Will Trump's Chip Tariffs Do What He Thinks They Will? - Tech News Briefing
Full Transcript
This transcript was prepared by a transcription service. This version may not be in its final form and may be updated.
Peter Champelli: Welcome to Tech News Briefing. It's Tuesday, August 12th. I'm Peter Champelli for the Wall Street Journal. Like pretty much every company, Disney is trying to figure out how it can use generative AI, but it's facing pushback both from in and outside the company. We'll hear more about what Disney's been up to, including an attempt to make an AI double of Dwayne The Rock Johnson. Then, Trump is threatening huge tariffs to try and incentivize companies to make chips in the US and to get other companies to buy US-made chips. But our Heard on the Street writer thinks the result of those tariffs could be much different and potentially have the opposite effect. But first, in its efforts to navigate artificial intelligence, Disney is in a bind. It's been dancing with ways to incorporate generative AI, including an interactive Darth Vader chatbot that players could talk to in Fortnite. But some in the company worry about pushback from fans and potential legal complications. The Wall Street Journal's Belle Lin spoke with deputy media editor Jessica Toonkel about it.
Belle Lin: Jessica, there's a great anecdote in your story about the star Dwayne Johnson and Disney's scrapped plan to use a deepfake of his face for the live-action version of the hit movie Moana. What exactly does this anecdote illustrate about the challenges that face Disney in Hollywood when it comes to AI?
Jessica Toonkel: We love this story because you have The Rock who gave his permission actually for this to be done. The idea was Dwayne Johnson would not have to be at every shot. He wouldn't have to be there on set all the time. His cousin, who has his six-foot-three, 250-pound stature was going to be his fake double, basically, they were going to use his body and put Dwayne Johnson's face on it, had also given his permission. So they had all the permissions and everything and the technology to do this deepfake. Yet they could not get comfortable with all the questions around what could it mean if we use this tool?
Belle Lin: Why is it so complex for Disney to be more bold in how it uses AI for its creative endeavors?
Jessica Toonkel: This is such a fraught subject in Hollywood. It was not that long ago that actors and writers were on strike saying, "You cannot replace us with AI," and the actor's contract is coming up again. So you have the fear of upsetting talent. You have the fear of fans saying, "Hey, this isn't real." And there's the fear of who owns the copyright and who owns these characters that are created by AI. If we work with an AI company to do something, will we still own every piece of that? And Disney can't afford to let go of any of that. We spoke to the general counsel at Disney who was very clear like, we want to make sure Disney owns Darth Vader.
Belle Lin: What are some early steps that Disney has taken in using AI inside its shows, movies or games?
Jessica Toonkel: So we've seen bits and pieces. Disney has a joint venture with Epic Games, the owner of Fortnite, and they created an AI-generated Darth Vader in the game. And within minutes, the gamers figured out a way to get the generated AI Darth Vader to curse at them. They had to fix that. And they did fix it within 30 minutes, and they did feel like even with that happening, it was a success. Just the fact that Disney did that is a huge step from where they were even five years ago.
Belle Lin: How would you describe the dynamic inside Disney when it comes to using AI, albeit it's certainly very complicated?
Jessica Toonkel: Disney, they understand that this is something they need to do and they want to do it the right way. So they have their team, they've created an AI group, they've done all those things. It's just that this is a company that has been historically probably the most protective of its characters in IP than any company.
Belle Lin: Where do you think that this all ends up? Where do you think that Disney comes to a conclusion on what the use of AI is amongst its creative endeavors?
Jessica Toonkel: I don't think Disney has to be a first mover on being the first one to use some AI tool for a specific purpose. They're going to continue to be cautious, but they're going to continue to experiment with things because they realize that they have to at least know what the game is. And next year, Disney is going to be naming its new CEO, and it will be really interesting to see who they pick if that person has been involved in these discussions because it will tell us how Disney is thinking about how important AI is for its future.
Peter Champelli: That was Wall Street Journal deputy media editor Jessica Toonkel. Coming up, we'll dive deep into Trump's proposed tariffs on chips from overseas and why the exemptions would probably spare the biggest players. That's after the break. Trump has proposed a nearly 100% tariff on chips and semiconductors being imported from overseas, but he's allowing an exemption. Companies that build or plan to build in the US won't have to pay. It's an attempt to incentivize US companies to buy chips from US makers and to get the companies that are making the chips to build factories in the US. But our Heard on the Street writer Asa Fitch says that these tariffs won't result in more US chip production. Asa, in your reporting, you mentioned that advanced chip making is a game only few can play. What are the companies most threatened by these tariffs and what would the immediate effects be?
Asa Fitch: So the largest chip makers in the world are effectively Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company or TSMC and Samsung Electronics and Intel, the US-based chip maker. Those companies will be affected in different ways by these tariffs if they go into place. Now, Trump wants to put in place, he said, a 100% tariff on imports of semiconductors. It's a very complex supply chain. Things move around all over the place all the time. So it's hard to come to a very certain answer about what that impact will be. One thing it doesn't seem like these tariffs will do though is seriously incentivize chip production in the US, advanced chip production in the US, at least, in the way that Trump talked about them last week.
Peter Champelli: So why isn't that the case? And could there be any unintentional consequences of the tariffs?
Asa Fitch: The main reason why that's the case is that when Trump laid out this 100% chip tariff plan last week, he said that there would be exemptions for companies that invest a lot of money in the US. Now, all the large chip makers have already invested tons of money in the US so they've already passed that bar, and that means that they likely, based on the language that Trump used, will get exemptions. So there's no further incentive for these chip companies to build upon their existing manufacturing operations in US based on these tariffs because the tariffs are gone. So if anything, these companies are sort of more incentivized to import stuff tariff-free from other parts of the world where it's cheaper to produce chips than to make them here in the US. So there's a little bit of a mismatch of the stated intent of these tariffs and the actual fact of them, at least as they appear so far, to have been outlined. And granted, that is kind of vague.
Peter Champelli: So the target of these tariffs are US companies buying foreign-made chips. But on the flip side, earlier this week, the news broke that Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices are going to give the Trump administration a 15% cut of their AI chip sales to China. How does this news factor into Trump's goal with the tariffs?
Asa Fitch: That is really hard to tell. You could infer that the 15% surcharge on these companies' revenues in China means the Trump administration is trying to make it more expensive to sell this stuff, obviously. And that means that that's going to affect demand in the typical sort of supply-demand way. If you have higher prices, people will buy less of that stuff in general. It's not entirely clear that's going to happen in this case because if China or Chinese companies or Chinese government sees these chips as essential to their broader AI strategy and the key to unlocking AI for China, there's no way they're not going to pay a higher price. So the impact could be pretty limited. There've been some analysts who estimated the impact on Nvidia of this additional fee, something around maybe $3 billion a year. That sounds like a lot of money, but Nvidia is projected to make $200 billion plus in its current fiscal year. So $3 billion is maybe not a ton for that particular company. These are two different things, obviously. The tariffs are meant to incentivize manufacture in the US. These charges on sale to China are meant to disrupt in some way or limit the sales of AI chips in China. But there's two sides of the coin, if you will, or two different kind of objectives within the same envelope of national security, protecting US interests, growing US industry, things like that.
Peter Champelli: And with Trump's proposed tariffs on the importing of chips and semiconductors, what would the longer term effects of those be on companies and on consumers?
Asa Fitch: It's hard to say right now. We don't know what exact shape the tariffs are going to take. One thing that's clear, obviously, is that when you raise prices of goods, they tend to trickle down to consumers and to businesses who are buying those goods. So that could be the impact, but the magnitude of that is impossible to gauge without knowing exactly what shape these will take. And we've talked about the exceptions. Some of these companies like Apple qualify for exceptions so that the chips inside those iPhones aren't going to be charged a tariff. So it all depends on effectively the implementation. It's really uncertain right now.
Peter Champelli: That was Wall Street Journal Heard on the Street reporter, Asa Fitch. And that's it for Tech News Briefing. Today's show was produced by Julie Chang with deputy editor Chris Zinsli. I'm Peter Champelli for the Wall Street Journal. We'll be back later this morning with TNB Tech Minute. Thanks for listening.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Apple (AAPL) Upgrading Siri with AI-Powered Apple Intent
Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL) is one of the tech stocks with strong return on equity. On August 10, it was announced that the company is working on a significant upgrade to its AI voice control, which will change how people use iPhones. Reports indicate that the company is working on an upgraded version of App Intents that will make Siri the true hands-free controller for devices. App Intents will enable people to use their voice to instruct Siri to perform complex operations, such as finding a specific photo, editing it, and sending it off. Thanks to artificial intelligence integration, the digital assistant can comment on an Instagram photo or scroll through a shopping app and add items to a cart. With the new upgrades, Apple is exploring ways to make its voice control operate with precision inside interfaces. The upgrades would mark an important milestone and fulfillment of a promise that Siri made 15 years ago. It will also be a significant upgrade to the company's hardware. Without App Intents, Apple's products would be less compelling than those offered by Amazon and Google. Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL) is a technology company that designs, manufactures, and markets smartphones, personal computers, tablets, wearables, and accessories. It also sells a variety of related services, including software, digital content, and subscription-based services. The stock boasts of a high return on equity of 149.81%, affirming its ability to convert shareholder equity to profit. While we acknowledge the potential of AAPL as an investment, we believe certain AI stocks offer greater upside potential and carry less downside risk. If you're looking for an extremely undervalued AI stock that also stands to benefit significantly from Trump-era tariffs and the onshoring trend, see our free report on the best short-term AI stock. READ NEXT: 13 Best NYSE Penny Stocks to Invest in Now and 10 Best 52-Week High Stocks to Buy According to Analysts. Disclosure: None. This article is originally published at Insider Monkey. 擷取數據時發生錯誤 登入存取你的投資組合 擷取數據時發生錯誤 擷取數據時發生錯誤 擷取數據時發生錯誤 擷取數據時發生錯誤
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
It's Time Investors Give Qualcomm Stock a Little 'Respect'
Qualcomm (QCOM) stock ticked lower yesterday after the bell despite delivering a solid fiscal third-quarter earnings beat. Despite since bouncing back today, this dip highlights what analysts say is a persistent lack of "respect" for the semiconductor giant that investors should reconsider. The wireless technology leader reported fiscal third-quarter revenue of $10.4 billion, topping analyst estimates of $10.34 billion with a 10% year-over-year increase. Non-GAAP earnings per share of $2.77 exceeded forecasts by 2.2%, yet the market's lukewarm response underscores ongoing skepticism about the company's prospects. More News from Barchart Warren Buffett Warns Investing At 'Too-High Purchase Price' Even for 'an Excellent Company' Can Undo a Decade of Smart Investing Why Archer Aviation's (ACHR) Post-Earnings Tailspin Looks Like a Favorably Mispriced Opportunity BitMine Immersion Now Holds 1.15 Million Ethereum Tokens. Should You Buy BMNR Stock Here? Our exclusive Barchart Brief newsletter is your FREE midday guide to what's moving stocks, sectors, and investor sentiment - delivered right when you need the info most. Subscribe today! What investors may be missing is Qualcomm's successful pivot beyond smartphones. While handset chip revenue grew a modest 7% to $6.3 billion, the company's diversification strategy is gaining serious traction. Automotive revenue surged 21% to $984 million, hitting a quarterly record, while Internet of Things (IoT) revenue jumped 24% to $1.7 billion. The company's expansion into artificial intelligence (AI) infrastructure and PC processors, with its Snapdragon X platform, is expected to power over 100 PC models by 2026. The recent $2.4 billion acquisition of Alphawave Semi strengthens its data center capabilities as AI demand continues to surge. Qualcomm returned $3.8 billion to shareholders through dividends and buybacks while maintaining healthy margins. In fiscal 2025 (ending in September), Qualcomm is forecast to pay an annual dividend of $3.59 per share, up from $3.51 per share in fiscal 2024. Moreover, these payouts are forecast to increase to $3.91 per share in fiscal 2028. Is Qualcomm Stock a Good Buy Right Now? Qualcomm recently unveiled an ambitious road map to reach $22 billion in combined automotive and IoT revenues by fiscal 2029. Nakul Duggal, GM of Auto, IoT, and Cloud, highlighted Qualcomm's decade-long transformation of automotive architecture through its Snapdragon Digital Chassis platform. Qualcomm's safety-certified Advanced Driver-Assistance System (ADAS) stack will debut globally with BMW's Neue Klasse vehicles, marking a key milestone in autonomous driving technology. With 20 OEMs programmed for Autopilot solutions launching within 18 months, Qualcomm is positioned to capitalize on the growing demand for ADAS. The automotive segment's $45 billion design win pipeline includes substantial ADAS opportunities, with management noting that one-third of this backlog represents the next major growth driver beyond traditional infotainment systems. CEO Cristiano Amon also revealed advanced discussions with a leading hyperscaler for custom ARM-based solutions, targeting fiscal 2028 revenue generation. The $2.4 billion Alphawave IP acquisition provides critical connectivity IP to complement Qualcomm's Oryon CPU and Hexagon NPU processors. Management emphasized their focus on inference optimization, targeting efficiency metrics like tokens per dollar and tokens per watt as AI workloads scale. Moreover, the multi-year Xiaomi agreement ensures Snapdragon 8 Series platforms will power flagship devices with increasing volumes annually across China and global markets. This partnership will help Qualcomm strengthen its position in China, where the company has operated successfully for three decades. Qualcomm's diversification strategy appears well-positioned for sustained growth across multiple high-value markets. What is the Target Price for QCOM Stock? Analysts tracking QCOM stock expect sales to rise from $39 billion in fiscal 2024 to $47 billion in fiscal 2028. In this period, adjusted earnings are forecast to expand from $10.2 per share to $13.3 per share. QCOM stock trades at a forward price to earnings multiple of 13x, below its 10-year historical average of 15.4x. If the chip stock is priced at 14x forward earnings, it should trade around $187 in August 2027, indicating an upside potential of 20%. If we adjust for dividend reinvestments, cumulative returns could be over 25%. Out of the 32 analysts covering Qualcomm stock, 15 recommend 'Strong Buy', one recommends 'Moderate Buy', 15 recommend 'Hold', and one recommends 'Strong Sell'. The average QCOM stock price target is $179, above the current price of $154. With a fourth-quarter revenue guidance of $10.3 billion to $11.1 billion and the company trading at attractive valuations, despite its diversification progress, it is hard to see why QCOM stock dipped at all. Analysts may have a point that Qualcomm deserves more investor "respect" for its execution and growth potential beyond traditional mobile markets. On the date of publication, Aditya Raghunath did not have (either directly or indirectly) positions in any of the securities mentioned in this article. All information and data in this article is solely for informational purposes. This article was originally published on Errore nel recupero dei dati Effettua l'accesso per consultare il tuo portafoglio Errore nel recupero dei dati Errore nel recupero dei dati Errore nel recupero dei dati Errore nel recupero dei dati
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump debanking order will have limited impact on crypto, experts say
Last week, US President Donald Trump issued an executive order directing bank regulators to rescind guidance that could lead to 'politicised or unlawful debanking.' Crypto businesses, and even some prominent conservatives — including the president himself — have alleged they were denied or lost access to bank accounts at the behest of politically-motivated, Biden-era regulators. But last week's executive order, entitled, 'Guaranteeing Fair Banking for All Americans,' won't do much for crypto businesses that fear they've been locked out of the traditional financial system, according to experts who spoke to DL News. That's because the order does little to root out 'reputation risk.' The term refers to regulators' ability to dissuade banks from engaging supposedly controversial customers, such as pornographers, firearms manufacturers, payday lenders, and crypto companies. Critics of the practice say that banks should only consider objective criteria, such as a customer's financial risk, when deciding whether to offer someone a checking account. Guidance documents and manuals 'This is going to make people happy who have been asking for it, but it's not clear how much good it's going to do them,' Dru Stevenson, a professor at South Texas College of Law Houston, told DL News. The executive order directs bank regulators to remove the use of reputation risk 'or equivalent concepts' that could result in 'politicized or unlawful debanking' from their 'guidance documents, manuals, and other materials.' But it isn't clear that examples of debanking were motivated by politics, according to Stevenson. 'It's not clear to me that they couldn't still allow for reputational risk that would apply to, say, an AI company, because that's not exactly a political issue or something that's unlawful,' he said. And reputation risk can have a downstream effect on banks' profits. 'If you have risk averse investors at one of the gigantic pension funds, or mutual funds, and they find out that Wachovia has gone gung ho about crypto, that might be a reason for them to switch to a more conservative bank,' Stevenson said. Moreover, banks were always free to ignore guidance documents and manuals according to Stevenson. As such, removing references to reputation risk from such documents will likely have little practical effect. 'If you're an agency, you can't go into court and say, 'This person violated our guidance document,'' he said. 'You have to show that they violated the statute or that they violated a codified regulation that went through notice and comment rulemaking.' Management reports Julie Hill, the dean of the University of Wyoming's law school, noted that Trump-appointed bank regulators have already said they will stop using reputation risk. While the regulators have new leadership, they are largely staffed by the same people who served under the Biden administration, Hill added. And reputation risk isn't the only tool regulators can use to pressure banks to reject certain customers. Anti-money laundering laws are one reason banks often reject customers, according to Hill. 'The vast, vast majority of suspicious activity reports don't lead to any sort of follow up, let alone any sort of enforcement,' she told DL News. Moreover, banks are not allowed to tell customers that their account was flagged for suspicious activity. 'We have a situation where banks had to file one or more SARs, and they decided it's just not worth it, we should debank, because we don't want our regulators upset with us, and it's getting expensive to file all these SARs.' Another tool at regulators' disposal: management reports. 'If a regulator suggests to a bank, 'We think this is risky, maybe you want to stop doing it' [but] it's not really that risky, banks might do it anyway,' Hill said, 'because their management rating will get downgraded and then that impacts all sorts of things, including their capital requirements.' Those ratings are also secret, according to Hill. 'Anytime you see a really broad authority with very little limit, and then also a lot of secrecy or lack of transparency about how regulators or banks implement that, you're likely to set up claims for debanking,' she said. Banks' responsibility The executive order also directs the regulators to identify financial institutions that had any 'past or current, formal or informal, policies or practices that require, encourage, or otherwise influence … politicized or unlawful debanking.' Finding examples of politically-motivated debanking could be straightforward if the orders came from federal regulators, according to Hill. 'It's a much harder thing if what you think happened is the banks, for whatever reason, just decided to debank people for political reasons, unconnected with risk or profit or whatever,' she said. 'There's a real question about how we think regulators are going to figure that out and whether we think there's any duty on the bank to voluntarily disclose it.' Whatever the effect of the executive order, both professors agreed that a new administration could reinstate the use of reputation risk unilaterally. 'It kind of highlights how unsticky changes made by the executive branch are when it comes to discretionary enforcement,' Hill said. 'This is one of those things that can change from administration to administration.' Stevenson agreed. 'If we ever get to have other presidents, the next president can just do another executive order and put it all back, like, overnight,' Stevenson said. Aleks Gilbert is DL News' New York-based DeFi correspondent. You can contact him at aleks@ Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data