Nvidia share price 3% away from record high. Will it climb to a new peak?
The company's momentum remains strong, driven by robust demand for its advanced AI chips from major cloud providers and international markets developing their own national AI infrastructures.
Nvidia shares ended the day at $144.69 on Wall Street, roughly 3% below all-time closing high.
The recent surge follows Nvidia's GTC Paris event held last week in the French capital, where CEO Jensen Huang also made an appearance at the Viva Technology conference.
According to media reports, the company is also facing the consequences of the Trump administration's ban on selling its chips to China. In its latest earnings report, Nvidia disclosed a $4.5 billion loss linked to the ban and expects to incur a further $8 billion write-down in the current quarter.
Nvidia has announced its first-quarter results, reporting revenue of $44.1 billion for the period ending April 2025 — marking a 12% increase from the previous quarter and a significant 69% surge compared to the same period last year.
Wall Street began the week on a positive note Monday, rebounding after last week's steep decline. Investor sentiment was lifted by growing optimism over a possible resolution to the recent Israel-Iran tensions.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average advanced 248 points (0.6%), the S&P 500 added 0.7%, while the Nasdaq Composite, dominated by tech stocks, outperformed with a gain of nearly 1%.
According to Anshul Jain, Head of Research at Lakshmishree Investments, a breach and sustain above 154 will trigger a fresh rally in Nividia share price.
'Nvidia share price has formed a 35-week double bottom base with a neckline placed at 153.11. The stock has rallied for 11 straight weeks, approaching the breakout point with strong momentum. However, a 4–8 week consolidation near the pivot is expected before a sustainable breakout,' Jain said.
Jain further added, ' A breach and sustain above 154 will trigger a fresh rally, initially targeting 175, with bulls eventually eyeing 190 as the final target. Watch for volume confirmation on the breakout.'
Disclaimer: This story is for educational purposes only. The views and recommendations above are those of individual analysts or broking companies, not Mint. We advise investors to check with certified experts before making any investment decisions.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
7 hours ago
- Mint
Politics beats the market in Trump's pay-for-play chip scheme
The Trump administration's recent reversal of export restrictions on certain Nvidia and AMD's AI chips to China marks a major shift in U.S. policy and has raised legal concerns. But the deeper risks are political and economic—and warrant scrutiny. His administration decided in July to re-allow Nvidia and AMD to sell their H20 and MI308 chips to China—conditional on a 15% revenue remittance to the U.S. government. Export controls on AI chips were initially implemented by the Biden administration in 2022 to curb China's access to advanced processors critical for artificial intelligence and supercomputing, citing national security concerns. But Nvidia's H20 chip was specifically designed for the Chinese market. Even though it is reportedly incapable of training large AI models, the H20 chip is effective for inference tasks—allowing AI systems to respond to queries based on pre-trained data. Chinese engineers have leveraged the H20 chips for applications using open-source models such as DeepSeek and Alibaba's Qwen, which are increasingly popular in China's AI ecosystem. Trump continued these controls—until recently. Critics, such as Rep. Don Bacon (R., Neb.) and Liza Tobin, who served as China director at the National Security Council under the first Trump and Biden administrations, have argued that the sale of these chips, even under revenue-sharing constraints, undermines the strategic intent of the original export controls. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D., Ill.) likened it to gambling with national security. The Trump administration's reversal appears motivated by revenue generation. Bernstein Research estimates that Nvidia could sell approximately 1.5 million H20 chips in China in 2025, generating $23 billion in revenue; a 15% cut would yield more than $3 billion for the U.S. government. It aligns with Trump's broader strategy of using tariffs and trade deals to bolster government income. However, this revenue-centric approach raises concerns about the erosion of principled policymaking. The arrangement resembles a 'pay-to-play" scheme, where export licenses are granted in exchange for financial contributions. Legal scholars argue that this violates the Export Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits taxes or duties on exports. Moreover, the Export Controls Reform Act of 2018—signed by Trump himself—explicitly forbids charging exporters for licenses. The deal with Nvidia and AMD may also reflect a broader diplomatic calculus. China dominates the global supply chain for rare earth materials, which are essential for military technologies like guided missiles, fighter jets, and radar systems. These materials are also used in manufacturing key components for smartphones and electric vehicles—including batteries, touch screens, and camera lenses. The U.S. is investing in domestic mining and processing of rare earth minerals, such as at the Mountain Pass mine in California, which is the only rare-earth mining and processing facility in the U.S. But it remains heavily reliant on Chinese exports. By easing chip restrictions, the Trump administration may be signaling goodwill in hopes of securing a stable supply of rare earths. This strategic compromise, however, risks emboldening China. If Beijing perceives U.S. export controls as negotiable or monetizable, it may be less inclined to make concessions in other areas of trade or security. The precedent set by this deal could weaken the credibility of future U.S. restrictions, making it harder to enforce technology bans or secure allied cooperation. And then there are the corporate interests. The role of Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang in shaping this policy shift cannot be overlooked. Huang reportedly argued that restricting Nvidia's access to the Chinese market would inadvertently benefit domestic Chinese competitors like Huawei. He emphasized that China's AI development is deeply intertwined with Nvidia's chips and software ecosystem, suggesting that continued engagement would allow the U.S. to retain some influence over China's technological trajectory. Nvidia also maintains a research center in Shanghai. While Huang's argument has merit, it reveals the tension between corporate interests and national security. Nvidia's dependence on the Chinese market and talent pool may compromise its ability to align with U.S. strategic interests. Investors may view all of this as a slippery slope, in which political considerations begin overriding free-market principles, potentially undermining confidence in U.S. financial markets. Ultimately, the reversal of export restrictions on Nvidia and AMD's AI chips to China reflects a transactional approach to national security—one that prioritizes revenue over resilience. About the author: Christopher Tang is a distinguished professor at the UCLA Anderson School of Management. Guest commentaries like this one are written by authors outside the Barron's newsroom. They reflect the perspective and opinions of the authors. Submit feedback and commentary pitches to ideas@
Mint
8 hours ago
- Mint
Transformer by Mint: The man shaping India's AI dreams, and continuing chaos at Vodafone
I've known Abhishek Singh, a senior bureaucrat, for some time now. He's been in the Indian tech ecosystem for a while, leading multiple government-backed digitisation initiatives. Now, as chief of the billion-dollar India AI Mission, he faces one of his biggest challenges in a public-service career spanning three decades. The reasons for this are varied. For one, the fact that AI presents a huge opportunity to a long-serving government official shows just how far the technology has come, and how it now affects everyone. More importantly, though, India could potentially gain or lose a lot depending on what we do with AI. Let me take you back a few decades. If you've read the venerable Chip War by Chris Miller (whom I had the pleasure to meet this January), you know that during America's push for leadership in electronic machines at the start of the world's tryst with semiconductors, India missed the bus. This allowed Japan and Taiwan to become global technology leaders despite being societies steeped in tradition. Then came the mobile revolution, and apart from emerging as a big global market, India almost missed the bus there, too. But then the Digital India and Make in India initiatives emerged, digital skills took centre stage, and India is now at a point where tech manufacturing is at least on the ascendancy. To cut a long story short, after having missed out on tectonic global shifts, India a chance to show with AI that it is not just the world's tech back-office and can lead from the front, too. Singh has a plan for this: building a voice-based foundational model that, along with India's government-supported base of thousands of Nvidia GPUs, would become India's next big export to the world after UPI. Here's why he thinks this will work. Speaking of tech's back offices… Jas Bardia, our resident correspondent for India's nearly $300-billion IT services industry, reported last week that there's a war brewing at India's mid-sized tech services firms, which truly believe they can take on the behemoths and win. India's IT services industry had began booming in the early 1990s, turning Tata Consultancy Services, Infosys, Wipro and the likes into the mammoths they are today. During the late 1990s and early 2000s, almost every household around where I grew up had at least one person working at these IT giants. The world, however, as changed considerably since then. Over the past two years companies such as Coforge and Persistent Services have emerged as serious competitors, pitching themselves as specialised firms with a deeper understanding of technology. Where does this leave TCS and its ilk? Will they lose out? Maybe not so soon, but market dynamics are undeniably changing. Also changing is the top job at Vodafone-Idea The beleaguered telecom operator began its India journey as Command Telecom, a telco operated under Kolkata's Usha Martin. In 2000, Hutchison Max acquired Command, leading to the creation of network provider Hutch in 2005. In 2007, Vodafone entered the market and created Vodafone Essar Limited, the entity's longest-standing identity so far. Despite its more than three decades of history, the Vodafone-Idea entity of today is in perilous financial health. Last week the telco appointed erstwhile chief operating officer Abhijit Kishore as CEO for three years as outgoing chief Akshay Moondra's term ended. Now, being a CEO is a dream for anyone in corporate India, but Vi faces a veritable nightmare. After all, it needs to catch up with Airtel and Jio on quality of service while paying off its eye-watering dues and needing $30 billion of capital immediately. Suddenly, Kishore's job doesn't seem like a dream. One thing's clear, though – whichever way this goes, Vodafone-Idea's story will make for a fascinating case study in India's telecom sector for years to come. Mint's telecom correspondent Jatin Grover brings you all the juicy details. Finally, satellites on the frontline Last week, Jatin and I wrote about India's potential revamp of sensitive defence networks in an exclusive report. The full story: over the past two years, the government has been exploring ways for modern satellite internet providers such as Elon Musk's Starlink and Bharti Airtel's OneWeb to offer their services to India's defence forces. The reason is clear: it's now imperative to have secure and blazing-fast internet connectivity even in remote bounary regions. India needs drones, consistent satellite feeds, and a host of other technologies to stay ahead of its enemies. Older satellite connections—which serve only as a backup—aren't up to the task. In other news: the battle for Chrome, and an iPhone 'Air' Last week, Perplexity CEO Aravind Srinivas put in a bid for Google Chrome, saying his company was willing to spend $34.5 billion to buy the world's leading browser. However, he doesn't have that kind of money. You see, Perplexity is only worth about $18 billion. Chrome, on the other hand, is valued more than $50 billion. Then, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman added fuel to the fire, asking, 'Is Google really selling Chrome? If they are, we'd be interested. Why not?" Welcome to Silicon Valley's newest battleground, one that we'll be tracking. We've already reported about Google and OpenAI's silent fight, and how it forced Sergey Brin, a Valley legend, back to the engineering table. Finally, its that time of the year when we expect to see new Google Pixels and Apple iPhones. This year, rumours are that Apple will launch an 'iPhone Air' as part of its range this year. If you've followed Apple, you'd know the 'Air' branding refers to ultra-thin and light devices. The first MacBook Air, in fact, remains one of the most legendary consumer devices to date. Will the iPhone Air live up to this? Here's what we've gathered so far. Transformer by Mint is a weekly newsletter that brings India's most important and interesting technology updates under one umbrella. As the world transforms with every day of innovation, Transformer will keep a tab on the impact that technologies will make in each of our lives. Published every week, the newsletter brings some of India's tech landscape's most insightful coverages until date.
Time of India
11 hours ago
- Time of India
US Senators, including Chuck Schumer, slam Donald Trump over 15% cut on Nvidia, AMD AI chip sales to China in an open letter; say: Our national security and military readiness relies upon ...'
Donald Trump Six Senate Democrats have sent an open letter to President Donald Trump , asking him to reconsider his decision to permit tech giants Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) to sell advanced AI semiconductor chips to China. The group of senators include Chuck Schumer , Mark Warner , Elizabeth Warren, Jack Reed , Jeanne Shaheen and Christopher Coons. They warned that the sale of specific chips—Nvidia's H20 and AMD 's MI308—could potentially bolster China's military capabilities. The senators' letter was a response to a recent announcement by Trump, which granted export licenses to the companies in exchange for a 15% share of the revenue from these sales. Here's Senators' full letter to Donald Trump on Nvidia, AMD chip sales to China Dear President Trump: by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Book Nikoo Homes from ₹1.2 Cr* Onwards Nikoo Homes Sadahalli Learn More Undo We write to urge you to reverse your decision to allow AMD and Nvidia to sell advanced AI semiconductor chips ('covered chips') to the People's Republic of China ('PRC'), in exchange for a fee. These sales to a leading adversary run counter to U.S. national security interests, and the collection of fees appear to violate U.S. statutes and may even be unconstitutional. Our export controls exist to ensure that American goods and technologies are protected from our adversaries. To ensure such protection, export laws explicitly state that, '[n]o fee may be charged in connection with the submission, processing, or consideration of any application for a license or other authorization or other request.' Yet on August 11, 2025, you stated that: 'I want 20 percent if I'm going to approve [these licenses] for [Nvidia (and AMD)] and '[Nvidia] said, 'Would you make it 15?' So we negotiate a little deal'. This 'negotiated deal,' allowing American semiconductor manufacturers to pay a 15 percent fee for the ability to sell critically sensitive technology to our adversary, blatantly violates the purpose of export control laws. Additionally, your spokesperson has indicated that your administration may be considering this form of 'deal making' for other exports. A cornerstone of U.S artificial intelligence strategy for years has been to protect America's advantage in AI computing capability and access to leading-edge hardware, compared to the PRC and other key adversaries. AI represents a crucial enabling technology that is critical to the future of everything from finance to healthcare, manufacturing, and national security. The PRC seeks to use AI to strengthen its military systems like hypersonics, as well as its communications, surveillance, battlefield decisionmaking processes. In April, your administration placed export controls on the flow of Nvidia's H20 and AMD's MI308 chips to the PRC, identifying the national security risk of the PRC's military having access to these advanced AI chips. However, only months later, following industry lobbying, you have flippantly reversed that decision with no coherent explanation for how the national security risks you had in April have been mitigated in August. Our national security and military readiness relies upon American innovators inventing and producing the best technology in the world, and in maintaining that qualitative advantage in sensitive domains. The United States has historically been successful in maintaining and building that advantage because of, in part, our ability to deny adversaries access to those technologies. The willingness displayed in this arrangement to 'negotiate' away America's competitive edge that is key to our national security in exchange for what is, in effect, a commission on a sale of AI-enabling technology to our main global competitor, is cause for serious alarm. We again urge your Administration to quickly reverse course and abandon this reckless plan to trade away U.S. technology leadership. In order to assist the public in its understanding of this proposed deal, we request the following information by August 22: 1. What entities or parties were involved in the 'negotiation' that resulted in the 15 percent payment requirement as a condition for granting a license to sell covered chips to the PRC? 2. What laws, regulations, or other factors were identified, raised, evaluated, and/or otherwise determined to be relevant in those negotiations, including any legal opinions provided by Administration attorneys used to inform the legality of various approached proposed during those deliberations? 3. Who was responsible for determining that this arrangement complies with United States laws, regulations, and international obligations? 4. Describe the manner in which the 15 percent fee will be determined and collected. 5. What individual(s) or entities are responsible for making the determination and collection identified in item 4? 6. List all purposes to which the 15 percent fee payments will be directed once collected. 7. What other companies are under consideration for this kind of deal utilizing export control laws? Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. What Nvidia has to say on its AI chips' alleged China military use An Nvidia spokesperson said that the company's H20 chips do not enhance anyone's military capabilities. 'The H20 would not enhance anyone's military capabilities, but would have helped America attract the support of developers worldwide and win the AI race. Banning the H20 cost American taxpayers billions of dollars, without any benefit,' a Nvidia spokesperson told CNBC. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold7 Review: Changing The Game AI Masterclass for Students. Upskill Young Ones Today!– Join Now
