Semiconductor ETFs Rise on News of Intel CEO Hire
FTXL, the First Trust Nasdaq Semiconductor ETF rose more than 2% initially, even as broad-market ETFs slipped. The fund allocates nearly 9% of its holdings to Intel—the most of any ETF. Intel is the third-biggest holding in the fund.
Wall Street is cheering the move as a sign that the company is ready to make a turnaround and revitalize the business, which has slumped in comparison to its competitors and the broad market.
Other ETFs benefited from Intel's rise Thursday.
TINY, the ProShares Nanotechnology ETF rose by more than 2% in morning trading, while CHPS, the Xtrackers Semiconductor Select Equity ETF, lost 2%. Intel is a top-10 holding in both funds.
SOXX, the iShares Semiconductor ETF and SMH, the VanEck Semiconductor ETF were flat in comparison. Both funds hold less than 4% of Intel.
Semiconductors have struggled this year as investors have questioned if aggressive growth from companies like Nvidia Corp. (NVDA) could be maintained.
After leading the market for most of last year, semiconductor performance faltered in November as supply and growth concerns weighed down the sector. SMH, the largest semiconductor ETF has slipped by nearly 9% so far this year, compared to just under a 5% decline in SPY, the SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust.
But chipmakers like Nvidia have said they expect robust growth as demand for AI and cloud computing remains high. The company gave strong guidance on revenue forecasts for the first quarter during its fourth-quarter earnings report.
Last week, President Trump announced a $100 billion investment from Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing (TSM) in American chip manufacturing to build five new factories in the U.S. The president has called advancing American semiconductor manufacturing a matter of "national security."Permalink | © Copyright 2025 etf.com. All rights reserved
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
25 minutes ago
- The Hill
China may have more engineers, but it still lacks a culture of innovation
China announced last month a $100 billion push into artificial intelligence, intensifying what is already a fierce race for global tech dominance. Policymakers in Washington are watching with concern, and rightly so. China graduates more than 1.38 million engineers each year, about seven times more than does the U.S. The numbers sound alarming and suggest we're falling behind. But that's not the full story. While engineering degrees are critical, they don't guarantee technological leadership. What really drives innovation is not how many people you train, but how you train them. And here, China faces a deeper, cultural problem that raw output can't solve. The Chinese education system is highly structured and built for scale. But it's also rigid, top-down and deeply rooted in deference to authority. In most classrooms, memorization takes precedence over questioning and the teacher's word is rarely challenged. Correcting a professor's mistake could cause them to 'lose face,' a cultural breach that most students won't risk. This environment produces excellent test-takers but not risk-takers. It produces technical workers who are strong on facts but weak on critical thinking. They can follow a formula, but they struggle to break new ground. This is a key reason China, despite its massive engineering workforce, has yet to deliver the kind of world-changing breakthroughs we've seen from the U.S., from the microprocessor to the iPhone to mRNA vaccines. These innovations didn't come from rote learning. They came from interdisciplinary research, unorthodox thinking and cultures that reward questioning everything. Even when it comes to research output, China's surge in published papers masks a more complex reality. While China now leads the world in scientific publishing volume, scholars like Ming Xia have pointed out that much of this work lacks the originality, rigor and theoretical depth typical of Western scholarship. Plagiarism and fabrication remain persistent problems, even at top institutions. At Tsinghua University, one professor felt compelled to reassure students that if they wrote something publishable, he wouldn't steal it and submit it under his own name. The root issue is systemic. Many Chinese academics were trained in the same system they now uphold, one that prizes metrics and obedience over ideas and inquiry. As a result, scholarship often becomes descriptive, not theoretical. It explains what exists but rarely asks why it matters or how to build something new from it. Contrast that with American higher education. Our universities aren't perfect — they can be chaotic, expensive and uneven, but they're designed to cultivate thinkers, not just technicians. Students are encouraged to disagree with their professors, to explore across disciplines and to challenge the conventional wisdom. The freedom to question isn't a side effect of our system. It's the whole point. Yes, China has closed gaps in recent years by acquiring Western technology through joint ventures, forced transfers and even cyber espionage. But copying isn't creating. Without a culture that fosters original thought, China may scale existing tech but it won't lead the next wave of innovation. That doesn't mean the U.S. can relax. We need to double down on what works, investing in universities, supporting fundamental research and attracting the best minds from around the world. At the same time, we must protect critical technologies and intellectual property from exploitation. Still, we should remember what gives America an edge: a culture that values curiosity, dissent and the freedom to think differently. That's the foundation of every breakthrough we've ever made. In the long run, engineering dominance isn't just about how many degrees a country prints. It's about whether those engineers are trained to challenge the status quo and imagine something better. If the U.S. keeps leaning into its strengths of diversity, openness and academic freedom, we won't just keep pace with China. We will continue to lead.
Axios
25 minutes ago
- Axios
Trump appointments could bring on a breakdown of economic trust
No longer are America's most important economic institutions politically untouchable. Why it matters: Econ wonks — those far more comfortable with large datasets than the inner dealings of Washington — won't just question the significance of indicators or policy decisions. Now they will wonder whether they can trust if data, or monetary policy conclusions, reflect reality or political motivations. Driving the news: President Trump said Monday night he would nominate Heritage Foundation economist E.J. Antoni to lead the Bureau of Labor Statistics. "Our Economy is booming, and E.J. will ensure that the Numbers released are HONEST and ACCURATE," Trump said in a Truth Social post. Details: Antoni, a frequent BLS critic, got his Ph.D. in 2020 from Northern Illinois University and is chief economist at the Heritage Foundation's Hermann Center for the Federal Budget. Former White House adviser Steve Bannon had been pushing Antoni as a preferred MAGA candidate for the role. Antoni is the second former Heritage economist picked by Trump to lead BLS, after William Beach in 2017. (Beach has recently blasted Trump's firing of BLS commissioner Erika McEntarfer.) What to watch: There is no evidence to suggest the BLS is fudging the data to make Trump appear more or less favorable. But the pick raised questions among economists on the right and the left about what qualified Antoni to lead the agency — beyond his support of Trump. It is also unclear what types of sweeping changes Antoni might implement in the near term, a possibility that could leave Wall Street in the dark for a longer stretch than usual. Antoni told "Fox Business" on Monday that the BLS "should suspend issuing the monthly job reports but keep publishing the more accurate, though less timely, quarterly data." What they're saying: Antoni's "work at Heritage has frequently included elementary errors or nonsensical choices that all bias his findings in the same partisan direction," Stan Veuger, a senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, wrote in an email to Axios. Veuger, who also cited Antoni's lack of relevant research or management experience, pointed to a paper from last year co-authored by Antoni. It claimed the American economy was in recession since 2022 — which was rebutted thoroughly in a subsequent National Bureau of Economic Research paper. The big picture: Trump's BLS pick comes days after the White House said Stephen Miran would be appointed to the Federal Reserve board to serve out a term that expires in January. Like Antoni, Miran — who is currently the chair of the Council of Economic Advisers — will soon be a top official at an institution he has previously criticized. If confirmed, Miran will likely join other Fed governors in calling for rate cuts, as Trump repeated Tuesday morning he wants. The other side: In nominating both Miran and Antoni, Trump has suggested the picks will correct perceived faults at the respective agencies. Trump said the July jobs report was "RIGGED in order to make the Republicans, and ME look bad," though he did not offer evidence to support that claim. The intrigue: The BLS is dealing with plummeting survey response rates and funding cuts that have plagued data collection — key issues Antoni, if confirmed, will face.
Epoch Times
27 minutes ago
- Epoch Times
Tariff Costs Borne by Consumers Could Triple by Year-End: Goldman Sachs
American consumers have absorbed roughly 22 percent of the costs from President Donald Trump's tariffs through June, but that is expected to swell to 67 percent by year‑end if the pattern of past levies holds, Goldman Sachs economists said in a note this week. Businesses have so far carried around 64 percent of the costs, and foreign exporters about 14 percent, according to the analysis led by Jan Hatzius.
