this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2024
361 points (96.9% liked)
Technology
58743 readers
4312 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
How is Intel's market cap less than their total assets?
Debt, both on-the-books and anticipated.
Intel's investments in the Titanium chipset have effectively dead-ended. They can't get below 7nm efficiently. Meanwhile, you've got companies in Taiwan, Korea, China, and Japan breaking into the 3nm and 2nm scales. To catch up, they're looking at hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars in technical debt.
Yes, they can keep churning out existing processors at huge profits in the moment. But the face value of these processors plummets with every new step in Moore's Law. This amounts to asset depreciation, which means Intel's value is heavily overstated on the basis of asset cost alone.
I won't argue that NVIDIA is overvalued. But I think the degree to which they are overvalued is often misattributed to speculation and avoids the real specter haunting the company... competition. NVIDIA's market dominance and the escalating demand for their technology means the sky really should be the limit for their growth. Demand for AI processing is at the forefront of these expectations. But a rival manufacturer capable of cutting into demand for their units would dramatically undermine their profitability.
Its the same with firms like Microsoft and Facebook and Boeing. So much of their dominance is predicated on the theory that people will never leave these walled gardens and their margins being enormous purely because they controlled a critical commodity/patch of technical real estate.
There was - incidentally - another enormous company that seemed to have the market cornered in its industry and got complacent with its R&D and long-term investment strategies... Intel.
The mainland Chinese SMIC is doing everything they can without access to ASML's EUV machines, and have gotten further than anyone else has on DUV. It remains to be seen just how far they can get without plateauing on the limits of that tech. Most doubted that they could get past 10nm, but some of their recent chips appear to be comparable to 7nm, and there are rumors that they have a low yield 5nm process that isn't economically feasible but can be a strong political statement.
TSMC is delaying the transition to Gate All Around, announcing that they won't be trying it on the 3nm processes, and waiting until 2nm to roll that out. They're the undisputed leader today, so they're milking their current finFET advantage for as long as it will sustain them.
Samsung has already switched to Gate All Around for their 3nm process, so they might get the jump on everyone else (even if they struggled with the previous paradigm of finFET). But they're not lining up external customers, as their yields still can't compete with TSMC's. It's entirely possible though that as the industry moves from finFETs to GAAFETs, Samsung could take a lead.
Intel basically couldn't get finFETs to work, and are already trying to skip ahead to GAAFETs (which they call RibbonFET). Plus Intel (like the others) is trying to introduce backside power delivery, which, if it can be commercialized and mass produced, would achieve huge gains in power efficiency. Intel did introduce both technologies in its 20A process (supposedly 2nm class), but then canceled it due to low yield. So they're basically betting the company on their 18A process, and hoping they can get that to market before TSMC and Samsung hit their stride on 2nm.
You can't say that, though, because it implies Chinese engineers and information technology scientists are trailblazers rather than plagarists and IP thieves.
And I've got a few shares in my retirement account riding on that success. But its more a hedge against my own cynicism than a sincere expectation. Intel, like Boeing, seems far more interested in rewarding investors in the short term than maintaining a foothold in the market long term.
I mean, I said what I said and I meant it. The Chinese are trailblazing a path nobody has tried before: DUV only for sub-10nm processes. It's not ideal, and the reason why nobody did it before is because they already had EUV by the time they got there.
But I wouldn't sleep on the ability of anyone to be able to solve problems using the tools at their disposal.
Especially since there's nothing stopping the mainland Chinese companies from hiring Taiwanese engineers.
Not a ton of people believed that Taiwan could surpass Japan, either, but that happened in the 90's. Not a ton of people believe that Japan can get back in the game, but Rapidus is making a play for 2nm.
Nothing is forever, and things are always changing. I'm somewhat optimistic that western sanctions will keep China from competing on the world stage at semiconductor fabrication, but I don't think it's a guarantee or in any way inevitable.
Right. Liabilities. Frick. Thank you.
Fear mongering articles making it seem like they are doomed and will go bankrupt after bad quarterly results were announced. Articles were probably sponsored by rich people wanting to buy Intel stock for cheap. But they won't go bankrupt because the US gov./army need Intel to stay relevant against China, and Intel is basically the only American company that both designs and fabs their own processors and that is still relevant.
That and the fact that Nvidia is over valued (they are valued at 30x the value of their assets).
That's never stopped anyone from going bankrupt and wiping out shareholders. If the tech is that critical, the US government might engineer a bailout of the company, but will make the shares worthless in the process.
They did it with GM and Chrysler in 2009, they did it with Iridium in 2000.
thirty times???
Yup. I wager the vast majority of that is AI hype. Nvidia is the king there and in datacenter GPU compute in general, and investors are betting that Nvidia will continue to dominate and that market will continue to be relevant and grow.
I have my doubts, but as a famous economist once said:
So I'm not putting my money where my mouth is just yet.
That is an excelent quote.
In the same way that a normal person can have a net worth less than the value of the house they own: debt and illiquidity.
Well, while outstanding in current (we are living in a 20++ year bubble without much correction - no, when market values/indexes/cap rebound within a year, or month, with mostly the same main players) times, and especially for a successful company in the tech sector, having more assets than market cap isn't that weird.
As long as market value is above book value, it's fine.
And when it's not, it's prob a bank after 2012 (tho prices are generally way closer to book than they were before) :D.