and a lot of people have no clue they are getting sold a defective product. This is all on intel, do not blame the customer because the big corporation is selling defective goods.

More than that, for years it has been eating more and more watts and the electricity prices went up... But still , most simp for Intel 💀

🙄 not everyone is a cs nerd. Jesus some good victim blaming here lol

They aren't victims they're rubes lol

Since the 5800X3D It’s been known that AMD delivers similar or better performance than Intel’s top-of-the-line chips with far lower power usage and cheaper prices.

Knowing that why would anyone buy the inferior product?

Because most people don't actually know that.

Most people have no idea where their laptops are coming from or what makes them run.

If you pay attention and you know about computers you would have heard something, but I guarantee you the average person has heard almost nothing about Intel's issues

More than that, for years their CPUs have been eating more and more watts and the electricity prices went up... Just keep them on par with AMD CPUs... But still , most default to Intel...

After how horribly they handled the whole hardware defect scandal with their 13th and 14th gen i Series processors, this is 100% deserved.

Intel is a cautionary tale of what happens when you allow bean counters who care more about EBITDA than their customers and staff to run the show.

This sounds like a modern day version of the Schlitz mistake back in the seventies where they cut the quality so much, so fast, that the formerly largest brewery in America became a worthless brand that nobody trusted.

The b-school lesson from this was to drop the quality of your product more slowly so people wouldn't notice.

I figured no big company would ever suffer consequences from shitty product ever again because they'd figured out the drip instead of the open floodgates.

I hope more companies get to enjoy this fate, especially food producers.

The corruption drips slowly inside as well.

And to think I grew up at a time when Intel reigned supreme. My my.

I grew up in an era where IBM reign supreme.

A decade ago, it dipped to 1990s level but now it's pretty up there in value again.

I don't understand tech company stocks at all.

If you consider inflation, it makes more sense. IBM is nowhere near it was before

Yes, it seems like people always forget about inflation. Okay yes your one milion will be two millions in 14 years at 5% yearly but it will be worth only 1.25 million corrected for inflation so you just made 25% over 14 years. And that’s for just 3% year to year inflation.

So companies must at least grow by inflation rate to stay afloat.

Inflation is a word that haunts me to be honest. It is 8% here right now. Which means value of money will be halved in 9 years

IBM went through a huge transformation. More than one probably. Most if not all giant firms have had to reinvent themselves many times over. I remember the pivot from a technology company to services and consulting, which was hugely controversial, as I got to see that relatively up close. I won’t forgive them for giving up thinkpad though.

The first pc I bought had a Cyrix processor cause I couldn’t afford Intel.

Exactly, everything was measured by how well Intel did, they were the undisputed standard bearer.

Oh how the mighty have fallen

I can still recall my first PC, I used to love smashing the turbo button. No fucking clue what it did, but it sure was fun to press!

Fucking good! I know it's not the primary reason, but it's by high time that people see laying off 15k people as a bad thing and the company suffering for it.

I fear it's wishful thinking that the layoffs are what made the stock tank. It's certainly never hurt anyone else...

The layoffs were announced at the same time as Intel's Q2 financial results: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/newsroom/news/actions-accelerate-our-progress.html

Yep, that'll do it.

They're not even bothered by the fucked up chips.

I was gonna say... how is it not this? Weird world.

I'm guessing those chips are a tiny fraction of Intel's revenue.

AMD have been eating their lunch on more than just gaming PCs.

Stock price is largely about future earnings potential, not current quarter or past results. That's why a company can have record-breaking earnings, but still eat shit in stock price for a while if it lowers predictions for next quarter.

The actions we are taking will make Intel a leaner, simpler and more agile company.

Oof, now agile bullshit talk is infecting the lingo of the c-suite and being used as justification to do layoffs. I should've seen that coming, though I must've skipped the portion of the agile manifesto that said to choose Lamborghinis over employees.

I think it made an already bad situation worse.

I think the AI thing has really caught them off guard. There's a gold rush and they have no real shovels to sell.

Intel's only hope now is for the Chinese army to go for a holiday in Taiwan. Their competitors are hugely reliant on TSMC. That's been brewing forever though, and hopefully will continue to not come to anything. The last thing the world needs right now is more fucking war...

layoffs are what made the stock tank

Yeah, it's usually the opposite: Layoffs by themselves usually make the stock go up, as the company is reducing their expenses.

The issue with Intel is that they announced layoffs combined with a bad earnings call, so it's a sign the company isn't going so well.

Maybe they shouldn't have fucked over all of their own people.

Fuck em

They also announced they are going to stop paying stock dividends starting Q4.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/intel-to-suspend-dividend-cut-15-of-staff-upon-big-earnings-miss-d811a220

Back in ye olden days, you used to buy a stock largely due to its ability to regularly pay you back a dividend, as a more conventional kind of investment, before the more modern idea of 'buy low sell high' became the most prevalent investment strategy / market dynamic.

I've always thought that stocks have to pay dividents, like that's the whole point of having it? I.e you get paid by the company regularly some of their profit, based on how much stock you have.

Does this mean that the only way how to make money from their stock now is to sell them to someone else? But then, it has nothing to do with the actual company and money they make, but you are paid by someone totally unrelated - the guy who buys the stock from you. I don't get it, I suppose I'm missing something.

At least for the US, yes you are correct that this was the conventional logic that governed the average joe's investment into a stock, up until... roughly the 60s or 70s.

I am not going to write a dissertation on the history of American financial investment, but yeah nowadays, the way you invest in the stock market is ... you buy a stock, hope that its value increases by more than inflation, and then sell it later for what is called a capital gain, ie, profit from the difference between the price you bought vs the price you sold.

So yes, your the second half of your post is correct:

You buy Stock A for 100 from Some Guy 1, then later you hope to be able to sell Stock A to Some Guy 2 for 150.

The specifics of this can easily get absurdly complicated with exceptionally complex and advanced math and mountains of rules and regulations, but basically, what still holds true is this:

Literally a goldfish swimming to the left or right side of a tank to indicate what stocks should be bought or sold, this outperforms the average financial 'wizard' on wall street making your investment decisions.

BUT, basically at no time in the past 20 or 30 years has putting your money into a bank's savings account to earn interest managed to beat the inflation rate, so if you want a chance to actually be rewarded for setting aside money, you put it into stocks, a mutual fund, an index fund, and well if you ever need to pull some cash out for an emergency, you get fucked by fees.

What you really do is buy real estate. But you have to already have a good deal of money to do that.

Isn't capitalism fun?

I see, stonks are way more bullshit than I thought. Is there anything else you can do with your stock, other than sell it to someone else? I always thought that crypto is such a scam especially because in the end, it has no value in itself, and the only thing you can do with it is sell it to someone else. If noone wants to buy it, well, you are fucked. Does it mean that stocks are exactly the same concept? I always thought it has something to do with the vaule of the company and the profits it earns, but if there is no way how to cash them out other than selling your piece of paper to someone, then it's really the same? I suppose that unlike crypto, the stock price increases if the company is turning profit, but you still have to find someone to sell it to, right, so the price is increasing only because the demand from people willing to buy it is increasing due to it turning profit, but it's not really tied to the actual value of the company, so it's exactly like crypto? Or is the price set by some different mechanism than crypto is - pure demand from people willing to buy?

The huge difference is that a stock is a stake of actual ownership in the company. You can attend and vote in shareholder meetings so with enough stocks you can actually influence what the company does. And unlike crypto there is a natural non-zero price floor, which is the value of all of the tangible assets of the company which could be sold off if the company shut down (less any liabilities).

That's not to say that the majority of investors, especially algorithmic traders, treat it any different than crypto/gambling.

Sure, one share is one vote, but uh that means that whoever has the most shares wins the vote. IE: one or two very wealthy individuals or groups votes count for as much as potentially millions of other people.

The average working class joe investor basically never has the power to really influence anything.

There are also tons and tons of different kinds of shares and different kinds of voting power, and often there are setups that basically mandate some particular entity always has a significantly large portion of shares.

Basically, its not democratic at all, unless you subscribe to the 'some pigs are more equal than other pigs' kind of democracy.

EDIT: A metaphor one can use is killstreaks in COD vs TF2s randomized damage.

In the long run, given a set of purely equally skilled players, CODs kill streak mechanic will functionally randomly choose certain players and elevate their score higher and higher. A positive feedback loop. You end up with a very uneven distribution of scores because mild success is rewarded with wild success.

Whereas in the same situation with TF2, the semi randomized damage across players of equal skill basically would result in a much more even scattering of overall player scores.

Capitalism rewards you more the more money you have, and the more money you have, the easier it is to make even more money, which leads to the haves and the have nots.

In a Co-Op business model, by contrast, its often one person, one vote. There are barely any of these in the US though... we love our entrenched wealth divide between those bastard wealthy asshats and all of us temporarily embarrassed millionaires who will get rich one day.

Those small handful of people also want to make as much money as possible though, so typically their goals will align with yours as a shareholder.

Not if they disagree with a business strategy on profit potential, moral/ethical ramifications, debt management, buying out another business, doing a stock split or stock buyback, where to source a needed material or service from, whether or not to massively raise executive compensation, environmental concerns, or if they're going to get fucked by a hostile takeover, or being acquired by a private equity firm, maybe they do want to outsource some part of this business or spin off a part, maybe they don't...

You say that as if its just always immediately obvious to everyone what the correct path is, and that the primary focus of that path should be to maximize profit, which in and of itself is a bad assumption on its face and is also a matter of contention: do you want to keep doing bandaid solutions to ensure short term profitability, or do you want to cut back on profitability for a year to shore up your market position or develop a new branch of the business, or engage in a capital intensive plan that will likely guarantee profit in the long term?

Businesses are a bit more complicated than 'the richest guys always agree and always know how to make the mostest money and they would never ever have conflicting opinions or interests with me!'

I see. So, you having shares basically means you own part of the company assets, and if it were to for example shut down or get into huge trouble (so no one sensible would want to buy their shares), you'll still get kind of compensated from the value of their remaining assets being sold? That kind of makes sense, and is the difference I was looking for.

It's still weird, but a little bit more understandable than crypto, which is only literally stealing and scamming money from others (who will eventually in the end end up left with all the literally valueless crypto, and whose money basically paid for all your profit from it)

Is there anything else you can do with your stock, other than sell it to someone else?

Many stocks pay dividends, and outside of that and voting, you can use a large amount of stock holdings as collateral for loans. That's largely how Musk and other rich dumpster fires buy things.

Is there anything else you can do with your stock, other than sell it to someone else?

This is where it starts to get complicated.

You can promise to sell you stock by a certain date in the future to someone, at a price the two of you agree upon now.

If the actual price of the stock goes below the previously agreed price, by that deadline, well then you probably gained money.

If the actual price of the stock goes above the previously agreed price by the previously agreed date, you probably lost money.

This gets even more complicated when you take out a loan to buy a stock, and then do the above.

Theres a whole lot more. Check out investopedia.

I always thought that crypto is such a scam especially because in the end, it has no value in itself, and the only thing you can do with it is sell it to someone else. If noone wants to buy it, well, you are fucked. Does it mean that stocks are exactly the same concept?

Its the same in that both crypto and stocks can crater to zero if there are no buyers.

It is different in that crypto, as you say, is completely digital and nontangible, whereas most businesses on a stock exchange have at least a basis for their stock valuation in real world assets, products, services, revenue flows, profit margins and such.

Basically, what is more likely to go completely tits up?

A random NFT scheme?

A brand new start up IPO?

A long established industry giant?

Probably the 1st then 2nd then 3rd.

Or is the price set by some different mechanism than crypto is - pure demand from people willing to buy?

Ultimately they are both markets, which have prices ultimately determined by what people feel is a fair price.

Both involve projecting possible rise or fall in the value of the asset (stock vs crypto coin), but in the case of crypto, there is usually 0 actual underlying fundamentals, there is no business model beyond 'if we all invest in this it will be worth more money', which works until the price goes high enough that usually the person or group that invented the crypto sells all of their crypto. This causes panic and everyone else sells off for much less.

Functionally, that means a whole bunch of people lost money, and the originators made a whole bunch of money.

A pump and dump scheme, its usually extremely illegal.

Crypto bros kept acting like the laws governing finance did not apply to them.

Turns out, the laws do apply to them, and even as bullshit as the stock market is for the average joe, basically the entire crypto sphere collapsed in 6 months after it turned out that they were basically all cooking their accounting books and doing all kinds of fraud.

While the stock market is largely bullshit in many ways, it is at least regulated to prevent many different kinds of financial fraud, while the crypto sphere is almost entirely comprised of con artists and their suckers.

Most of what that guy said was bullshit, the typical interest rate for a savings account this year was 5%, compared to 3.8% inflation, for example. Most stocks also pay a dividend.

The point is to see the value of the stock go up, so when you sell, you make a profit. Some people buy and sell daily, some do it yearly or only when they need the money.

Money needs to be working for you somewhere to make up for inflation, at the very least.

Stocks also give you a percentage of the company, which means decision making. Which has value, it's not only dividends.

There are different types of stocks. Some stocks give you physical ownership, amusingly one time Warren Buffet accidentally bought like 300 cows once, and it was physical stock he bought. After it was realized, he had like 3 days to figure out what to do with them and ship them across the country.

Investing in a variety of types of stocks (including arguably physical stock, which is why some people buy gold) gives your portfolio some stability and diversity.

That is still the main reason most people buy stocks, yes.

Another way is to buy back stock, which increases the value of the stock you currently hold, because it's now rarer. Kinda like inflation in reverse. Apple does a combination of both, for example.

You can still find stocks that pay dividends. 3-month treasury dealios pay out regularly, and something like MORT (A REIT ETF) has like 11% dividend rate. Companies like Microsoft and Amazon also pay dividends, but small, like 3-5%.

It's hilarious how people will shit on NFTs but not non-dividend stocks that are just corporate NFTs without even a jpg of a monkey.

Nope, not even close.

NFTs are wildly, wildly more speculative investments than the stock market, having absolutely 0 solid foundation of an actual business with capital and products and services behind them, they have a proven track record of 99% of them losing 99% of their value in a year or two, and 99% of them are just outright scams.

Go watch a some Folding Ideas videos for a more in depth explanation.

After a decade plus of watching crypto currencies evolve, the only one that actually does what a crypto currency was originally supposed to do is monero, xmr: Secure, very hard to trace transactions that can be done with anonymity, provided you learn a whole bunch of opsec.

Dude nfts are like worse than digital beanie babies, because at least with the beanie babies there was a trademark restriction.

But think about all those stock buy backs.

Didnt they spend 40 billion last ten years?

How much is federal government giving them?

Asking for a friend.

Disgusting welfare queens

Edit: Intel to Get $23 Billion in Government Grants & Loans Plus $25 Billion Investment Tax Credits, to Invest $100 Billion in the US, after Wasting $94 Billion on Share Buybacks in 15 Years

https://wolfstreet.com/2024/03/20/intel-to-get-23-billion-in-government-grants-loans-plus-25-billion-investment-tax-credits-to-invest-100-billion-in-the-us-after-wasting-94-billion-on-share-buybacks-in-15-years/

It took long enough for the market to wake up to it. They dragged their ass for what like 10 years without much real innovation. And everyone knew it the whole time. Then Apple ditched them. That alone should have been a huge sign. Apple does not fuck around. They definitely knew Intel had been rotting from the inside out.

Apple likes to control the entire ecosystem, and wanted to make their own processors to make them more efficient and produce less heat. They succeeded too, the M2 and M3 chips are incredible.

So I think they would have ditched anyone, but Intel probably also made it easier by being so bad. :)

You are 200% correct, apple didn't ditch Intel because Intel, apple did it because apple.

more efficient and produce less heat

Which was impossible to do with x86 space heater. Maybe if Intel hadn't sat idle and actually produced more efficient design. We could be reading about Apples own spin of x86 instead of ARM.

I shorted them hard once. They stayed solvent longer than I could.

"The markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent"

I bought an Intel last time because I got AMD the time before that and they had issues that I can't recall right now. Security or they had to slow it down?

Luckily, I'm still on a 11th Gen. I guess I'm going back to AMD when I decide to upgrade again.

Skylake myself, after a FX 9590 as a last ditch effort.

I'll never get a P/E core CPU. Windows 11 fucked with virtualization and now the scheduler somehow breaks VMWare, all because my Desktop CPU somehow needs to be as power efficient as a laptop CPU when idle cores already hardly consume power. And spoiler: Otherwise I want to use the power I bought.

New build will be AMD, and only when the old one starts breaking. Now that I think about it, I should research if I can move BitLocker drives to a new system.

Intel has had more security stuff that slowed it down than amd.

Amd had some usb dropout issues but otherwise has been pretty solid for Ryzen.

Yeah, my PC still have the occasional USB issues, and if you go with laptop AMD chips now, you'd have to also deal with Mediatek wifi cards since AMD has an exclusivity deal with them.

shoutout to the guy on wall street bets dunking 700k before it tanked to 30%

Wait, was he betting it would go up or down?

Just a regular stock buy, so up. Lost around 200k so far.

But he did say he was going to sit on the stocks for some years, so might get some back.

Ironically, I suspect they would be a solid long term play right now.

If you bought the day before an earnings report with the premise being a long term hold, as the company stock was dropping, you would wait and buy after.

I wonder if that guy who bet his inheritance from WallStreetBets is ok...

As someone with no inheritance now or ever, it's hard for me to imagine it as anything but fuck around money. I'm sure he's fine.

Smart people saw this coming.

Sanctions were supposed to stop China's semiconductor industry. The opposite happened.

The moment Arm decided it should follow the Huawei ban, China started to invest in their own silicon at a staggering rate. After all, Apple already proved you can start a CPU design from scratch and be fine while Risc-V already offered a royalty free architecture to base their work off.

I know GamersNexus has also covered Chinese CPUs based on x86. I forget the details, maybe AMD let them license their IP?

if your internationally sanctioned IP suddenly means a lot less, what is the US going to do? sanction them?

Well, the purpose of this project is independence from US silicon and Arm. The purpose isn't for international export.

that's the point, there is nothing the US can do

Sanctions were never supposed to stop china's semiconductor industry. They were to stop/slow down China from acquiring chips short term. This is quite a strawman argument.

They didn’t slow China. You are redefining success after the fact, but the Internet remembers.

October 2022

More specifically, the restrictions aim to cut off China’s access to and ability to make advanced chips under 16nm or 14nm, DRAM memory chips of 18nm or more advanced, and NAND flash memory chips of 128 layers or more. Those technologies are essential to supercomputing and artificial intelligence.

September 2023

Huawei's New Mystery 7nm Chip from Chinese Fab Defies US Sanctions

February 2024

China chipmaker SMIC on track to produce sanctions-busting 5nm processors for Huawei this year: Report

Again, sanctions were on chips and import lithography. They have lots of trouble importing Nvidia chips, or at least more cost. Of course the country where a lot of chips are made will continue making chips. But while Taiwan was putting 3nm chips in phones a year ago, China is producing 5nm headlines, chips on mass scale yet to be seen.

What did people expect, China to go back to the stone age?

Intel doesn’t even make 5nm chips. SMIC is making 5nm chips less than 2 years after the sanctions that were meant to stop it at 14nm.

You can spin this all you want.

Intel? The company that's been failing for 5 years and lost 30% of it value in one day? That Intel?

Ni hao, comrade.

China is definitely going to replace the US as the next empire if they play their cards right. It just sucks that the population is so socially oppressed to the point it may break them if they encounter an adverse phenomenon they can't adapt to.

They have an existential population problem, chips won't really fix that. Their tech prowess might delay the inevitable, but they need to start cranking out some babies or they're on the fast track to stagnation

So, I should invest now for cheap and when they inevitably bounce back, sell?

I think you're pretty much guaranteed a return if you buy on Monday or Tuesday. It's literally free money.

Nothing ever goes wrong taking "free money" advice

I make sure to take all my financial advice from strangers on the Internet. Nothing could be safer.

I bought some more; stupid me thought it would keep going up (up 15%), then it bombed.

Nice to just imagine that this was backlash to the inhumanity of the constant layoffs. It's not, but would be nice.

Burst layoffs to polish up earnings reports are "fine" (in terms of stocks), but hemorrhaging workers when your company is already in hot water for product quality complaints smells of "We're really desperate to make our reports not look devastating". From a stupid monkey brain point of view, it sounds like they're throwing sailors overboard to avoid sinking and I wouldn't want to be a passenger and risk being next, so I'd try to sell what shares I have before they're worthless.

I don't know what heuristics professional traders go with, but I imagine they would follow a more complex and nuanced logic along those same lines. Either way, if enough people do that, it compounds.

Nope. It's the bad financial results, news of defective CPUs, and most crucially, Intel announcing they're going to stop paying out dividends that have done this.

If anything, investors seem to love mass layoffs, unfortunately.

Ugh, I got a fair return from buying to AMD right before Ryzen came out. I sold some of it and bought multiple different chip companies so now I have some AMD, some Intel, some NVDA. Oh well, it's not a huge amount but still sucks. I hope they can come back if only because AMD needs competition to keep them from becoming the evil that old Intel was. I was hoping Intel would also be a viable third GPU competitor, I like my Arc A770 for the price and I'm hoping they don't kill off the GPU division.

I was going to make bank with NVDA then it started to fall. Lost half of my profits and then decided to sell everything. I'm glad I did. In going to wait for some good news before reinvesting.

I think suspending the dividend is worse than the layoffs for INTC, since it used to be a boring boomer blue chip divvy type thing to hold and DRIP

There is absolutely no way intel is going under any time soon. They may drop more but it's almost certain that they will recover.

I don't understand a valuation that puts them under AMD given how poor amd's market share is in the gpu market (which intel is now a new valid competitor in for the budget space) alongside the fact that intel's cpu market share is higher than AMD by a large margin.

I'm saying all this as a huge AMD fan. I have a 5800x3d and a 6800xt. I made our work standard laptop be amd based as I set the standards for my organization in my work role. I know my choice is the minority choice. Even in datacenter intel has an overwhelming lead.

It's because the stock market is closer to a casino than a place where fair valuations of businesses are made.

Also, market cap is just the latest trade price times the total number of shares. It doesn't mean that anyone is willing to buy or sell the entire business for that amount, just that some shares were traded at a price that extrapolates to that.

It's kinda like getting an A on your first assignment in grade 1 and assuming that means you're a straight A student and will maintain that until you finish your doctorate. Or getting an F and assuming you might as well just drop out.

The closest thing to reality market cap really says is that investors who are making current trades believe that AMD will surpass Intel at some point. Or that they aren't comparing either company directly to the other and just go by feeling plus the price history. "I feel more confident in AMD today, therefore the price should be higher than it was yesterday. I feel less confident in Intel today, therefore the price should be lower than it was yesterday." It doesn't even really matter if yesterday's price was accurate, it's all just relative to itself and fed by fear and greed.

Preach. I'm just worried for when nvidia pops. The grumblings about the machine learning fad are starting to happen but that's a company that is incredibly likely to lose 80% of revenue in 5 years once businesses see how the huge investments flop.

There's some strange belief that chat bots being semi-coherent is going to turn into true AI and take over all the white collar jobs. The more popular chatbots become the poorer the data quality will be. It's inevitable that all the bots posting on all the social media sites will poison the datasets especially as more and more turn to chatbots to generate content.

Peoples imaginations are running wild. I think if 2% of the use cases pan out it will be a wild success but ML is not new and entire divisions have been scrapped for failing to turn a profit (looking at Alexa, for sure.) When the pop happens the drop will be so significant the ripples may cause a recession all by itself.

How is Intel's GPU marketshare any better... Last I heard they were selling their chips at a loss

They are not doing better in the gpu marketshare. They are a new challenger in that space and are no where near getting the lead. The point I was making is that they are just getting into that space, and if they are successful at chipping away at nvidia's giant high margin market share they can very possibly make a ton of money in that space.

Their GPUs however are fairly good price/performance for consumers, meaning they are building market share in that space. Like any business starting out at something they are losing money to gain market share. That's how capitalism works today. You lose money to gain popularity until you get so much market share you can turn screws to make significant profits.

Intel's bread and butter is CPUs. They are the majority market share in the highly lucrative desktop cpu, mobile laptop cpu and datacenter cpu space.

edit: clarification, mobile I mean laptop. I don't think intel is in the cellular phone space?

SRIOV in the datacenter without restrictive / Prohibitive licensing costs

I thought qualcomm was the majority market share in the mobile cpu space?

Good catch, I meant laptop. Most end user systems provided today are laptops for the last several companies i've worked for.

Those fuckers better not stop making graphics cards because of this...

Unless the person running that project is owed a personal favor I don't think there's a chance in hell it's going to survive. I'm pretty sure they're running the video card side of the business at a substantial loss trying to catch up with market share and tech.

I know you're right but it's so short sighted and we waited so long to have a graphs card triopoly...

We need somebody That's not willing to collude with AMD and Nvidia. Maybe we'll get lucky and they'll spin that company off.

I would guess there is no way in hell they are going to stop making GPUs becuase GPU development leads directly to their ability to make better AI accelerators. I could see them backing off of CPU prodiction before cutting out GPUs.

They practically already have.

Arc came out years late and was a flop. It still can't run a huge amount of games, and where it does, it competes with cards on an inferior node with much smaller die sizes than Arc, that have better stability and significantly lower power consumption.

Battlemage was supposed to be "high performance" (although in Intel speak that likely means mid range at best), but most of the SKUs got cancelled.

They're bringing Battlemage as a graphics tile on their mobile CPUs. But I wouldn't be surprised if they also did a desktop release, like AMD did for the 6400/6500 XT.

Going against AMD/Nvidia in the desktop graphics space is on the back-burner. Hopefully they'll come back to it if they improve their drivers enough, and get better at GPU design.

Time to buy?

I'm pretty sure the US gov views them as too big to fail. Surely they can't mess up Xe, Falcon Shores, and the foundry business, right?

RIGHT!?

They could, but the US government has a strong interest in keeping them around. Not only do they do a huge amount of development, and not just on CPUs, but they also have the largest share of government purchasing by far.

Yep maybe but I think the difference of IT and banks is that if your research and innovation department get defunded you are basically selling the same shit year over year but competitors are not.

I bought AMD at $8 a share (and still hold it, and Xilinx that got folded into it), and I am buying some Intel soon.

The price is right.

I may be an idiot, but I was right once.

They definitely deserve this. Still, I hope their fab business works out because we need another high end fab (especially a US based one). It's exorbitantly expensive, too much for anyone but an established player to enter the market.

Intel should merge with Boeing

They share (or shared) a building in STL, so that would be an easy merge there.

My MSCI World ETF shares lost about 4% in a day. yesterday. Does this have anything to do with this shitshow?

Wasn’t the market down overall yesterday.

Yes, it was. Tech led the downturn yesterday, but Nasdaq was only down like 2%. The "world" stocks (ex-US) are more volatile than the US. In my opinion (and Warren Buffett's), they are not worth investing in as ETFs. Only particular companies. The markets are genuinely worse than in the US.

Warren Buffett invests in particular companies because he can own enough to have influence.

Us mortals should look for broad trackers with low fees.

Doubt it. The ETF holds 1500 large and mid-cap companies across 23 developed countries. It doesn't hold enough Intel shares.

My guess is Intel's management is full of inflexible dead weight that doesn't want to adapt to the new reality that PCs are only going to become less and less relevant as a computing model. Like other companies that had established cash-cow businesses like Sears with its mail-order catalog, Kodak with film, Motorola with analog mobile phones, etc., current management doesn't want to jeopardize their positions by allowing a new business to dominate, and so the company is doomed to a slow death.

But surely the desktop PC market is going to bounce back soon

Any day now

They're still around, and will be for business, gaming etc for a long time. The desktop isn't going away.

Will nvidia buy Intel, like AMD bought ATI?

Regulators wouldn't allow that to happen.

Don’t be so sure about that.

Yeah, it very much depends on who is in charge after November.

There's a whole world outside of the US, you know.

E: the nationalists didn't like that lol

Huh? We're discussing the merging of two US companies. So I'm not sure what you're going on about. Unless you honestly think the EU (the only ones that could even try) would try to over rule the US about two of its own companies. ROFL

Yeah it’s not like Australia can stop them, only force the sale of their Austrian branches. And while that may affect neighboring countries like Croatia and Antarctica it won’t stop the fact that the majority of the company is in one of the Unions of States of America

Yes? Like they regularly do?

The US, EU, and UK all took issue with Nvidia trying to buy ARM.

The UK and EU had to approve Microsoft buying Activision.

The US is not the only country in the world.

I am sure about that.

Pretty much everyone was against them buying ARM. Imagine if they bought Intel.

First of all, I just want to acknowledge how humorous the point you’re making is given your name, Zek.

Second, I hear you. What I’m saying is that in the states we have seen a disturbing lack of interest in trust busting over the past 20-30 years, and it’s led to some ridiculous monopolization in some markets. Tech is definitely one area that suffers from this. You’re right that EU regulators could push back on this if they wanted to, but think about what that might mean if nvidia/intel decided to play hardball. We are presently in a golden age of AI where nvidia’s products are basically the mainstay of the entire market…it could really set the EU back competitively if they chose to refuse those products at this particular juncture. I think they would face enormous pressure to simply accept the deal, in this hypothetical.

Nvidia doesn't want to be in the foundry business. They actually like having to make other foundries compete for their business.

This will happen to the whole tech industry. Once people realise that Moores law is dead. Intel is just the beginning and „A.I.“ will not safe them.

Intel also released two generations of CPUs that just die under heavy loads.

If I got a snickers every time I heard moore law is dead I'd be obese.

Any moment now, any moment.

It is dead.

The only reason it seems like it's not is because AMD server CPUs are just getting physically larger and larger

Check out 3D stacked ram for example. Moores law isn't about some size measure.

And now I have to eat another snickers...

It's literally defined as the number of transistors doubling in a chip. It doesn't at all mention the size or density.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law

Well yes exactly.

Edit: you just showed the law is still alive and kicking:

It is dead.

The only reason it seems like it's not is because AMD server CPUs are just getting physically larger and larger

Fair enough.

Though if density is irrelevant then the entire thing is meaningless.

Should instead be talking about how large of a silicon wafer can be produced.

Or something like CPU power per dollar, but that's just me.

As every gambler knows: A trend is your friend.

And we live in a casino economy.

Sure it'll stop one day but that day is not today.

You seriously think we're going to slow down on infrastructure?

The effort required to keep increasing resistors in a chip is just too high at some point. And the power required to run all the chips is becoming unsustainable. Besides that, hardware companies are way over valued if you look at earnings / market cap

If you don't know the difference between a resistor and a transistor, I'm not taking your advice on semiconductor companies

Moore's Law is about transistors, not resistors. Tell me you know nothing about hardware without saying you know nothing about hardware.

Don't worry, companies found a way to get around Moore's law: Buy more systems and build more datacenters.

*save

If you can tell what the person means, there's no reason to publicly correct their spelling or grammar.

Hard disagree. Common mistakes ruin grammar because other people will adopt these. And when written language becomes ambiguous due to people not using proper grammar, that's a very important foundation of "words have no meaning" fuzziness employed by populists, and in effect dumbs down people.

I said "publicly." I wasn't commenting on the fact that you corrected someone, but the fact you did so publicly.

The mistake is public. This is where people see it and should also see the correction. The fact that you get your knickers in a twist over a simple word correction, is worrysome. It's not like I said "lol u so dumb OP".

Oops that's where we (US government) invested 9 billion under the chips act.

How many layoffs in the US?

I got an AMD 386sx33, dx4-100, Duron 1000, Athlon xp2200, (some Intel here, P4, Atom), then a 5600H now in a mini PC.