- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
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.
You must log in or register to comment.
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…
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
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.
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.
If I got a snickers every time I heard moore law is dead I’d be obese.
Any moment now, any moment.
As every gambler knows: A trend is your friend.
And we live in a casino economy.
Seems pretty alive to me.
Intel also released two generations of CPUs that just die under heavy loads.
Intel should merge with Boeing
wow
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Most stocks dont offer a dividend.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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: ine 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.
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)
Stocks also give you a percentage of the company, which means decision making. Which has value, it’s not only dividends.
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.
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.
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.
So, I should invest now for cheap and when they inevitably bounce back, sell?
I bought some more; stupid me thought it would keep going up (up 15%), then it bombed.
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.
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.
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. :)
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.
You are 200% correct, apple didn’t ditch Intel because Intel, apple did it because apple.
- glad I just went with AMD. Dodged a bullet.
- Man that 11 billion they just got from us, so hot.
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.
That’s communism.
Lot’s of isms
Like stupidism!
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.
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?”
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?
