Nvidia and AMD: What Trump's China AI Pay-to-Play Means for the AI Chip Stocks
Elevate Your Investing Strategy:
Take advantage of TipRanks Premium at 50% off! Unlock powerful investing tools, advanced data, and expert analyst insights to help you invest with confidence.
However, in true Trump administration fashion, any policy reversal comes with strings attached. On Sunday, the Financial Times reported that Nvidia and AMD have agreed to hand over 15% of revenue from their H20 and MI308 chips to the U.S. government in exchange for the export licenses needed to sell these products in China.
That caveat, Bernstein's Stacy Rasgon argues, casts a shadow over what initially looked like a win.
'News of license grants following Jensen's meeting with Trump later last week was welcome,' said the 5-star analyst, 'but [the] news about government payments required in return colors it a bit.'
Even so, Rasgon points out that retaining 85% of revenue is still better than earning nothing, though he questions the precedent such an arrangement sets. Blocking Nvidia and AMD from China, he warns, would effectively hand the market to Huawei and drive Chinese developers deeper into its ecosystem, an outcome far from ideal for U.S. interests. His bigger worry is that this 'slippery slope' could extend to other products and industries, forcing companies to pay simply for market access. On top of that, Rasgon says the rationale isn't entirely clear: 'Sure it might raise some money, but doesn't seem to address any strategic issues beyond a grab for dollars.'
It's possible that both companies could pass the cost along, particularly Nvidia, given the extraordinary demand for its products, which far outstrips AMD's. If implemented, Rasgon thinks this kind of charge could generate a few billion dollars for the US government and trim gross margins on these products by roughly 5–15 percentage points, depending on how it's accounted for.
For Nvidia, with H20 demand around $20 billion, the government's cut could reach $3 billion. For AMD, with perhaps a couple of billion in demand, the hit might be a few hundred million. And while both have excluded China from current guidance, renewed licenses, even at a cost, could still mean incremental upside. Every ~$10 billion in H20 revenue for Nvidia and ~$1 billion in MI308 revenue for AMD translates to roughly $0.25 in EPS; the 15% payment trims that to about $0.20.
All told, Rasgon assigns an Outperform (i.e., Buy) rating to NVDA with a $185 price target, while maintaining a Market Perform (i.e., Neutral) rating for AMD with a $140 target, implying a 20% downside. (To watch Rasgon's track record, click here)
As for the rest of the Street's takes here, Nvidia claims a Strong Buy consensus rating, based on a mix of 35 Buys, 3 Holds and 1 Sell. The average target stands at $187.57, a figure that makes room for modest 12-month returns of 2%. (See NVDA stock forecast)
Meanwhile, the analyst consensus rates AMD stock a Moderate Buy, based on a combination of 26 Buys and 12 Holds. Shares are expected to appreciate by ~4% over the coming year, considering the average target clocks in at $181.36. (See AMD stock forecast)
To find good ideas for AI stocks trading at attractive valuations, visit TipRanks' Best Stocks to Buy, a tool that unites all of TipRanks' equity insights.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Amazon (AMZN) Gets Price Target Hike After Strong Quarterly Performance
Inc. (NASDAQ:) is one of the . On August 11, Freedom Broker analyst Egor Tolmachev raised the price target on the stock to $255.00 (from $240.00) while maintaining a Hold rating. The investment bank noted how Amazon has delivered strong financial results for the second quarter, surpassing both market expectations and its own guidance across all segments. Retail efficiency gains were particularly noted. The firm did note that AWS performance was mixed and Q3 profit forecast was cautious. Nevertheless, it revised its financial forecast based on its confidence in the company's ability to mitigate geopolitical risk and monetize continued logistics improvements. 'Q3 guidance came in well above revenue expectations but below profit forecasts, marking a second area of perceived weakness in the release. We view this as prudent management positioning in light of heightened geopolitical uncertainty. We have revised our financial forecasts upward, reflecting confidence in Amazon's ability to mitigate geopolitical risk and monetize continued logistics improvements. Despite the negative share price reaction, we see upside potential and reiterate our Buy rating, raising our target price from $240 to $255.' Inc. (NASDAQ:AMZN) is an American technology company offering e-commerce, cloud computing, and other services, including digital streaming and artificial intelligence solutions. While we acknowledge the potential of AMZN 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: and Disclosure: None.
New York Post
10 minutes ago
- New York Post
Little Sisters of the Poor are still fighting ObamaCare— as states force nuns to violate their faith
It's enraging. More than a decade after the Obama administration first tried to force the Little Sisters of the Poor to buy contraception including abortifacient drugs for employees, states are still hounding the nuns in court. At its heart, ObamaCare was a massive welfare program meant to redistribute health-care costs to the middle class. But it was also a social engineering project aimed at coercing religious organizations and businesses to adopt progressive values. The Affordable Care Act mandated employers, including nonprofits such as the Little Sisters of the Poor, to pay for contraceptives in their worker-provided health insurance as an 'essential health benefit' under the euphemistic category of 'preventative and wellness services.' There was no 'religious exemption.' It's worth taking a step back and thinking about that term: The very idea that an American citizen should be impelled to ask the state for an 'exemption' to practice their faith is an assault on the fundamental idea of liberty. Imagine having to ask the state for an exemption to exercise your free speech? What makes the case even more unsettling, of course, is that the state is demanding citizens engage in activity that is explicitly against their faith. Now, there may well be numerous theological disputes within the Catholic Church. The use of contraception and abortion aren't among them. There is absolutely no question that nuns hold genuine, long-standing religious convictions. And there is no question that liberals want to smash them. Nevertheless, the Little Sisters spent years in court, working their way up to the Supreme Court and winning protections against the federal government (twice). In 2017, the Trump administration exempted religious groups like the Little Sisters from the ObamaCare mandate entirely. The government, however, bolstered with unlimited taxpayer funds, can hunt its prey in perpetuity. So states such as New Jersey and Pennsylvania began their own lawsuits against the Little Sisters. This week, in a nationwide ruling, Judge Wendy Beetlestone, chief judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, found that the Trump administration's expansion of religious exemptions from the contraception mandate was 'arbitrary and capricious.' Religious nonprofit groups and businesses will again have to ask for special accommodations from the Department of Health and Human Services to avoid buying abortifacients. Even if the Trump administration grants every one of them, one day there will be authoritarians in charge who won't — and nonprofit employees will still be guaranteed contraception through health plans paid for by employers. Beetlestone, incidentally, was the same judge who issued a nationwide injunction against the contraception exemption back in 2017, arguing it was 'difficult' to think of any rule that 'intrudes more into the lives of women.' The Supreme Court overturned it in 2020 by a 7-2 majority. Because no one has a right to free condoms. Indeed, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act holds that the state must have a 'compelling interest' and use the least restrictive means when burdening religious practice. Free birth control isn't a compelling interest. And fining religious organizations millions of dollars to pressure them into abandoning their beliefs is perhaps the most restrictive means of action, short of throwing nuns in prison. You'd think attacking a group of nuns who offer end-of-life care for the elderly would be a public relations nightmare for Democrats. Yet they've never really shied away from it. Because the point is to intimidate others. In many ways, the Little Sisters' struggle is reminiscent of the travails of Jack Phillips, the Colorado baker who refuses to create unique message cakes for gay weddings. Phillips is now embroiled in his umpteenth court case over his crimes. The message: Dissent from those who practice their faith will be punished. Take the Catholic Charities adoption agencies, which shuttered in numerous states due to laws and policies compelling them to place children with same-sex couples. The attacks will continue until the Supreme Court upholds the clear language and intent of the First Amendment and religious liberty. It's already punted once: In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, a 7-2 Supreme Court decision in favor of Jack Phillips, the court barred the state's attacks only if state officials openly demeaned their target's faith — a ruling so narrow as to be largely useless. But it shouldn't matter why the state is steamrolling the religious liberty of nuns, or anyone else for that matter. The problem is that the ObamaCare mandate is authoritarian and unconstitutional. And the only way to fix that problem is to overturn it. David Harsanyi is a senior writer at the Washington Examiner. Twitter @davidharsanyi
Boston Globe
10 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Russia and Ukraine agree: A Trump summit is a big win for Putin
Related : For Russia, 'this is a breakthrough even if they don't agree on much,' said Sergei Mikheyev, a pro-war Russian political scientist who is a mainstay of state television. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine, iced out of the Alaska talks about his own country's future, has come to the same conclusion, telling reporters Tuesday: 'Putin will win in this. Because he is seeking, excuse me, photos. He needs a photo from the meeting with President Trump.' Advertisement But it is more than a photo op. In addition to thawing Russia's pariah status in the West, the summit has sowed discord within NATO — a perennial Russian goal — and postponed Trump's threat of tough new sanctions. Little more than two weeks ago, he vowed that if Putin did not commit to a ceasefire by last Friday, he would to punish Moscow and countries like China and India that help Russia's war effort by buying its oil and gas. Advertisement The deadline passed with no pause in the war — the fighting has in fact intensified as Russia pushes forward with a summer offensive — and no new economic penalties on Russia. Ukrainian firefighters and rescue personnel at the site of a Russian bombing in the area in Kharkiv, Ukraine, on July 24. Friday's summit in Alaska pull the Russian leader out of diplomatic isolation from the West, and Ukrainian and European leaders fear it gives him an opening to sway the American president. DAVID GUTTENFELDER/NYT 'Instead of getting hit with sanctions, Putin got a summit,' said Ryhor Nizhnikau, a Russia expert and senior researcher at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs. 'This is a tremendous victory for Putin no matter what the result of the summit.' Before Alaska, only two Western leaders — the prime ministers of tiny Slovakia and Hungary — had met with Putin since he ordered the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 and was placed under an international arrest warrant for war crimes in March 2023. Many in Europe have been flabbergasted by Trump's decision to hold a summit on Ukraine that excluded Zelenskyy, and the continent's leaders have pressed the president not to strike a deal behind Ukraine's back. Trump tried to allay those fears in a video call with European leaders, including Zelenskyy, on Wednesday. The Europeans said they had hammered out a strategy with Trump for his meeting with Putin, including an insistence that any peace plan must start with a ceasefire and not be negotiated without Ukraine at the table. A peace deal on Ukraine is not Putin's real goal for the summit, said Tatiana Stanovaya, senior fellow at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center. 'His objective is to secure Trump's support in pushing through the Russian proposals.' For Putin, she said, the meeting is a 'tactical maneuver to turn the situation in his favor' and calm what had been increasing White House anger over the Kremlin's stalling on a ceasefire. Advertisement On the eve of the summit Thursday, the Kremlin signaled that it planned to inject other issues beyond Ukraine into the talks, including a potential restoration of economic ties with the United States and discussions on a new nuclear weapons deal. The arms idea plays into Russia's long-standing efforts to frame the war in Ukraine as just part of a bigger East-West conflict. Trump has called his rendezvous with Putin just a 'feel-out meeting' from which he will quickly walk away if a peace deal looks unlikely. President Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine during a heated exchange in the Oval Office on Feb. 28. On Trump and Putin's meeting, Zelensky said, "Putin will win in this. Because he is seeking, excuse me, photos." DOUG MILLS/NYT Neither the White House nor the Kremlin has publicly stated what kind of peace deal they are looking for. But Trump has said it could involve 'some land-swapping,' something he feels he is well equipped to negotiate as a onetime New York property developer. Zelenskyy has rejected any land swap, insisting he has no authority under the Ukrainian Constitution to bargain away parts of the country. Agreeing to do so would be likely to trigger a serious political crisis in Kyiv and advance one of Putin's long-standing objectives: toppling Zelenskyy. Ukraine's surrender of its eastern regions would also torpedo Trump's hopes that the United States will one day benefit from Ukraine's reserves of rare earth minerals, most of which are in territory that Russia claims as its own. 'The worst-case scenario for Ukraine and more broadly is that Putin makes some sort of offer that is acceptable to the United States but that Zelenskyy cannot swallow domestically,' said Samuel Charap, a political scientist and the co-author of a book about Ukraine and post-Soviet Eurasia. Advertisement Putin, a veteran master of manipulation, will no doubt work hard in Alaska to cast Zelenskyy as an intransigent obstacle to peace. 'Trump thinks he can look into Putin's eyes and get a deal. He believes in his own talents as a negotiator,' said Nizhnikau, the Finnish expert on Russia. 'The problem is that Putin has been doing this his whole life and is going into this summit with the idea that he can manipulate Trump.' Trump's last summit meeting with his Russian counterpart, held in 2018 in Helsinki during his first term, showcased his propensity to accept Putin's version of reality. He said then that he saw no reason to doubt the Russian president's denials of meddling in the 2016 presidential election. President Trump and Russian President Putin arrived for a one-on-one-meeting at the Presidential Palace in Helsinki, Finland, in July 2018, the last time the two world powers held a summit. Pablo Martinez Monsivais/Associated Press Trump suggested this year that Ukraine was responsible for the invasion of its own territory and refused to join the United States' traditional Western allies in voting for a United Nations resolution condemning Russia's aggression. On Sunday evening, Zelenskyy worried aloud that Trump could be easily 'deceived.' Trump responded testily Monday to Zelenskyy's insistence that he could not surrender territory. 'He's got approval to go into war and kill everybody, but he needs approval to do a land swap?' Trump snapped. 'There'll be some land swapping going on.' Still, said Charap, the political scientist, 'Putin can't really count his chickens yet.' Despite his iron grip on Russia's political system and its major media outlets, he has his own domestic concerns, particularly on the issue of land, if the sort of swap floated by Trump advances. 'Territory is a third rail politically, especially for Ukraine but also for Russia.' This article originally appeared in . Advertisement
