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.
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.
Nice to just imagine that this was backlash to the inhumanity of the constant layoffs. It’s not, but would be nice.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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!’
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.
Most stocks dont offer a dividend.
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.
It’s not everyday that I’m thankful that grandma didn’t leave me $700,000 but today is one of those days
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…
I think it made an already bad situation worse.
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
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.
Yep, that’ll do it.
They’re not even bothered by the fucked up chips.
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.
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.
Maybe they shouldn’t have fucked over all of their own people.
Fuck em
Oops that’s where we (US government) invested 9 billion under the chips act.
How many layoffs in the US?
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 people will continue to buy the 14900k and have the shocked pikachu face.
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?
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.
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.
