NVIDIA shows signs ... [2008 - 2017]

[ams]

I'm not sure that is what the guy means, I read it more like "stay short vs stay long" keep your share or sale them"

The guy was actually recommending a short call option, not a long put option, so the risk would be substantial and variable if the stock price ended up trending upward. The ironic thing is that the guy wasn't willing to take the risk himself and he claimed that he was not an investor in the comments section. Short selling at the current valuation levels just doesn't make any sense.

The outlook is not promising, I see no reasons for the value of the stock to go up (more lightly down short term) so it could make sense for one to put its money elsewhere.

I don't think that most analysts would agree that the outlook is "not promising", even if there are some disappointments along the way that cause price targets to be readjusted. The analysts at Trefis certainly don't believe so (even if they are not always right and tend to be bullish on NVIDIA).

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Yes, Intel will be a serious competitor in the future, but it would be very short-sided to think that NVIDIA's investment in mobile computing in the short-term will not pay dividends in the long-term.

Not really short sighted. It may still end up being profitable in the future. But at the moment there's just as much chance that it won't. Anyone claiming that Tegra will definitely pay dividends in the future is just as short sighted as people claiming Tegra will lead to the downfall of Nvidia.

Once we start seeing more design wins leading to actual products then and only then will there be a reasonable hope that it will pay dividends in the future. As of now, however, the losses are growing faster than the revenue generated. And while true that part of the losses incurred in FY 2013 is attributable to bringing the Icera baseband modem to market, it is still a loss. It may or may not result in significant revenue growth without significant growth in losses.

FY 2014 will be interesting to see. If the trend continues with growing losses despite growing revenue, then it becomes less and less likely that Tegra will eventually become profitable. If they manage to grow revenue without increasing losses, that will be a good sign that they can eventually make Tegra profitable. Hell if their revenue stagnates while losses go down, that too would be a good sign.

Regards,
SB

 

[ams]

And while true that part of the losses incurred in FY 2013 is attributable to bringing the Icera baseband modem to market, it is still a loss. It may or may not result in significant revenue growth without significant growth in losses.

Yes, a loss is a loss, but much of the cost in bringing the 4G LTE baseband modem to market is a sunk cost rather than a prospective cost. And when 4G LTE is available from NVIDIA, their 4G LTE-related revenue will go from essentially $0 to something obviously much higher than that. The overall Tegra business, on the other hand, is more difficult to forecast, and that will need to be monitored and analyzed over the coming years to see if current investments result in future benefits. Strictly speaking as a consumer, the future roadmap for Tegra is very intriguing.

 

[jimbo75]

IIRC, the increase in magnitude of the loss in FY 2013 (relative to prior fiscal years) is largely due to the cost it took to bring the Icera 4G LTE baseband modem to the market. These baseband-related costs are incurred in FY 2013, but revenues are not realized until FY 2014 at the earliest. So one should look at that as an investment made to enhance future revenues.

I think it's more likely to be due to the increase in personnel. Nvidia has doubled it's workforce in 6 years and surely most of that was on Tegra. This is a large part of the reason why OpEx is outgrowing revenues.

It is funny you say that because it is precisely Intel's licensing payments to NVIDIA that help NVIDIA to keep investing more and more in the Tegra business without seriously hurting their financial stability in the short-term. Yes, Intel will be a serious competitor in the future, but it would be very short-sided to think that NVIDIA's investment in mobile computing in the short-term will not pay dividends in the long-term.

The problem is they are giving more to intel that they are getting out of it. What kind of damage is Haswell going to do to Nvidia's notebook market share? Intel is about to shoot Nvidia with the gun they bought from them.

 

[ninelven]

But for how long?

Well, if AMD is any example, the better part of a decade.

and it doesn't look good for NVIDIA.

I'd say it looks pretty damn good actually, iff ARM stays relevant or ISA becomes irrelevant. Really the only way Nvidia will cease to exist in 10 years is if they get acquired before Tegra takes off.

People thinking Nvidia is in trouble now remind of people who thought Nvidia was in trouble vs 3dfx.

 

[jimbo75]

I'd say it looks pretty damn good actually, iff ARM stays relevant or ISA becomes irrelevant. Really the only way Nvidia will cease to exist in 10 years is if they get acquired before Tegra takes off.

Sure Nvidia will still be around in 10 years. Via are still around too.

People thinking Nvidia is in trouble now remind of people who thought Nvidia was in trouble vs 3dfx.

Sadly there is no cheap ARM aquisition that can be made to bolster their position. Oh wait - they are that cheap ARM aquisition. The problem is you still have JHH thinking he deserves to be CEO of the World and until he's gone Nvidia is unbuyable for any serious company.

Nobody fears Nvidia like Nvidia feared 3dfx. There is a big difference between buying out a realistic competitor and just letting an also-ran rot.

What is Nvidia's IP worth to a company if intel is only paying a couple hundred million a year licensing it?

There will be no Nvidia buyout same as there will be no AMD buyout. Both companies are utterly irrelevant.

 

[ninelven]

Via are still around too.

Kinda like AMD . Please troll more...

Both companies are utterly irrelevant.

Bullshit.

 

[ams]

I think it's more likely to be due to the increase in personnel. Nvidia has doubled it's workforce in 6 years and surely most of that was on Tegra. This is a large part of the reason why OpEx is outgrowing revenues.

No, the increase in Tegra-related losses during FY 2013 relative to FY 2012 was largely due to the cost of bringing a 4G LTE modem to market, and I am pretty sure that NVIDIA stated as such. Increasing workforce across the entire company over a six year period is something completely different.

The problem is they are giving more to intel that they are getting out of it. What kind of damage is Haswell going to do to Nvidia's notebook market share? Intel is about to shoot Nvidia with the gun they bought from them.

Intel's graphics performance would have increased substantially with or without this licensing agreement. Their graphics architecture is simply far different than that of NVIDIA's. Let's also not forget that NVIDIA is certainly not standing still when it comes to graphics performance for notebook form factors.

 

[jimbo75]

Bullshit.

In the current climate they are. Nvidia is a small company with big ideas. AMD is a slightly bigger company that has had the stuffing knocked out of them long ago.

You really think Nvidia is relevant? Why?

Where is the history of great perf/Watt? They are consistently behind AMD at the low power levels so how are they supposed to compete vs Qualcomm?

What have they ever done except bullshit about the next Tegra year after year? This company is not good enough to prosper in this space. I highly doubt any of the big players even take them seriously.

 

[ninelven]

Why?

Why would I respond to a troll? All you are going to do is disagree with whatever I say however articulate and informed the information I provide may be.

 

[ams]

You really think Nvidia is relevant? Why?

All one has to do is look here: http://www.nvidia.com/object/about-nvidia.html

Where is the history of great perf/Watt?

Their "history" of really focusing on great perf/w starts with Kepler.

On a side note, if you truly believe that companies such as NVIDIA and AMD/ATI are not relevant, then you have no business being here.

 

[jimbo75]

All one has to do is look here: http://www.nvidia.com/object/about-nvidia.html



Their "history" of really focusing on great perf/w starts with Kepler.

On a side note, if you truly believe that companies such as NVIDIA and AMD/ATI are not relevant, then you have no business being here.

They are not relevant in ARM space. Nvidia is a nothing company in this world - they have no history of any kind of excellence here. The problem is you are looking at their PC history and assuming they will do the same. It's just pure assumption - Tegra is a disaster that gets worse with every iteration. There is *no reason* to believe that Nvidia will ever be a force in the ARM world.

 

[jimbo75]

Why would I respond to a troll? All you are going to do is disagree with whatever I say however articulate and informed the information I provide may be.

You don't have any information that is worth squat, which is why you need to resort to the tired "troll" accusations.

You've got nothing, because Nvidia has shown nothing. Tegra is an unmitigated disaster that is simply leading Nvidia to ruin faster. Where is your proof otherwise?

There is none..

 

[ninelven]

If Nvidia and AMD are irrelevant, then why the $#%@ are you here discussing them if not to troll?

 

[jimbo75]

The thread is titled "Nvidia shows signs of strain".

For the same reason that fanboys like yourself and AMS are here telling us how the future is certainly green, fanboys like me are here telling you why it certainly isn't.

The difference is you haven't given any actual reason why you believe so (you, not AMS who has at least given his reasons why he believes it). If you had a compelling argument for why Nvidia wasn't in a world of shit this thread wouldn't be 122 pages long.

 

[ninelven]

I am an Nvidia fanboy?

Q: Do you know how many Nvidia products I have purchased in the last decade?

A: Zero. (1 if you count the original Xbox)

My current PC has an AMD CPU & GPU btw.

Welcome to ignore.

Peace.

P.S. IMHO being a "fan" of any corporation is foolish.

 

[jimbo75]

Ninelven you're never out of these kinds of threads, constantly backing Nvidia no matter what. Not having owned one of their products recently doesn't mean a thing (I have owned many Nvidia cards and intel cpu's, and currently have a 2500K).

Go ahead and throw your troll accusations all you like but you're fooling nobody if you think we don't know you're inclined towards the green side.

All I asked for was evidence, proof - anything - that tells me why you and others believe Nvidia is up to the task of competing here. All Nvidia has done so far is prove that they aren't good enough.

 

[ams]

They are not relevant in ARM space.

They were first to market with ARM dual-core A9, first to market with ARM quad-core A9, and will probably be first to market with ARM quad-core A15 tablets and ARM quad-core R4 Cortex A9 smartphones. They were first to market with a Windows on ARM tablet. They have the highest marketshare in Android ARM-powered tablets. Yet they are not relevant in the ARM space. Right. Please stop trolling here in this thread.

 

[jimbo75]

They were first to market with ARM dual-core A9, first to market with ARM quad-core A9, and will probably be first to market with ARM quad-core A15 tablets and ARM quad-core R4 Cortex A9 smartphones. They were first to market with a Windows on ARM tablet. They have the highest marketshare in Android ARM-powered tablets. Yet they are not relevant in the ARM space. Right. Please stop trolling here in this thread.

And they were SLOWER than the competition. Tegra 3 was clearly sold at a loss - after all the hype they finally got into a tablet and at the end of the year they had made record revenues and record losses.

JHH says $1 billion is the break-even point for Tegra? How is that coming about? The evidence points to higher losses with higher revenues.

It couldn't be more obvious that Tegra 4 is just a continuation of the disaster. Where are the design wins? Nvidia has been telling us about design wins for years and in reality they've had one decent design win that cost them money.

Do you really believe that Tegra 4 is break even at 1 billion? Do you even believe Tegra 4 will approach half of that? Show me the evidence to back it up then.

 

[ams]

LOL, you are confused. $1 billion revenue per year is not the "break-even" point where Tegra becomes profitable! $1 billion revenue per year is the point where it makes sense to develop multiple SKU's for Tegra.