You may have sold Nvidia for the wrong reason. 3 reasons to consider buying this AI stock
You may have sold Nvidia for the wrong reason. 3 reasons to consider buying this AI stock
Show Caption
Hide Caption
Trump, China, and the AI Summit: A global power struggle
The AI Summit in Paris has drawn world leaders, tech executives, and researchers to shape the future of artificial intelligence. While many seek global cooperation, the event highlights deep geopolitical divides, particularly between the US and China.
unbranded - Newsworthy
Nvidia's stock price has declined in early 2025 due to concerns about competition and US government restrictions.
The emergence of a Chinese AI model claiming to be cheaper to train raised concerns about demand for Nvidia's chips.
However, analysis suggests the Chinese model's costs may be higher than initially claimed, and Nvidia's stock remains a good long-term investment opportunity.
Increased demand for AI applications and continued investment in AI infrastructure by major companies suggest a positive outlook for Nvidia.
Nvidia (NASDAQ: NVDA) has had a forgettable start to 2025 as shares of the semiconductor giant are down more than 3% as of this writing, and multiple factors out of the company's control have played a part in its decline.
For instance, the previous Biden administration proposed wide-ranging restrictions on sales of Nvidia's chips to foreign customers, but the impact of those restrictions was mitigated to some extent by the recent announcement of the Stargate project that could see $500 billion being poured into artificial intelligence (AI) infrastructure in the U.S. This development gave Nvidia stock a shot in the arm, but the chip designer would witness another sell-off very soon.
Nvidia stock fell thanks to DeepSeek, but investors may have jumped the gun
Chinese AI start-up DeepSeek released its R1 reasoning model and claimed that it was trained for a paltry $5.6 million. DeepSeek's model was good enough to compete with the o1 reasoning model from OpenAI, a company that has been spending billions to build its AI infrastructure using chips from Nvidia. So, the low-cost nature and efficiency of the Chinese company's model sent Nvidia stock packing.
Investors were worried about a potential drop in demand for its graphics cards that are being used for AI training and inference by major cloud computing companies and governments. The semiconductor giant shed almost $600 billion of its market cap in a single day on Jan. 27 following DeepSeek's purported breakthrough. However, a report from semiconductor industry analysis company SemiAnalysis (via Tom's Hardware) suggests that DeepSeek may not have revealed the actual cost of training its AI model.
What is DeepSeek? How a small Chinese startup shook up the AI sector
SemiAnalysis points out that DeepSeek reportedly incurred $1.6 billion in hardware expenses. It also adds that the Chinese start-up has access to 50,000 of Nvidia's previous-generation Hopper graphics processing units (GPUs), including 10,000 units of the flagship H100 processor. SemiAnalysis further points out that the $6 million figure highlighted by DeepSeek only refers to the potential money spent on training the model.
It doesn't consider other costs associated with research, data processing, fine-tuning the model, and infrastructure expenses. Given that DeepSeek has reportedly spent over $500 million on AI funding since its inception in 2023 and has its own data centers, there is a good chance that the cost of training the R1 model that sent Nvidia stock plunging was actually higher than what's being touted by the Chinese company.
If that's indeed the case, then investors may have hit the panic button for the wrong reason. However, the good part is that Nvidia's poor start to the year means that investors have a window to buy this fast-growing company on the dip. Here are three reasons doing that could turn out to be a smart move.
Three reasons to buy Nvidia right now
The first reason to buy Nvidia is its valuation. The stock's expensive valuation following its tremendous rally over the past couple of years has been a cause for concern for investors and analysts. However, it is now trading at quite attractive levels. Though Nvidia's trailing price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio of 51 is higher than the tech-laden Nasdaq-100 index's 33.4, the forward earnings multiple of 30 is lower than that.
The second reason why investors should consider buying Nvidia is related to DeepSeek. Assuming that DeepSeek's claims are indeed true and it has managed to develop a low-cost model, it could lead to an increase in the demand for AI applications.
British economist William Stanley Jevons observed in 1865 that the increased efficiency in coal consumption wouldn't reduce the demand for coal. It would instead spur the usage of coal in more industries. This concept, known as the Jevons Paradox, can be seen in many other applications. For instance, the increasing fuel efficiency of vehicles has reportedly led to an increase in distance traveled while the arrival of low-cost LED bulbs hasn't necessarily brought down electricity bills as people have tended to install more lights because of reduced costs.
So, efficient AI models could lead to an increase in their demand, and that's why the need for Nvidia's chips is likely to remain solid. As such, DeepSeek's purported breakthrough isn't necessarily a bad thing for Nvidia.
The final reason to buy Nvidia stock following its recent pullback is that cloud computing giants are set to keep spending more money on AI infrastructure. President Donald Trump's $500 billion AI infrastructure push that's being driven by the likes of Oracle, OpenAI, SoftBank, and Abu Dhabi-based AI investment vehicle MGX to build AI data centers will require more chips. Meanwhile, recent announcements from the CEOs of Meta Platforms and Microsoft supporting higher spending on AI also point toward healthy AI chip demand.
Finally, a spike in bookings for the advanced machines sold by Dutch semiconductor equipment giant ASML provides further evidence that the appetite for advanced chips to support AI workloads isn't going away. So, it won't be surprising to see Nvidia's fortunes turn around, which is why investors should consider using the recent pullback in this AI stock given the healthy growth that it is capable of delivering in the long run.
Randi Zuckerberg, a former director of market development and spokeswoman for Facebook and sister to Meta Platforms CEO Mark Zuckerberg, is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. Harsh Chauhan has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends ASML, Meta Platforms, Microsoft, Nvidia, and Oracle. The Motley Fool recommends the following options: long January 2026 $395 calls on Microsoft and short January 2026 $405 calls on Microsoft. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
The Motley Fool is a USA TODAY content partner offering financial news, analysis and commentary designed to help people take control of their financial lives. Its content is produced independently of USA TODAY.
Should you invest $1,000 in Nvidia right now?
Offer from the Motley Fool: Before you buy stock in Nvidia, consider this:
The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Nvidia wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.
Consider when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $829,128!*
Stock Advisor provides investors with an easy-to-follow blueprint for success, including guidance on building a portfolio, regular updates from analysts, and two new stock picks each month. TheStock Advisorservice has more than quadrupled the return of S&P 500 since 2002*.
Learn more »
*Stock Advisor returns as of February 7, 2025
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Elon Musk's feud with Donald Trump is hugely damaging to Tesla but don't expect any action from the board
How should a corporate board respond to a CEO publicly insulting and shaming a sitting president? It's not a question that most need to consider, since few chief executives dare to directly criticize the White House. When CEOs do speak out against a federal directive, their messages are usually delivered behind closed doors, or in a collective open letter. But this week, Elon Musk changed all that and forced the issue in a prolonged public spat with Donald Trump. The pair had a much-anticipated falling out over Trump's budget, also referred to as the 'big beautiful bill,' on Thursday, which quickly got personal. Musk asked his social media followers if it was time to create a new political party, said that Trump's tariffs would cause a recession, and even claimed that Trump's name was in government documents about Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted sexual offender. 'That is the real reason they have not been made public,' Musk wrote. The feud has already been costly for Musk and his many businesses, including Tesla. The automaker's shares took a tumble as the back-and-forth took over the news cycle, dropping 14% in on Thursday, and costing shareholders $150 billion. Now analysts warn that feuding with Trump could cost Tesla billions, considering that Trump could repeal electric vehicle tax credits and other measures that have boosted Tesla's earnings. The company could also face increasing regulatory obstacles around its autonomous driving vehicles, the technology that is meant to drive Tesla's future and has been cited by stock watchers as a reason for the stock's sustained eye-popping performance. Tesla bull and Wedbush analyst Dan Ives seemed to speak for investors early on Friday when he wrote in a research note: 'This needs to calm down.' At a regular company, there's a solid chance that the events of the last few days would spur a board to dismiss a CEO. But will the Tesla board fire Musk to protect public shareholders from potential damages? 'They should,' Charles Elson, founding director of the Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware, told Fortune. 'But they won't.' The Trump-Musk spat is just the latest in a series of events that have forced the question of what role Tesla's board actually plays in the company. 'Over the years, Musk's behavior has become more outrageous,' says Elson. 'The board's lack of response makes you wonder, 'Who are these people? Why are they there?'' It has long faced criticisms for being too close to Musk, and therefore willing to overlook numerous management issues. For instance, it famously approved Musk's much-disputed 2018 pay package for $56 billion, and has silently witnessed a year of high-profile divisive behavior from the chief executive that has led to public protests and customers distancing themselves from the company. And recent allegations about Musk's drug use echo reports that have surfaced in the past without putting Musk's role at risk. There are a few contributing factors as to why that is. Musk is a controlling shareholder in Tesla, where he holds 22% of the voting power, making it extra challenging for board members to have the votes needed to force him out. The board is also in a tough position in that firing Musk could tank the stock, considering that his name is so closely associated with the company. Many directors also have particularly close ties to Musk. That includes his brother Kimbal Musk, an entrepreneur and restaurant owner, and Joe Gebbia, a cofounder of Airbnb and a friend of Musk's. There are no car industry or green energy CEOs in the group, as one might expect at a typical EV company. The directors are also paid very well. This year, a Delaware court ordered the board to give back more than $900 billion in pay after finding it had paid itself too handsomely. Robyn Denholm, Tesla board chair since 2018, earned $600 million, far more than people with the same position at other companies. The court found 'the compensation was so significant, it made it really almost impossible for them to be independent directors,' says Elson. 'It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it,' says Nell Minow, a corporate governance expert, quoting Upton Sinclair. 'That's this board.' To be sure, this year, there were signs earlier this year that Tesla's directors were taking more control over the company's governance. Last month, the Wall Street Journal reported last month that the board had begun looking for a successor and selected a search firm to assist them. It also reported that the board had met with Trump weeks before he announced he would be spending less time at the White House. It seemed that between the backlash against Tesla provoked by Musk's focus on Washington, and Tesla's shrinking share price, finally pushed the board to act. But the board denied the report outright, with Denholm calling it 'absolutely false.' Even considering his own predilection for conflict, Elon Musk's latest squabble is in a category of its own. But board experts agree that to expect action from the Tesla board is misguided. 'There have been so many 'Now the board has to do something moments,' and they have failed every time,' says Minow. 'I no longer feel that there is such a thing as 'Now they have to do something.'' There are technically ways that shareholders could move the needle if they wanted Musk out. They could vote directors off the board via shareholder proxy votes, and hope that new directors would fire Musk. Or they could try to sue the board for not kicking Musk to the curb when he put the brand at risk and split his focus between Washington and Tesla. But a shareholder who wanted to do that would need to own up to a 3% stake in the company, points out Ann Lipton, associate dean for faculty research at Tulane University's Law School, and governance laws make it all but impossible to do. 'No shareholder is going to be able to show that this board is acting in bad faith by failing to replace Musk as CEO, which is really the level that they'd have to show,' she said. It's still theoretically possible that a Tesla board director could try to bring about change by suggesting Musk go. But they would have to make peace with potentially losing their roles, says Elson. 'They would say, 'Look, I will vote to move him along. And if I lose, I leave. I can't do this anymore,'' says Elson. Whether they'll do that depends on whether they're people of principle, he added, or 'people of convenience.''We'll have to see,' he said. This story was originally featured on Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
Newsweek
42 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Trump Canceling Musk's SpaceX Contracts Could Force US Closer to Russia
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. As President Donald Trump threatens to cancel SpaceX's government contracts amid a feud with Elon Musk, experts told Newsweek that the move could leave the U.S. reliant on Russia for space launches and access. "SpaceX is immensely important to U.S. national security and NASA," Clayton Swope, deputy director of the Center for Strategic and International Studies Aerospace Security Project, told Newsweek on Friday, adding that if the contracts are terminated, "NASA would again have to turn to Russia to get to and from the [International] Space Station [ISS]." Why It Matters NASA and SpaceX have built one of the most significant public-private partnerships in modern space exploration. Since 2015, SpaceX has received more than $13 billion in NASA contracts, making it one of the agency's largest private partners. SpaceX is deeply integrated into U.S. national security and the space program, with Swope telling Newsweek: "SpaceX is not like the appendix but a vital organ in everything the United States is doing in space." Musk, the SpaceX CEO and former Trump ally heading the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), clashed publicly with the president on Thursday in a heated exchange on social media. The dispute began over Musk's criticism of a Trump-backed spending bill and escalated into threats over federal contracts and allegations involving Trump's ties to child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty/Canva What To Know On Thursday, the president threatened termination of Musk's various contracts, writing in a Truth Social post: "The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts." SpaceX holds billions of dollars in NASA contracts and plays a key role in the U.S. space program. While several experts told Newsweek they don't believe the contracts will be canceled, they raised concerns about the company's outsized influence on the industry and the critical gaps it could leave. Access To The ISS "SpaceX is immensely important to U.S. national security and NASA. SpaceX is not like the appendix, but a vital organ in everything the United States is doing in space," Swope said Friday in an emailed statement. "Ending work with SpaceX would leave a huge gap that cannot be filled with the other options available today. The biggest impacts would be to space launch and maintaining the International Space Stations. NASA would again have to turn to Russia to get to and from the space station." In 2014, SpaceX was selected to provide crew launch services to the ISS through the development of Crew Dragon, a capsule that transports astronauts to and from the ISS, and its operational missions. NASA has no other way to independently get to and from the ISS without SpaceX. As a result of this and other measures, Scott Hubbard, former director of NASA's Ames Research Center, the first Mars program director and the founder of NASA's Astrobiology Institute, told Newsweek that he doesn't believe Trump's threats will be realized, saying: "There is no alternative to the F9-Dragon combination at present. "He would be stranding astronauts on the ISS unless he wants to go hat in hand to the Russians and try to get more Soyuz flight," in reference to the spacecraft that provides crewed transport to the ISS. Russia, formerly part of the Soviet Union, and the U.S. have long been in a space race. Russia is actively developing its own space station, known as the Russian Orbital Service Station (ROSS), to succeed the ISS, which is set to retire in 2030. Construction on the proposed project is set to begin in 2027. Laura Forczyk, founder of space consulting firm Astralytical, told Newsweek that while it's possible the U.S. may negotiate a contract with Russia to launch astronauts to the ISS, "the current geopolitical climate would make that difficult." Tensions between Washington and Moscow remain high as ceasefire talks for the Russia-Ukraine war have stalled, with the last round of negotiations lasting just 90 minutes with little progress. Adding to the tension, Dmitry Novikov, first deputy chairman of Russia's State Duma Committee on International Affairs, told the state-run outlet TASS on Friday that while he doesn't believe Musk will need political asylum, "if he did, Russia, of course, could provide it." Stateside, space experts largely agree that Musk essentially has a "monopoly" on the industry, responsible for key people movement and launching "more than 90 percent of the U.S. satellites into space," Darrell West, a senior fellow in the Center for Technology Innovation in the governance studies program at the Brookings Institution in Washington, told Newsweek. While companies like Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin and Boeing are also involved in spaceflight, they don't operate at the same capacity as SpaceX or hold the same number and type of government contracts. Michelle Hanlon, executive director of the University of Mississippi's Center for Air and Space Law, told Newsweek in an email: "Certainly, there are other launch service providers but SpaceX remains dominant and the time it would take to replace all services would delay many important missions and strategic plans, including the proposed Golden Dome." She added that "U.S. reliance on SpaceX is not borne of favoritism but of necessity and efficiency." Aspects Of The Space Program Space research and exploration go beyond science. They are central to U.S. national security. The Department of Defense holds multiple contracts to launch satellites used for GPS, intelligence gathering and military coordination. During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union fiercely competed for dominance in space, viewing it as a critical domain of defense. "Space is important as an end in itself in terms of exploring and gaining new knowledge. But it also is taking on a defense role, because space is getting militarized. There are both offensive and defensive weapons that could be put into space," West said. "There's a lot riding on this relationship. People are worried if there is a major war, adversaries could shoot down our satellites and destroy our GPS systems and mobile communications." Beyond high-profile rocket launches and missions to the ISS, the U.S. space program encompasses a wide range of activities, including deploying space-based science observatories, launching lunar landers and preparing crewed and uncrewed missions to the moon and other planets, among other initiatives. What Happens Next When Newsweek reached out to the White House for comment on Friday, it was referred to NASA Press Secretary Bethany Stevens' statement, which was emailed to Newsweek. "NASA will continue to execute upon the President's vision for the future of space," Stevens said. "We will continue to work with our industry partners to ensure the President's objectives in space are met." Given the volatile nature of their feud, it remains unclear whether Trump will attempt to cancel existing contracts or limit future deals, or whether Musk could pull SpaceX out of its government commitments altogether.
Business Upturn
44 minutes ago
- Business Upturn
The Week That Was, June 1 to June 7, 2025: RBI cuts repo rate by 50 bps, BEL secures Rs 2,323 crore order, Musk-Trump feud escalates, Coal India signs MoU for rail infra
In a week marked by major policy announcements, strategic deals, and sectoral movements, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) took centre stage by delivering a surprise 50 basis points rate cut on June 6, bringing the repo rate down to 5.50%. This marked the third straight reduction in 2025, totaling a 100 bps cut to support growth amid global uncertainty. RBI Governor Sanjay Malhotra signaled continued comfort with inflation, lowering the CPI forecast for FY26 to 3.7% from 4% and retaining GDP growth expectations at 6.5% for the year. In a liquidity-boosting move, the central bank also slashed the Cash Reserve Ratio (CRR) by 100 bps to 3%, to be implemented in four tranches between September and November, unlocking ₹2.5 lakh crore into the banking system. Further, the RBI raised the loan-to-value (LTV) cap for small gold loans up to ₹2.5 lakh from 75% to 85%, a move that significantly benefited gold financing stocks. Among corporate highlights, the RBI gave a clean regulatory signal to IndusInd Bank, affirming its accounting standards, which pushed its shares up by over 5%. Infrastructure firm Ashoka Buildcon, however, faced a setback as its ₹1,673 crore project under CIDCO's NAINA initiative encountered execution hurdles. In the energy and defense sectors, Coal India signed a key MoU with Indian Port Rail & Ropeway Corporation to develop rail infrastructure, while GRSE expanded its global presence by signing MoUs in Sweden and Denmark for cruise vessel and marine propulsion collaboration. Similarly, Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) secured orders worth ₹2,323 crore from MDL and GRSE, strengthening its defense manufacturing portfolio. JSW Energy exited Beempow Energy for ₹302.66 crore, completing a strategic realignment, and RailTel bagged a ₹274 crore ITMS project in Maharashtra's Vidarbha Circle, aimed at enhancing road safety across blackspots and accident-prone zones. Meanwhile, KEC International won ₹2,211 crore worth of new orders across international T&D, pipelines, and cable supply businesses, reinforcing its infrastructure footprint in the Middle East and Africa. In the equity markets, Gravita India surged 4% on expectations of a government-backed critical mineral recycling scheme. Tata Investment gained 8% on reports of Tata Capital's impending IPO, while shares of ICICI Lombard and Go Digit also moved higher as the government weighed a 25% hike in third-party motor insurance premiums. Lastly, global cues remained mixed. While Asian markets were relatively steady, U.S. indices such as Nasdaq and S&P 500 dipped amid fresh tariff tensions and a high-profile online spat between Elon Musk and Donald Trump—an episode that dented Tesla's valuation and contributed to market volatility. Overall, the week was dominated by aggressive monetary easing, strong defense-industry momentum, and corporate actions that may shape the economic narrative for the weeks ahead. Aditya Bhagchandani serves as the Senior Editor and Writer at Business Upturn, where he leads coverage across the Business, Finance, Corporate, and Stock Market segments. With a keen eye for detail and a commitment to journalistic integrity, he not only contributes insightful articles but also oversees editorial direction for the reporting team.
