Is Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (NYSE:TSM) a Reddit Stock with High Potential?
We recently published a list of the . In this article, we are going to take a look at where Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (NYSE:TSM) stands against other Reddit stocks with high potential.
On April 15, Monica Guerra, Morgan Stanley Wealth Management Head of US Policy, joined 'Closing Bell Overtime' on CNBC to discuss how investors should avoid knee-jerk reactions when it comes to volatility. Monica Guerra pointed out the significance of focusing on President Trump's statements, as they contribute to market volatility despite their mixed and unclear nature. She acknowledged that deciphering his comments is challenging because they lack clarity but staying attentive to both presidential statements and congressional actions is still crucial. She stressed that policy certainty might emerge once Congress finalizes the budget, which is expected around August this year.
She also emphasized that while the day started positively with markets up by 0.79%, the situation otherwise remains uncertain. She reminded clients that the 90-day reprieve on tariffs is not the end of the story and the ongoing studies on semiconductors could lead to additional pressures related to tariffs and market volatility. Guerra noted that tariff revenues are being considered as funding sources for tax cuts and this interplay between tariffs and taxes could influence market volatility. On discussing future developments in tariff policy, she mentioned that more than 70 countries have approached President Trump in attempts to renegotiate the universal 10% tariff and reciprocal tariffs. She cautioned that even if reciprocal tariffs are eliminated and only the universal tariff remains, additional increases could be highly inflationary. China's effective tariff rate is already at 145% and adding reciprocal tariffs could push inflationary pressures further.
Guerra advised clients against reacting impulsively to such news and encouraged them to focus on long-term investment goals.
We sifted through Reddit threads to make a list of the top stocks with the highest analysts' upside potential (at least 30%) as of April 15. The stocks are ranked in ascending order of their upside potential. We have also added the hedge fund sentiment for each stock, as of Q4 2024. The hedge fund data was sourced from Insider Monkey's database which tracks the moves of over 1000 elite money managers.
Why are we interested in the stocks that hedge funds pile into? The reason is simple: our research has shown that we can outperform the market by imitating the top stock picks of the best hedge funds. Our quarterly newsletter's strategy selects 14 small-cap and large-cap stocks every quarter and has returned 373.4% since May 2014, beating its benchmark by 218 percentage points (see more details here).
A close-up of a complex network of integrated circuits used in logic semiconductors.
Number of Hedge Fund Holders: 186
Average Upside Potential as of April 15: 56.25%
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (NYSE:TSM) manufactures, packages, tests, and sells integrated circuits and other semiconductor devices. It provides various wafer fabrication processes, such as processes to manufacture complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor (CMOS) logic, mixed-signal, radio frequency, embedded memory, bipolar CMOS mixed-signal, and others.
The company's dominance in the market is evident as it increased its market share from 63% to 67% in Q4 2024 while maintaining over 90% market share in advanced chip manufacturing. TSMC's 3nm and 2nm process yields outperform its closest competitor, which is Samsung, by 20% and 40%, respectively. These advanced process technologies are needed to develop high-performance AI chips.
In 2024, the company's HPC segment made up 51% of its total revenue. The segment's revenue rose by 58% year-over-year which was driven by AI-related applications. The company's AI accelerators, which contributed a mid-teens percentage to its total revenue, include AI GPUs, AI ASICs, and HBM controllers. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. (NYSE:TSM) forecasts that revenue growth from AI accelerators will reach a mid-40% CAGR for five years starting from 2024.
The company's results and guidance showcased strong AI chip demand, which is why Sands Capital Technology Innovators Fund stated the following regarding Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited (NYSE:TSM) in its Q4 2024 investor letter:
'Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited (NYSE:TSM) third-quarter 2024 results and guidance showcased strong continued demand for artificial intelligence (AI) chips. Revenue increased by 29 percent, and earnings saw a 54 percent rise year-over-year. Gross margins were at their highest since 2022, bolstered by price hikes and record utilization at both the 3 nanometer (nm) and 5nm nodes. TSMC's full-year revenue outlook was revised upward from 25 percent to 30 percent growth. The company also anticipates higher capital expenditure in 2025, a leading indicator for revenue.
Overall, TSM ranks 3rd on our list of the 12 Reddit stocks with high potential. While we acknowledge the growth potential of TSM, our conviction lies in the belief that AI stocks hold great promise for delivering high returns and doing so within a shorter time frame. There is an AI stock that went up since the beginning of 2025, while popular AI stocks lost around 25%. If you are looking for an AI stock that is more promising than TSM but that trades at less than 5 times its earnings, check out our report about the cheapest AI stock.
READ NEXT: 20 Best AI Stocks To Buy Now and 30 Best Stocks to Buy Now According to Billionaires.
Disclosure: None. This article is originally published at Insider Monkey.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Uber Technologies Stock Outlook: Strong Fundamentals or Overhyped Ride?
Back in 2009, Uber was just an idea in an app tap a button, get a ride. Fast forward 16 years and over 58 billion rides later, and it's turned into something way bigger. Uber Technologies Inc. (NYSE: UBER) is now more of a global logistics machine than just a ride-hailing company. They've got their hands in food delivery, freight, maybe even driverless cars down the road. But here's the big question: has all that growth been priced in already? Or is there still room left on the ride? Let's take a look. Uber kicked off 2025 with another strong quarter. In Q1, the company posted $42.8 billion in Gross Bookings, up 14% year-over-year (18% on a constant currency basis). Revenue hit $11.5 billion another 14% jump YoY. Trips rose 18% YoY to 3 billion, supported by a 14% growth in Monthly Active Platform Consumers (MAPCs), now at 170 million. Adjusted EBITDA rose 35% to $1.9 billion, with a margin of 4.4% of Gross Bookings up from 3.7% a year ago. Operating income soared to $1.2 billion, and Uber's free cash flow surged 66% to $2.3 billion, setting a new quarterly record. The company ended the quarter with $6.0 billion in unrestricted cash and short-term investments providing ample capital to continue share repurchases, R&D, and expansion plans. CEO Dara Khosrowshahi noted strong user retention and traction across multiple product lines, with Uber's autonomous efforts gaining visibility through five new AV partnership announcements just in the past week. In short: Uber's top line is growing, profitability is accelerating, and cash generation is robust. But are investors paying a premium? If you dig into Uber's ownership, you'll find all the big names. Vanguard owns around 8.6%, BlackRock's got 7.4%, and when you stack them up with others like Fidelity and Capital Research it's clear this isn't just retail hype. The big guys are in, and they're not known for chasing shiny objects. They're here for the long haul. Now, insiders? They barely show up on the list ownership is under %. Some might side-eye that, but honestly, for a company at this scale, it's not unusual. Founders move on, execs get paid in options, and the rest is in institutional hands. What's important is this: when most of your shareholder base is made up of long-term money, volatility stays in check. It also sends a pretty strong message Wall Street thinks Uber still has legs. As of today (May 27, 2025), Uber's market cap stands at $183.50 billion. With 171 million monthly active users, that means investors are effectively paying around $1,073 per user. This per-user pricing becomes compelling when you consider Uber's brand loyalty and platform utility many users wouldn't give up Uber for $1,000. That says something about stickiness. So how does Uber stack up to competitors? Lyft is cheaper on a sales basis but remains unprofitable. Grab trades at a steep premium despite losses, while Didi is leaner but locked in China. Uber, on the other hand, is the only player posting positive free cash flow, sustainable margins, and global diversification. It trades at just 22x FCF historically low for the company and analysts expect free cash flow to rise over 25% annually. Even modest multiple expansion could lift its valuation significantly. Bottom line: Uber's premium is backed by real cash, real users, and real operating leverage. Here's something most people don't realize Uber still owns a chunk of Didi, around 10%. So even though they're not battling it out in China anymore, they're still along for the ride. And Didi's no slouch. They've got about $7 billion stashed away that's nearly a third of their market cap just sitting in cash, ready to go. Lately, they've been pushing into food delivery too, which could heat things up if Uber ever circles back to that part of the world. What's wild is how the Chinese regulators are actually helping Didi lock things down. They've cleared the field, knocked out rivals, and basically handed them the keys. That kind of home-turf dominance? It makes Didi a serious long-game player and, oddly enough, a pretty strategic card in Uber's back pocket. Then there's Lyft. It's holding on to roughly a third of the U.S. ride-share market. Lately, they've been playing the pricing game slashing fares, making it cheaper for riders, and tougher for Uber to hold onto its margins. Classic race to the bottom stuff. We've seen this before. And you can't ignore Grab. They're a different beast. Not just rides they've got payments, food, and banking all in one place. Kind of like Uber, DoorDash, and your mobile wallet, rolled together. They've locked down Southeast Asia in a big way. All this means Uber's not exactly free to expand wherever it wants. The pressure from competitors doesn't just limit growth it also messes with pricing. If one of these rivals gets leaner or smarter, Uber's lead could start to slip. One useful lens for comparing these platforms is their take rate the slice of gross bookings or merchandise value they convert into revenue. For Uber, the math is straightforward: about $11.5 billion in revenue from $42.8 billion in gross bookings puts the take rate around 27%. That's on the higher end. Grab, by contrast, turned $4.93 billion in GMV into $773 million in revenue, landing at roughly 15.7%. Didi came in at about 18.5% based on its reported RMB19.1 billion in platform sales from RMB103.2 billion in transaction volume. So what does this actually tell us? Simply put, Uber is getting more out of each dollar that moves through its platform. That kind of monetization efficiency can be a real asset especially when you factor in how slim margins can get in competitive pricing environments. A higher take rate often leaves more room to absorb rising driver costs or fund expansion without immediately eating into profits. Uber's Q1 call reiterated confidence but risks still loom. The biggest near-term overhang? The FTC lawsuit. In April, the agency accused Uber of misleading consumers with its Uber One subscription marketing. The company could face civil penalties, refunds, or policy changes that could dampen growth in high-margin subscription revenue. Labor remains a structural threat. New regulatory proposals in the EU and California could reclassify drivers as employees hiking Uber's labor costs significantly. If Prop 22 is overturned, California alone could see a 2030% margin compression. Macroeconomically, things are murky. While management insists there's no change in rider behavior yet, Q1 showed a slight sequential drop in bookings from Q4 mostly due to macro volatility and geopolitical headlines. If recession fears intensify, ride volumes and discretionary delivery could taper. Uber is also spending big on AVs with partnerships across six firms, including Waymo and Volkswagen. But with rising hardware costs and uneven regulatory paths, AV commercialization is still a long game. Put together: Uber's growth is real, but so are the lawsuits, legislative risks, and cyclical pressures. Uber's ride from scrappy startup to global mobility titan is nothing short of remarkable. It's hitting record highs in revenue, profitability, and user engagement. It's also sitting on billions in free cash flow, flexing institutional confidence, and repurchasing shares a sign that even the company believes it's undervalued. But this isn't a carefree cruise. Regulatory risks, pricing pressures, and legal challenges (like the FTC suit) aren't going away. Yet, with stronger-than-ever unit economics, a sticky user base, and real cash flow, Uber seems built for endurance. For investors with a moderate risk appetite and long-term view, Uber may still be a high-conviction bet and the Q1 results reinforce that case. This article first appeared on GuruFocus. Sign in to access your portfolio
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Outdated apprenticeship laws are keeping Americans out of work
The U.S. is in the throes of a skilled-labor shortage. One answer to this problem is centuries old: apprenticeships. Apprenticeships can fill jobs and add a rung to the ladder of opportunity for people who cannot afford college. Yet many states lift that ladder out of reach by giving preferential treatment to existing apprenticeship programs over proposed new programs. That can change through legislation, federal executive action and litigation. Many trades train new workers through apprenticeship programs, where people learn on the job while earning a paycheck. But laws regulating apprenticeships have long stifled the creation of new programs that could train more needed workers. One example is the 'needs test.' In multiple states, proposed apprenticeship programs must show that there is a local 'need' for their program. This means that existing programs are protected against competition from new programs based on the theory that existing programs already meet industry needs. Some states even go so far as to allow established programs to file objections against proposed new programs. These 'competitors' vetoes' treat apprenticeship programs unequally, favoring established players (and their affiliated labor unions) over newcomers. Workers miss out on opportunities, consumers face increased costs and the labor shortage drags on. Beyond legislative reform, there are two ways to push back against these unfair laws: federal executive action and constitutional litigation. The National Apprenticeship Act, also known as the Fitzgerald Act, empowers the secretary of Labor to cooperate with states' labor agencies to promote standards for apprenticeships and increase apprenticeship opportunities. Department of Labor regulations create a system where state authorities can act on behalf of the department to register apprenticeship programs for federal purposes — that is, providing apprentice labor for projects operating under federal contracts or grants. The state's laws must meet certain requirements for the state to be eligible. This dynamic gives the Labor Department leverage over state laws that restrict access to apprenticeship opportunities. In 2007, for example, the Labor Department ended its partnership with California's apprenticeship agency due to the creation of a needs test. The department reasoned that the test 'limited, rather than promoted, apprenticeship opportunity.' Despite this, other states with similar needs tests remain federal partners. The first Trump administration sought to promote apprenticeship opportunities, and the second should follow this by pressuring states to drop needs tests in return for continued or renewed partnerships. There's also a constitutional path. Pacific Legal Foundation, where we work, brought a 2012 lawsuit challenging California's needs test, but the law was upheld in a Ninth Circuit decision in a different case the following year. Multiple courts have held that governments cannot shelter established businesses against competition from newcomers, but the Ninth Circuit upheld the needs test on the faulty premise that apprentices may need to have post-apprentice job opportunities protected. This justification holds no water in a climate with an insufficient supply of skilled workers. This reflects a sad trend in the law: Your right to earn a living for your family takes a backseat to lawmakers' favored interest groups. Your right to seek education so you can earn a living deserves just as much respect as many other rights we hold dear, like your right to speak freely. To paraphrase a Supreme Court decision, your need to feed your family 'may be as keen, if not keener by far, than [your] interest in the day's most urgent political debate.' This is especially true for those struggling to make ends meet. Too often, politicians believe that we need to adopt laws that shower marginalized groups with handouts and special favors. But what people really need is a fair shake — a chance to learn a trade and climb the ladder of opportunity. Yet the law often raises that ladder beyond reach. Leveling the playing field for apprenticeship programs will do far more than handouts to empower people to achieve the American Dream. Something is deeply wrong when we do not have enough workers at the same time families are struggling to put food on the table. We can address both problems by promoting apprenticeship programs. Much reform is needed of apprenticeship laws to maximize the potential these programs can provide. However, doing away with needs tests and giving equal treatment to existing and proposed apprenticeship programs is a good first step toward greater economic opportunity and lower costs for all. David J. Hoffa and Ethan W. Blevins are attorneys at Pacific Legal Foundation, a public interest law firm that defends Americans' liberty against government overreach and abuse.
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
White House reviews SpaceX contracts as Trump-Musk feud simmers, sources say
The White House earlier this month directed the Defense Department and NASA to gather details on billions of dollars in SpaceX contracts following the public blowout between President Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk, four people familiar with the order told Reuters. Sparking an ongoing review, the administration ordered the agencies to scrutinize Musk's contracts to prepare possible retaliation against the businessman and his companies, these people said. As Reuters reported on Thursday, Pentagon officials are simultaneously considering whether to reduce the role that SpaceX, Musk's space and satellite company, may win in an ambitious new U.S. missile defense system. Advertisement 5 The White House directed the Defense Department and NASA to gather details on billions of dollars in SpaceX contracts following the blowout between President Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk. camrocker – Reuters couldn't determine whether the White House intends to cancel any of the approximately $22 billion in federal contracts SpaceX now has. But the review shows the administration is following through on a threat by Trump during his spat with Musk last week to possibly terminate business and subsidies for Musk's ventures. 'We'll take a look at everything,' the president said, speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One on June 6. Advertisement In an email to Reuters, a White House spokesperson didn't answer questions about Musk's business, saying the 'Trump administration is committed to a rigorous review process for all bids and contracts.' In a separate statement, a spokesperson at NASA said the agency 'will continue to work with our industry partners to ensure the president's objectives in space are met.' Neither SpaceX nor officials at the Defense Department responded to requests for comment. 5 Pentagon officials are simultaneously considering whether to reduce the role that SpaceX, Musk's space and satellite company, may win in an ambitious new U.S. missile defense system. REUTERS The people familiar with the order said the contract scrutiny is intended to give the administration the ability to move fast if Trump decides to act against Musk, who until recently was a senior advisor to the president and the head of the cost-cutting Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE. The review is 'for political ammunition,' one of the people said. Advertisement Whether the U.S. government could legally, or practically, cancel existing contracts is unclear. But the possibility underscores concerns among governance experts that politics and personal pique could improperly influence matters affecting government coffers, national security, and the public interest. 'There's an irony here that Musk's contracts could be under the same type of subjective political scrutiny that he and his DOGE team have put on thousands of other contracts,' said Scott Amey, a contracting expert and general counsel at the Project on Government Oversight, a watchdog group based in Washington. 'Any decision shouldn't be based on the egos of two men but on the best interests of the public and national security.' 5 Musk's SpaceX in recent years has become a crucial partner of the U.S. government in much of its aerospace and defense work, according to reports. AP 5 A White House spokesperson didn't answer questions about Musk's business, saying the 'Trump administration is committed to a rigorous review process for all bids and contracts,' in response to Reuters. Getty Images Advertisement Musk's SpaceX in recent years has become a crucial partner of the U.S. government in much of its aerospace and defense work, launching satellites and other space cargo and potentially managing a crucial element of the 'Golden Dome' missile shield planned by Trump. Although Musk in recent days has sought to walk back some of his critiques of the president, such as calling for Trump's impeachment last week and linking him to a convicted sex offender, his outbursts nonetheless highlighted the government's reliance on SpaceX. 5 The review shows the administration is following through on a threat by Trump during his spat with Musk last week to possibly terminate business and subsidies for Musk's ventures. AFP via Getty Images Before reversing course, Musk threatened to decommission the company's Dragon spacecraft. The spacecraft, as part of a roughly $5 billion contract with NASA, is the only U.S. vessel currently capable of carrying astronauts to and from the International Space Station. SpaceX is also building a network of hundreds of spy satellites under a classified contract with the National Reconnaissance Office, a U.S. intelligence agency. The contract was a pivotal transaction for SpaceX, deepening its ties with U.S. defense and intelligence services.
