The systems are optimized for pumping more and more bits out. Not to measure/reduce noise and increase signal.

Individually its easier to tune it out.

Intel was at 15 bucks for multiple years post its peaks.

Stocks are valued as the sum total of all the profits they ever make (net present value of future earnings).

So even at $1 profit/year - technically worth infinity.

But due to 'time value of money and risk' (aka some risk free discount rate you can put your money elsewhere at get the same return for zero risk, like your bank account), then the infinite sum of those $1/year becomes some finite sum.

The problem wit this math is when profits grow perpetually higher than the cost of borrowing - the net present value goes to infinity.

A P/E ratio = 1/(cost of capital - growth rate). Assuming no dividends.

An investor with 8% cost of capital, a company growing at 3% per year woudl have a P/E of 20.

At 7% growth the value is p/e 100x ...

Any growth over the 'cost of capital' and the P/E goes to infinity because the infinite sum of all future cash flows does not converge.

What this means is that the valuation math breaks down when there are gigantic swings of in growth at rates of even like 30% more for any extended period; it's extremely hard to value.

Verizon is valued as it is because they have an operational lock on a system; they will never grow that much but their returns are predictable. You can spreadsheet their valuation.

All this AI stuff is 'inherently wild' because growth is high, but opaque. Yes, there is a lot of hyperbole and speculation but this is very different than Space X which is a 'Musk Meme' stock, upheld be retail investors.

Edit: this is the most rudimentary articulation of how stocks are valued. It's not made up hunches, and companies that invest a lot in these things have a lot of numeric justification they have to use to make the assessment - and NPV is at the core of it. That 'math' is the first order concept that underlies valuation and it's the hyperbolic nature of growth beyond cost of capital that makes the it come undone which is the mechanical basis for the wild swings. It's what happens to valuation when you make small adjustments in only a few parts of the model.

It is not in the national interest to make sure that the Intel common stock remains valued above 0. Plenty of companies that are of national interest were saved directly from bankruptcy, by nationalizing them in a way that wipes out the common stock.

Good gosh. Goldman probably has 50-100 people, inc. maybe 20 Engineers just on that alone, full time.

And yes, Intel can fail 100%. They can absolutely go into receivership and/or be broken up and bought for pennies by other entities.

It would be a strategic dismantling, obviously the government won't allow certain things to happen, but they could 100% allow investors to be wiped out.

Boeing is a bit different as there are no substitutes, but it could go into receivership. Some parts of Boeing will 'always exist' but the corporate entity can fail.

Failure here is getting restructured and people losing money in the stock market, which I guess is so detached from the actual companies and reality that it might as well be a polymarket bet (I mean overall stock market and not intel specifically).

Been looking for one the last 20 years.

>The finance bozos are clueless, again.

You're much too generous. They are so far beyond merely clueless... these are the bumblefucks that will tip off the end of the world.

As someone who considered a job at Intel about 10 years ago (including having to submit to a somewhat humiliating panel-style interview) what made me instantly decide that I didn't want a job there was seeing how their office in my area (PNW) was a 1990s cube-farm.

I appreciate that Intel's workplace was (and still is?) egalitarian because _everyone_ has a cube, but today it's just so soul-destroying to lay eyes on.

So I agree they have a very unappealing culture, but it isn't as simple as paying people more (unless it's to pay for an interior designer and carpenters to overhaul their office...).

Stock was down three-fold between its peak around 2019 and its bottom in 2024/2025. Indeed, it was down three-fold in 2024/2025 from its 2000 dot-com peak.

Basically, imploding company, on its way for collapse.

With AI boom, there was more demand for ICs than production capacity. It almost didn't matter how bad your chips were -- someone would buy them, and at a healthy markup. This placed Intel in a very strong position to recover.

That recovered some value -- going above their previous high, but much less than 25 years of S&P500 growth. However, it's worth remembering the peak of $120 was less than double it's dot-com peak 25 years prior.

If AI boom doesn't materialize, Intel may, again, be on a path to death.

If it does materialize, but like the dot-com boom with a few winners and many losers, Intel will likely be one of the losers.

Ergo, falling value.

NVidia, in contrast, looks a lot more like the Amazon of the dot-com bust.

More specifically, they focused on making laptop chips like Panther Lake (Intel's latest and greatest) and they meant to make a lot of their money here, and the data center chips weren't focused on as much (I think these would be something like the Xeon 6, but not sure, but I read that they also could have boosted production of older data center chips). But, as it turns out, laptop sales are down because of the demand for DRAM is sky high from the AI data center build out, and not as many people are willing to buy a super expensive laptop. If they had forecasted more correctly, they would have focused more on making data center chips.

Also, their forward guidance for 2027 is lower than expected too, because it will take awhile to shift their production towards building more data center chips, which they are in the middle of doing.

But, you may want to check other sources because have only been somewhat loosely following what's happening with Intel.

Flash forward a couple more years to now it's all about efficient model training which sucks on generic CPUs so everyone is buying and designing other chips

Two big consumer pivots over 4-5 years and boom ...they're IBM and handed lifelines to shore up chip manufacturing in the US for strategic reasons but Intel essentially manufactures rotary phones right now. Maybe the fab biz will get modern designs right. We'll see

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/AMD/

I figured the current owners of INTC stock are betting on the success of their fab business.. I think that's still to play out.

It seems to me that nvidia bubble is still to burst. There is a trust me bro circle where Nvidia somehow sold GPU to itself so it can host someone else's models. Maybe three years ago or a little more they announced they plan to move away from consumer end and focus on cloud. Back then it did not make much sense because everybody though "how the f Nvidia will manage clouds like AWS?" And their business model seems to me that it is a shared risk model where Nvidia don't "own" the cloud but pay for its GPU to have that market share. I think it would make much sense if the thin layer those, how did the greedy musk said, neocloud/cloudfronts or whatever, were not so brittle due to the lack of market demand.

I have the impression they had a gold strategy for them but for some reason they rushed it too much and now they broke the market before they could profit from it.

I can imagine that if they didn't hoard their own resources to create scarcity artificiality, they would possibly have a stronger position in the market. I can only think they did this because (A) they know the current government will bail them out and (B) someone was worried that China could hoard those GPUs first.

But as I said, I don't understand much of the topic, but it seems to me they are try to get as much money as soon as possible and that looks scam-ish to me. They all put investment rounds too close to each other, started creating concerning stories and "rogue" AIs at the same time. Maybe I'm being too paranoid, but so far those guys have been pulling some hat tricks and I think I know who will pay the bill

Edit: Also I think the big ones artificially produced better numbers by doing massive layoff rounds. Depending on how those happen, it produces almost an immediate loss that can be smoothed, and then a peak on profit, and then we will see if their numbers keep up 2 or 3 quarter after that. Maybe I have trust issues, but man, this does smell weird.

things are changing but there is a sort of "no one ever got fired for using nvidia for inference." thing going on.

Intel in Q3 2026 had $16.5B in revenue and $3.3B of profit, and $13.7B and $4.4B in Q3 2025.

NVidia is doing much better than Intel, people are selling bonds and junk bonds to buy billions of dollars of NVidia cards that NVidia is making 75% gross margins on. They’re making the kind of profits that would make a drug dealer blush.

I used Q3 earnings for Intel because Nvidia hasn’t reported their Q3 earnings yet and Intel’s Q2 earnings showed losses in both 2026 and 2025.