Nvidia takes $1B stake in Nokia(cnbc.com) |
Nvidia takes $1B stake in Nokia(cnbc.com) |
They have substantial operations in North America. T-Mobile uses primarily their hardware. Nokia still operates Bell Labs which came originally from AT&T via Lucent.
As the other global options for network hardware are Ericsson, Samsung and Huawei, Nokia is the closest to a “Made in USA” solution. Its HQ is in Finland but at least it’s a NATO country now.
So they’re more important to US infrastructure than might appear at first glance.
> As the other global options for network hardware are Ericsson, Samsung and Huawei, Nokia is the closest to a “Made in USA” solution. Its HQ is in Finland but at least it’s a NATO country now.
i.e. with the current US administration, a "Made in USA" solution to critical infrasctructure would likely be seen as ideal; and viewed through this lens, when the other options come from Sweden, Finland, South Korea, and China, Finland is probably the best option.
I didn't read any implied criticism of Finland.
That risk is lesser now thanks to NATO.
I was part of the Nokia => NSN transition, and saw that S change back from Siemens into Solutions, with the money they got back from selling Nokia Mobile to Microsoft.
But why is Ericsson(swedish), Samsung(south korean) not considered made in US in the sense that atleast south korea has strong relations with america iirc and also I just recently checked and it seems that sweden has also become a part of nato. So some of these can be just as good.
Although I still agree that Nokia might be important in general but I just wanted to point/question it out I suppose.
Per Wikipedia [1], Lucent's factories and offices are^W were situated in places like Murray Hill and Mount Olive, NJ, North Andover, MA, Reading, PA, and a bunch of other places in the US.
I think it makes^W made Nokia, which owns Lucent properties, "more US" than, say Ericsson and Samsung, until these facilities were closed.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucent_Technologies#Divisions
They also plan to provide AI services in the Edge, that's why Nvidia invested.
sounds totally not a bubble.
Also, why is Nokia closer to the US than Ericsson?
While there's probably a little overlap in all of their product lines with Nokia (I mean Nokia makes simple ethernet switches so that carriers can buy all their gear from one vendor), most of those companies don't really compete in the same markets as Nokia
Cisco isn't selling into T-Mobile and AT&T's customer networks. Nokia isn't selling into JPMorgan's or Walmart's IP networks
That's an amazing trove of IP!
It's like "if your going to sell chips to China, you have to spend some of the money funding non-Chinese tech".
Nokia's capabilities to deliver 5G networks is a direct competitor to Huawei, right?
Is Nvidia functionally an strategic hedge fund of the US Government? Would this fall under Jeffrey Sach's realm?
They definitely did, Intel existing is probably an issue of national security at this point, if Intel fell then there'd be the risk of some other nation's company being part of the duopoly.
Mind elaborating? Who are the players in the duopoly?
If you wanted something in the x86 space it was either Intel or AMD. AMD is a direct competitor. If I was Nvidia I'd have done something about Intel. At least stop them from crashing further.
The SP500 could merge into one company, regulation permitting.
Nvidia just made graphics cards, at a time when games were still being written for MS-DOS. Nobody was to imagine the real money to be made from repurposing these graphics cards for crypto and now this AI 'application'.
in five years, NVDA's business strategy will be like CocaCola's, forcing bottlers to buy their syrups.
For example, if they are only two companies, say with 1T and 4T market cap. If one invests 5M into a total market ETF, 1M is allocated to company A and 4M to company B. But since company B is 4x bigger than company A, the upward price pressure is the same for both companies.
In a hypothetical market with 100% ETFs, you’d have a status quo.
Edit: maybe not, since you have ETFs that invest in, say, Nasdaq only, which is tech oriented and would influence S&P500.
Nokia today is sort of “everybody who was making networks in Europe and North America except Ericsson”.
Nvidia is using its revenues to quickly invest in bets that are simultaneously customers.
If anything, it's a triple win.
- taking advantage of cash it needs to deploy
- making new investments in areas NVidia wants to shape
- making new customers that continue to buy Nvidia GPUs, especially if they're successful
Some of these ventures may fail, but it's better than distributing dividends or issuing stock buybacks if you believe this technology will be useful in the future.
Companies doing this purely off of equity, stock valuation, and product/services agreements are even smarter as they're using pure hype to fund strategy.
AI-RAN uses AI/ML for adaptive behaviors and optimizations in all these links.
For example, fine-grained RF and modulation details, called the channel state information (CSI), is constantly being exchanged between a phone and a base station. The volume of information creates transmission latencies. Using autoencoder models, this information can be semantically compressed to reduce its volume and decoded with high fidelity on the other side.
That's just one example. In the upcoming 6G, RAN will be "AI-native", using AI/ML everywhere. The standards may require AI accelerator chips in most base stations, NTN satellites, phones, and other elements.
It's a potential 6G architecture.
Let's see if this investment leads to the final elimination of an EU tech company. Why does Finland permit this?
AI on IoT devices?
Yup, give them $1B so they can build out AI DC’s stocked with $1B of Nvidia chips.
To me, that seems to be a requirement for the computing industry for a long time.
And, they seemed to have amassed enough capital to comfortably pivot to the next great thing that requires similar calculations.
I think this is their super power.
The next logical step would be to get into CPUs, to become a fully integrated computing solutions provider.
Sure, but they have a market cap of 5 trillion. It's about 10x that of AMD, which also sells similar silicon (and isn't in any distress). It's more than Apple, Google, and Microsoft - and these companies historically found ways to make more money than the vendors they buy chips from.
The problem isn't that Nvidia doesn't have good fundamentals or good products, it's that the market is expecting miracles.
In the case of Nvidia, the funny thing is that their high valuations started not with AI, but with cryptocurrencies. Just never really came down - they coasted from a silly hype cycle to a more substantive one. Ten years ago, NVDA wasn't an interesting stock at all.
They already tried it 5 years ago [1][2] but it was promptly blocked by regulators.
[1]: https://nvidianews.nvidia.com/news/nvidia-to-acquire-arm-for...
[2]: HN discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24464807
When that investment firehouse gets turned off, the AI providers will stop building new data centers. Likely for some years. That revenue stream for NVIDIA will go to zero so fast…
The unknown, as with any bubble, is timing.
I’m aware there are some efforts in play to offer alternatives to GPUs and compete with Nvidia, but I don’t see a path for how that actually happens in the near term with Nvidia's market dominance, short of revolutionary technological breakthrough or possibly even anti-trusting Nvidia.
I suspect what you mean is the circular business practices that we’ve been seeing, seemingly starting with Nvidia for some reason. Is that the aspect you are comparing to some sovereign wealth funds that through simply massive scale, they are capturing the whole lifetime cycle in some places and domains?
When that happens, they’ll still have their fingers in all the pies.
It’s arguably a much better approach for Nvidia as a company.
Nvidia is not diversifying, but investing in it's customers, which are very very linked to it's own performance.
What I think is likely to go away is Nvidia’s monopoly in the space. When it does, Nvidia will still have pieces of all the major players.
When you have a money printing machine that you don't expect to run forever (but aren't afraid of the future beyond, optimistic that you can still make money, just not that easy), as a publicly traded company you have the problem that eventually all owners who have similar expectations will have sold to more optimistic owners who expect nothing less than the money printing machine running forever. And getting even bigger while at it. When that ownership change has happened, the company does not really have any other option than to die trying. Deliberately diluting the value of the company with ownership in "definitely not a money printing machine!" before that happens could be a way to avoid that death march, a survival strategy.
edit: highlight: "not not". I think it's very smart.
Interesting. Trump and the Finnish President meet a few weeks ago and explicitly discussed Nokia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XmnKjx3LYw
Pretty sure Nokia was glad to offload the handset business so they could feed money into markets they were still competitive in.
This line of thought really needs to die.
The Nokia board hired Elop from Microsoft because they wanted to bet the company on the Microsoft phone, full stop.
If you want to assign blame, then its on Nokia for wanting to pursue that strategy.
Also there are some errors there, Windows Phone only became an alternative after the burning platform memo, that wasn't at all well received neither internally, nor by the 3rd party devs that had just started to migrate their Symbian tooling yet again, this time to Qt + PIPS + Carbide.
The biggest blame with the board, as revealed on the Finish press, was the bonus clause on Elop contract to sell Nokia Mobile business.
Granted, it was going to happen anyway, probably through Microsoft if Google hadn't commoditized that market first.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia
"In 1998 alone, the company had sales revenue of $20 billion, making $2.6 billion profit. By 2000, Nokia employed over 55,000 people and had a market share of 30% in the mobile phone market, almost twice as large as its nearest competitor, Motorola."
The mobile phone business was ruined (perhaps they should have used Android), therefore caution about new foreign influence is warranted.
There was just no way Nokia could match Apple on the OS who spent years prior to the idea of a smartphone making it a good match for the hardware of the time. And MSFT deservedly got punished for not investing in creating a better OS and Apple deservedly rewarded for doing so.
AI-RAN is partnership where Nvidia and Nokia will sell to telecoms and private 5G/6G networks.
But only the real NATO membership significantly diminished the country risk that foreign investors correctly perceived in Finland.
If you ever played Risk, or most other games, once the snowball starts, it's hard to stop it.
Of course, since the market has never been like this before, it's a speculation...
It's the owners of the Nvidia stock who potentially could trade their Nvidia stocks for the other 230 companies stocks. But then they have no Nvidia stocks anymore, on the other hand.
Buying a stake in Nokia is admittedly different than taking it over and managing it, but the danger there is very clear. Distracted management that strays away from core competence can easily kill the golden goose driving revenue.
The contrarian view is that Berkshire Hathaway is able to hold an array of successful manufacturing and service businesses (Kirby vacuum cleaners, Dairy Queen, Clayton Homes, and the prominent Sees Candy) without losing management control of GEICO and their other insurance holdings.
Hopefully, Nvidia sees the example of RCA and Gulf Western, and will not lose focus on their core competence.
RCA famously birthed the semiconductor industry in Taiwan. I think that focused trade regulation would prevent a repeat of that event in modern times.
Edit: It appears that RCA bought Coronet Carpets, not Carpetland.
As a Finn, rather than bore you with a 2846 bullet point list, I'd say that technologically not a lot, but we do have a lot more to lose, so it is easier to bargain with our industry compared to Sweden's. Our population is not always big enough to compete head-to-head with some sectors Sweden is also a part of.
If the company did not intend to purchase anything but Nvidia used the investment to "incentivize" a purchase then this is artificially creating demand where there used to be none. It's very different from Nvidia allowing a company to purchase Nvidia products that they already wanted to purchase but pay with stock.
I dont think that is what's happening here. Base station has been power limited for quite some time and part of the whole 5G / Cloud RAN promise was moving a lot of the processing off base station. Ignoring GPU there are a lot of the current stack fits Nvidia portfolio especially DPU. May be Nvidia have figure out a way to use CUDA and have it perform better than Ericsson and Huawei.
Nokia is also the smallest of the three and has been in decline for quite some time. Part of me also wish Nvidia just buy Nokia and start competing against Ericsson and Huawei.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concerns_over_Chinese_involvem...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-07-01/did-china...
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/13/us-charges-huawei-w...
Nortel was dying way before Huawei got involved.
Granted, I only worked as a lowly dev in the Cisco SP routing team, and I haven’t been keeping up to speed with their work.
Hence my comment :)
Nokia does in fact compete with Cisco and the others, but less so than in the past.
Stock values go down when people holding stocks expect them to go down.
Tax reasons might be one as well, long term capital gains are taxed less.
There are few investors that can spend the time it takes to be active like that.
Most people buying individual stocks are better of buying ETFs anyway.
In the end it's a choice on what to spend your time on.
Except when they aren’t, see GameStop and Beyond Meat.
The problem for Nvidia is when demand doesn't continue to increase as much as expected.
To avoid looping this conversation for the next 2-3 years, we need to get to higher PEs to match the dot com bubble. It's just hard to have a long bubble that collapses without debt and leverage. You need something that compels the market to correct or else the long bubble just stays long. Suddenly I understand why shorting is essential in breaking the back of long bubbles and stabilizing market dynamics.
They can always license their IP and make products out of that.
Some of their systems most likely have such chips already in them.
They know the market is going to crash soon-ish.
It's just smart investing to take some profits at a historic high mark...
https://www.reddit.com/r/linuxmasterrace/comments/31z13e/is_...
http://www.eedailynews.com/2010/05/android-vs-meego-two-appr...
But I think they only released such models with Symbian for a couple of years, before switching to Meego and then later Windows Mobile OS.
The N900 was released more for a question of honour than anything.
However you have not read the links, not all models were alike.
> The Nokia 7710 is a mobile phone developed by Nokia and announced on 2 November 2004.[1] It was the first Nokia device with a touchscreen
There's hardly any non-American CPU designers out there
Risc-V moved HQs to be a non-American CPU designer, but perhaps you don't find them credible (yet).
And no, Apple and Qualcomm are the standard setters in ARM these days. Should they drop ARM for something else... ARM will be on the same trajectory where MIPS ended up.
RISC-V is just an ISA standard, the standard body is not a CPU designer in any shape or form.
SMIC has a DUV multi-patterning 7 nm node which is already economically uncompetitive with EUV 7 nm nodes (except for PRC subsidies) and the economics of DUV only get worse further down, but at least they're trying and will certainly be the first client to use the Chinese EUV machines, whenever those come online.
NVIDIA isn’t a startup. It isn’t disrupting a market. It is the ESTABLISHMENT. Low double-digit growth numbers for market leader in established industries would be, by itself tremendously remarkable. Apple was 6% last year, for example. That’s doing great.
NVIDIA grew 142% this year and 217% the year before. That’s… that’s f%#£ing unbelievable is what that is.
The entire consumer market for NVIDIA is less than 10% of their data center market. NVIDIA is a ln AI company with a side hustle in computer graphics. Oh and a nontrivial amount of that is researchers and small companies buying consumer chips for non-LLM AI training and inference, so real numbers are even smaller.
“Zero”, while not mathematically accurate, is indistinguishable here. Elimination of most of the data center sales would immediately move market valuations by trillions of dollars.
I'm sure that same phrase was echoed at Nortel and more offices in the 90s.
It's all hot stuff until you have a few billion dollars worth of inventory manufactured that you can barely give away for a million dollars one day. Sure it's not zero, but you're still pretty fucked in the end.
the current "bubble" hasn't surpassed the dot-com boom yet.
You have to compare forward earnings to share-price ratios.
What about OpenAI, Anthropic, xAI and the other foundation labs that have collectively raised trillions?
What Microsoft, Amazon, Google, and Meta, which would likely survive but maybe lose up to a trillion each in valuation?
What about the very long tail of venture-backed AI companies that will go bust? You might complain that the dotcom number was just public companies, but back in 2000 everything was a public company. A company with thousands of high-earning employees going bust matters to the greater economy whether or not it is Nasdaq listed or not.
If a single company represents the entire dollar amount of the dotcom bust, or half when inflation-adjusted, and that valuation is entirely predicated on that growth continuing at historically unprecedented rates.. yeah we're in a bubble, and the damage when it bursts is going to be big.
That was the point I was making, and I fail to see how forward earnings to share-price ratios has any relevance here. The whole point of a bubble popping is that the market suddenly finds out those forward revenues were a mirage, a house of cards, and are very much made up.
the relevance is that these earnings expectations are lower than when the dotcom bubble happened.
The fact that a single company can have a market cap today that is greater than the losses from the dotcom bust is irrelevant. We have more wealth today than back in 2000, and these market caps reflect that.
[citation needed]
https://www.macrotrends.net/2577/sp-500-pe-ratio-price-to-ea...
The dotcom bubble peaked at around 46, while we are currently at 30. Will it grow? Who knows. But the bubble certainly isn't as big as claimed by the grandparent comment.
Markets collapse, investments slow/stop, orders dry up, suddenly stocks must be valued on future hypothetical orders post-recession (same company, eventually the economy will turn and someone will buy), current PE values spike as current earnings become decoupled from stock price