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
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
Tough times ahead.
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.
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.
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 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.
You want to look into VCN
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.
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.
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.
Don't worry, tomorrow the market is closed!
I found Jim Cramer.
Good move.
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.
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.
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
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
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...
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.
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!
Best button ever!
It slowed down the CPU.
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.
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
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.
I never imagined a world where Intel was the little fish. Wild
Complacency does that to you
Nokia knows
It’s gotta be temporary. It’s intel.
The lawsuits haven't even started. This is very very bad for them.
- glad I just went with AMD. Dodged a bullet.
- Man that 11 billion they just got from us, so hot.
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.
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?
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
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.
I wonder if that guy who bet his inheritance from WallStreetBets is ok...
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?
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.
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.
Huawei's New Mystery 7nm Chip from Chinese Fab Defies US Sanctions
China chipmaker SMIC on track to produce sanctions-busting 5nm processors for Huawei this year: Report
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
Surprisingly good video, though the channel in general is a bit propagandistic.
So, I should invest now for cheap and when they inevitably bounce back, sell?
Don't try to catch a falling knife
But Ive had success in the past, just look at these cool scars as proof :)
I bought some more; stupid me thought it would keep going up (up 15%), then it bombed.
Yeah, go for it 😎
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.
Ugh, I hope Loongson becomes competitive soon. If AMD gets a monopoly, cpu technology is going to get stagnant. And not decrease in cost.
It's true, but Intel fucked around for years and now they're finding out. I'm happy to watch them stew for a year or so before getting back on their feet.
The x86-64 CPU market has felt stagnant for a while. The real innovation seems to be happening with ARM and mobile. In which Intel is way behind. Might explain some of the news from today.
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,
mobilelaptop cpu and datacenter cpu space.edit: clarification, mobile I mean laptop. I don't think intel is in the cellular phone space?
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 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.
Those fuckers had* better not
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 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.
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.
Doubt it. The ETF holds 1500 large and mid-cap companies across 23 developed countries. It doesn't hold enough Intel shares.
rust giveth, and rust taketh away
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.
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.
Seems pretty alive to me.
If I got a snickers every time I heard moore law is dead I'd be obese.
Any moment now, any moment.
You seriously think we're going to slow down on infrastructure?
Fuck around and find out
wow
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.