China's Repair Market for Banned Nvidia (NVDA) AI Chips Is Booming
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.
The repair industry has grown so fast that some companies have created new businesses just to handle the influx of work. This sudden boom has led to worries about large-scale smuggling of banned chips, especially since government and military purchase records have confirmed their presence in China. In response, U.S. lawmakers from both political parties have proposed laws to track these chips after they are sold, an idea that was recently supported by President Donald Trump's administration.
Although Chinese tech company Huawei has introduced its own AI chips, Nvidia's products remain the top choice for demanding tasks, such as training large language models. Since many H100 and A100 chips in China have been running nonstop for years, this has led to a higher failure rate and increased the need for repairs. Interestingly, fixing a single chip can cost $1,400 to $2,800, depending on the issue. At the same time, Chinese buyers are now looking to get Nvidia's newest B200 chips, which cost over 3 million yuan (about $415,000) per server, showing just how strong the demand for these processors remains.
What Is a Good Price for NVDA?
Turning to Wall Street, analysts have a Strong Buy consensus rating on NVDA stock based on 34 Buys, three Holds, and one Sell assigned in the past three months, as indicated by the graphic below. Furthermore, the average NVDA price target of $182.49 per share implies 5% upside potential.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Is Nvidia Stock Still a Buy?
Key Points A major policy reversal on Chinese AI chip exports has significantly improved the company's revenue outlook and enhanced its competitive positioning in the world's second largest economy. The semiconductor giant's data center business has exploded from $3 billion to $115 billion in annual revenue over just five years, yet supply constraints suggest this growth story is far from over. While trading at a premium valuation, the company's wide economic moat and expanding addressable market across AI training, inference, and emerging applications provide multiple avenues for growth. 10 stocks we like better than Nvidia › Nvidia (NASDAQ: NVDA) is the epicenter of the artificial intelligence (AI) boom. In 2025, it became the most valuable company on Earth, minting millionaires and reshaping global tech. But with shares trading at 56 times trailing sales and the stock far outpacing the S&P 500, investors have a tougher question to ask now. Is Nvidia still a buy? Here's what the market is getting right -- and what it might be missing about this core AI stock. China changes everything for Nvidia's growth trajectory A major shift in U.S. policy has reopened a crucial revenue stream for Nvidia. Regulators recently approved shipments of the company's H20 graphics processors to China -- just weeks after restricting their sale. This reversal changes the calculus. Nvidia had taken a $5.5 billion write-down earlier this year, tied to unsellable China inventory, and analysts feared it had lost access to one of its largest AI markets. But with H20 shipments now cleared, Wall Street expects Nvidia to generate $5 billion in China revenue over the next two quarters -- and as much as $30 billion across fiscal 2027 and beyond. Though the H20 is throttled to comply with export rules, it remains in high demand. China's aggressive AI buildout makes even these constrained chips valuable -- and for now, irreplaceable. More strategically, this decision keeps Chinese AI firms tied to U.S. hardware and software infrastructure. Rather than pushing demand toward domestic alternatives like Huawei, the policy reversal reinforces Nvidia's dominance. It strengthens the company's competitive moat just as the global AI infrastructure buildout hits escape velocity. The data center dominance story is far from over Nvidia's evolution from a gaming chipmaker into the backbone of global AI infrastructure is one of the most successful pivots in corporate history. Its data center revenue surged from around $3 billion in fiscal 2020 to over $115 billion by fiscal 2025 -- a five-year run of hypergrowth few companies have ever matched. And it's not demand that's holding Nvidia back -- it's supply. The company remains constrained by manufacturing capacity, with graphics processing unit (GPU) availability expected to stay tight through at least December. Cloud giants such as Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT), Amazon (NASDAQ: AMZN), and Alphabet (NASDAQ: GOOGL) show no signs of easing their AI infrastructure spending. Several customers have said they'd buy every chip Nvidia can deliver. This demand is no longer just about training large models. While training powered Nvidia's early surge, the inference market -- where deployed models generate real-time outputs -- is emerging as a bigger, longer-term opportunity. As generative AI tools spread across industries, both training and inference workloads are growing fast, supporting Nvidia's multibillion-dollar revenue streams even as the market matures. Competitive threats are real -- but contained The most credible risk to Nvidia's dominance comes from intensifying competition, both from traditional chip rivals and cloud giants building their silicon. Advanced Micro Devices (NASDAQ: AMD) is ramping up its GPU lineup with the MI300 series, while hyperscalers such as Alphabet, Amazon, Microsoft, and Meta Platforms (NASDAQ: META) continue to roll out custom AI chips for internal use. But hardware is only part of the story. Nvidia's moat is as much about software as it is about silicon. The company's Compute Unified Device Architecture platform powers nearly every major AI model in production today, and migrating those codebases to alternative stacks is costly, complex, and time-intensive. For now, most developers simply aren't willing to switch. Then there's networking, a less flashy but equally critical layer of Nvidia's strategy. Large AI models don't run on stand-alone chips; they run on interconnected clusters of GPUs. Nvidia's NVLink interconnect and its InfiniBand-based networking gear (inherited from the Mellanox acquisition) allow these clusters to function as a single, cohesive AI engine. This integrated stack -- chips, interconnects, software, and systems -- makes Nvidia more than a parts supplier. It's the orchestrator of modern AI infrastructure, and that role is far harder to dislodge than many assume. Valuation reflects optimism, but fundamentals support a premium At 56 times trailing earnings, Nvidia's stock isn't cheap by traditional metrics. However, these multiples must be viewed against robust growth and broadening market opportunity. The company delivered $130.5 billion in total revenue in fiscal 2025, up 114% year over year, with data center revenue alone reaching $115 billion. Gross margin simultaneously expanded to 75%. The key question isn't whether Nvidia deserves a premium valuation -- it does given its dominant market position and growth prospects. Rather, investors must assess whether the current premium adequately reflects both the upside potential and inherent risks in the AI infrastructure buildout. The China policy reversal provides a concrete catalyst for near-term revenue acceleration, while growing use cases in automotive, robotics, and edge computing offer additional growth vectors beyond the core data center business. Looking ahead, Nvidia's three-year GPU roadmap through 2027 demonstrates the company's commitment to maintaining its technological edge. With new architectures planned annually and processing capabilities expanding dramatically, Nvidia appears well positioned to stay ahead of both traditional competitors and in-house alternatives from hyperscale customers. Early innings or peak hype determine the buy case For investors considering Nvidia at current levels, the investment thesis boils down to one fundamental question: Is the AI revolution in its early innings or approaching maturity? The evidence suggests we're still in the opening act. China's market reversal, persistent supply constraints, and Nvidia's roadmap dominance through 2027 with Blackwell, Rubin, and beyond point to expanding opportunities that dwarf today's already massive market. The risks are real. Demand cyclicality, intensifying competition from hyperscalers building custom chips, and geopolitical uncertainties all merit careful consideration. Yet for investors convinced that artificial intelligence represents a generational shift, Nvidia's unique positioning at the intersection of hardware, software, and AI infrastructure makes it one of the most compelling ways to capitalize on this transformation. Should you buy stock in Nvidia right now? Before you buy stock in Nvidia, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 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 Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $624,823!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $1,064,820!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 1,019% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 178% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of July 29, 2025 George Budwell has positions in Microsoft and Nvidia. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Advanced Micro Devices, Alphabet, Amazon, Meta Platforms, Microsoft, and Nvidia. 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. Is Nvidia Stock Still a Buy? was originally published by The Motley Fool 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
Time Magazine
11 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
Why So Many Women Are Quitting the Workforce
It's a stark number: 212,000. That's how many women ages 20 and over have left the workforce since January, according to the most recent jobs numbers released Aug. 1 by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. (By contrast, 44,000 men have entered the workforce since January.) The numbers show a reversal of recent trends that saw more women, especially women with children, finding and keeping full-time jobs. Data show that between January and June, labor force participation rate of women ages 25 to 44 living with a child under five fell nearly three percentage points, from 69.7% to 66.9%, says Misty Lee Heggeness, an associate professor of economics and public affairs at the University of Kansas. It's a big reversal. The participation of those women had soared in 2022, 2023, and 2024, peaking in January 2025, as flexible work policies helped women join the workforce and generate much-needed income for their families. Workers have seen flexibility revoked in 2025 on a large scale. President Donald Trump ordered federal employees back to the office five days a week in January, though many had negotiated remote work arrangements and some had even moved far away from their offices. Amazon, JP Morgan, and AT&T also returned to five days a week policies in 2025. Overall, full-time in-office requirements among Fortune 500 companies jumped to 24% in the second quarter of 2025, up from 13% in the end of 2024, according to the Flex Index, which tracks remote work policies. This has hit women with a bachelor's degree in particular; their labor-force participation rate, which had been falling for decades before the pandemic, started ticking up again in 2020, peaking at 70.3% in September in 2024. It's been falling ever since, and stood at 67.7% in July 2025, according to the most recent jobs report. Read More: As People Return to Offices, It's Back to Misery for America's Working Moms It's not a coincidence that women's participation in the workforce is falling as flexibility disappears, says Julie Vogtman, senior director of job quality for the National Women's Law Center. Women capitalized on remote work and flexibility during the pandemic and stopped exiting the labor force, research shows. Now, many are not able to do so. 'Women still take on the lion's share of caregiving responsibilities, and they are more likely than men to be navigating how to meet those caregiving responsibilities while holding down a job,' she says. 'They are also more likely than men to feel that they have to leave the workforce when their balancing act becomes unmanageable.' Return-to-office policies are not proven to make companies more productive. One 2024 study of resumes at Microsoft, SpaceX, and Apple found that return-to-office policies led to an exodus of senior employees, which posed a potential threat to competitiveness of the larger firm. And nearly two-thirds of C-suite executives said that return-to-work mandates caused a 'disproportionate number' of females to quit, according to a 2024 survey conducted by Walr, a data-collection agency, on behalf of Upwork and Workplace Intelligence. Many of those CEOs who reported women quitting said they were struggling to fill jobs because of that loss of female employees and that their overall workforce productivity is down. 'When I hear about these companies making everyone go back to the office, the most normal situation is it's being ordered by some old white male person with what I call care privilege, which is that they have someone who cooks their meals, irons their clothes, or picks their kids up from daycare,' says Heggeness. Read More: Trump's Return-to-Office Push Is a Mistake The disappearance of flexibility is not the only reason women are leaving the workforce in 2025. Some of the decline in participation comes from lower-income women in jobs that have historically had to be done in person full-time, even during the pandemic. Those women are struggling because federal dollars for childcare have declined significantly in 2025. That money helped many centers stay open and charge lower tuition than they otherwise would have. That funding ended in September 2024, forcing many centers to close or raise tuition, leaving some families without options. What's more, the mass deportations occurring throughout the country now are affecting childcare providers, about 20% of whom are immigrants, according to Vogtman. Even if workers have legal status, some may be afraid to come to work, and others may have lost their own childcare and have to stay home as a result, she says. The federal funding helped some providers keep their costs down; now, childcare expenses are rising again. The amount of money American families spent on nursery, elementary, and secondary schools fell in much of 2023 and 2024, and then started to rise again in the fourth quarter of 2024, when it jumped 3.3%, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. It has risen every quarter in 2025.. 'You have a population of working women who are finding it increasingly difficult to make the math work,' Vogtman says. Those include many federal government workers, who may have been drawn to their jobs because government jobs were long seen as flexible, with good benefits like parental leave, says Heggeness. Research suggests that women are more likely to take a lower-paying job if there are benefits attached like telework and flexibility around timing their schedule, she says. If those jobs then experience massive layoffs—as federal workers have under Trump's downsizing—women could be disproportionately affected. As women leave the workforce, the Trump Administration is exploring ways to encourage women to get married and have more children in order to slow the country's decline in birth rate. But Heggeness suspects that forcing federal government workers back to the office makes many women choose between having children and pursuing their careers—and many might choose the latter. 'What they are doing right now, with the return-to-work policies and their leading by example, is the exact opposite of what you'd want to be doing from a policy perspective if you really care about increasing birth rates,' Heggeness says. Of course, for some women, leaving the workforce can be a blessing, if their partners have stable jobs that provide a good income. They have more time to spend with their families, and some are freelancing or starting their own businesses. Sarah Wedge moved out of Philadelphia during the pandemic; her employment ended when her company called employees back to the office, she says, and she decided she didn't want to move her family back. Now, she's freelancing and spending more time with her three-year-old daughter. 'I'm a mom, and that's part of why I've enjoyed freelancing; it's the whole fluid schedule that's great,' she says. But there are reasons to be concerned about women leaving the workforce. Without two salaries, many families struggle to afford basics like housing, food, and transportation; they have less money to spend, which means less money circulating in the economy. Their health care and other benefits are more precarious in an economy where only one partner works. Economic growth has slowed in the first half of the year; in the long term, slowing growth worsens people's standard of living. For many women, this is more than an economic problem: it's a depressing reminder that the brief period of time when work-from-home reigned—when balancing family and work was actually sometimes possible—is over. Read More: Flexible Employers Were a Pandemic Blip Big picture, women's labor-force participation has stalled in the U.S. in recent decades, peaking in the early 2000s even as it rose in many countries in Europe. But then, during the pandemic, rates started rising again, as women could handle childcare pickup and dropoff and other caregiving responsibilities while working from home. Among married women, rates rose from 56.9% in Jan. 2021 to 59% in Jan. 2024. 'What is most heartbreaking about all of this is that the pandemic felt like this revolution, where they finally realized we're human beings and they'll treat us with some degree of respect,' says a mother of two whose company went back to mandating three in-office workdays, but which granted her a temporary exception, meaning she is still able to work remotely full time. 'In the pandemic, they were saying, 'We care about you as people, and we understand that your well-being contributes to your productivity at work,'' she says. The mother, who does not want her name used because she doesn't want to risk her remote status, has two young children and moved to be closer to their grandparents during the pandemic. Now, she's just waiting for her company to end her employment by reversing her remote work status, which the company says can be revoked at any time for any reason. She's not willing to pick up her family and move back, but she wishes she didn't have to choose. 'There's been a shift in the zeitgeist—now, it's 'We don't care about you, and you're replaceable,'' she says. 'It's like we didn't learn anything.'
Newsweek
11 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump Doubles Down on Mathematically Impossible Drug Price Cuts
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. President Donald Trump has doubled down on his claim of reducing drug prices by amounts that are mathematically impossible. Trump told reporters on Sunday that his administration had cut the price of some prescription drugs by as much as 1,500 percent. "Well, one of the things they're going to be talking about pretty soon are the tremendous drop in drug prices. You know, we've cut drug prices by 1,200, 1,300, 1,400, 1,500 percent. I don't mean 50 percent. I mean 14-, 1,500 percent," the president said. When asked to clarify the president's remarks, White House spokesperson Kush Desai told Newsweek, "It's an objective fact that Americans are paying exponentially more for the same exact drugs as people in other developed countries pay, and it's an objective fact that no other Administration has done more to rectify this unfair burden for the American people." Why It Matters Trump's remarks signal a misunderstanding of how pricing and percentages work, which could undermine public confidence in his ability to tackle problems such as drug pricing. President Donald Trump speaks with reporters near Air Force One at the Lehigh Valley International Airport in Allentown, Pennsylvania, on August 3. President Donald Trump speaks with reporters near Air Force One at the Lehigh Valley International Airport in Allentown, Pennsylvania, on August To Know Reducing the price of a drug by 100 percent would make it free, and a reduction greater than 100 percent suggests pharmaceutical companies would pay their customers to take their prescription drugs. Commenting on Trump's claims, Jeffrey Frankel, a professor of capital formation and growth at Harvard University, told Newsweek that the numbers were "indeed mathematically impossible." On Friday, the president made similar claims of bringing drug prices down by "1,000 percent, 1,200 percent" in an interview with Newsmax's Rob Finnerty. That came a day after the White House said Trump had written to the heads of 17 pharmaceutical companies outlining steps they needed to take to bring down the prices of drugs sold in the U.S. to match the lowest price paid by a group of other economically advanced countries. According to a fact sheet the White House released on Thursday, Trump's letters said the pharmaceutical manufacturers' proposals for implementing his May executive order—which seeks to achieve "most favored nation" pricing in the United States—had "fallen short." However, it did not mention the percentage reductions the president has discussed in recent days. What People Are Saying Jeffrey Frankel, a professor of capital formation and growth at Harvard University, told Newsweek: "They are indeed mathematically impossible. If he cut prices 90 percent, the drugs would cost 1/10 as much as before. If 100 percent, then they would cost zero. If cutting 1,000 percent means a thing, then it means that the drug company pays you (a lot) to take the drug." He added: "It's almost as if Trump is making fun of his supporters, seeing what increasingly absurd statements he can get away with." Justin Wolfers, a professor of economics and public policy at the University of Michigan, told Newsweek: "This is not a question for an economist, but rather a sixth grader. After all, the Common Core curriculum standard states that students should know how to 'find a percent of a quantity as a rate per 100 (e.g., 30 percent of a quantity means 30/100 times the quantity).'" Wolfers added: "I just checked with my sixth grader (Oliver Wolfers), and he confirmed that he has studied percentages and that the president's math does not make sense 'because then the prices would be negative.' He added, 'Is he an idiot?' before returning to watching YouTube. Oliver's father agrees with Oliver's mathematical analysis and encourages him to use more positive language when engaging with fellow kids." Pau Pujolas, a professor of economics at McMaster University, told Newsweek: "If your grocery bill is $100 and you get a 50 percent reduction in price, you pay $50. If you get a 75 percent reduction, you pay $25. If you get a 99 percent reduction, you pay $1. If you get a 100 percent reduction, you pay $0. You can't get a reduction larger than that ... so 1,200 percent doesn't make sense. "Talking about bad math: Firing Erika McEntarfer, the director of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), is way worse than a POTUS not knowing how to operate with basic percentages. Let's not miss the forest for the trees." President Donald Trump said at a Republican dinner in July: "This is something that nobody else can do. We're gonna get the drug prices down—not 30 or 40 percent, which would be great, not 50 or 60 percent. No, we're gonna get them down 1,000 percent, 600 percent, 500 percent, 1,500 percent. Numbers that are not even thought to be achievable." The White House fact sheet said: "From this point forward, President Trump will only accept from drug manufacturers a commitment that provides American families immediate relief from vastly inflated drug prices and an end to the freeriding by European and other developed nations on American innovations." Journalist James Surowiecki wrote on X in response to Trump's comments on Sunday: "It's not just that the math here is nonsensical. It's that Trump hasn't actually cut drug prices yet at all. He's literally just sent letters to drugmakers telling them to cut prices. Does he know that and is lying? Or is he deluded? We have no idea." What Happens Next Trump and the White House have not clarified what he means when he says drug prices will come down by as much as 1,500 percent. The president's letters to pharmaceutical companies give them a 60-day window to present a viable plan to reduce U.S. drug prices.
