Latest news with #Simplified
Forbes
16-07-2025
- Business
- Forbes
NVDA Stock To $200?
BEIJING, CHINA - JULY 15: Jensen Huang, co-founder and chief executive officer of Nvidia Corp, ... More receives a media group interview before attending the welcome dinner of the third China International Supply Chain Expo (CISCE) on July 15, 2025 in Beijing, China. (Photo by Wan Quan/VCG via Getty Images) Nvidia (NASDAQ:NVDA) has announced that it received confirmations from the Trump administration permitting it to resume sales of its H20 artificial-intelligence chip to China after encountering a ban around April. This development comes just days after Nvidia's CEO Jensen Huang met with President Donald Trump. This decision represents a significant victory for Nvidia, which had been affected by stringent U.S. export controls designed to limit China's access to advanced AI technology. The H20 chip, specifically created to adhere to U.S. regulations on chip exports, is less powerful than Nvidia's leading products but has continued to be in high demand among Chinese clients. Separately, could oil help foster peace? See Trump's Russia Math, Simplified. Nvidia recorded a $4.5 billion write-off in its most recent quarter due to unsold H20 chips that it could not reallocate to other markets. If sales of these high-volume chips to China resume, reversing some of this write-off could enhance earnings. Nvidia stock has been a strong performer this year, climbing nearly 18% to approximately $170 per share. Now, could easing U.S.-China tech tensions propel the next phase of Nvidia's climb towards the $200 threshold? (related:What's Happening With XRP Price?) Why China Is Important For Nvidia China represents a vast and swiftly expanding AI market, hosting tech behemoths like Baidu and Alibaba, along with newcomers such as DeepSeek, that are increasingly competing with the U.S. in AI software development. Nevertheless, China still significantly lags in AI hardware, as domestic AI chips produced by companies like Huawei do not match the performance delivered by Nvidia's cutting-edge GPUs. This establishes a profound dependence on Nvidia's technology to fulfill China's AI aspirations. Simultaneously, China is an essential market for Nvidia. The nation generated $17 billion in revenue for the company in the fiscal year concluding in January 2025, which is roughly 13% of Nvidia's total revenue. Moreover, this figure may not fully capture the breadth of the situation. Numerous Chinese tech firms have reportedly utilized gray market resellers and overseas intermediaries in nations like Singapore, Malaysia, Taiwan, and Vietnam to circumvent U.S. export restrictions and acquire Nvidia's top-tier chips. These activities have led to governments enhancing enforcement measures and instigating crackdowns. Should the technology trade conflict ease, the recommencement of direct sales could substitute some of this shadow demand, offering Nvidia a clearer and more scalable growth trajectory in China. Nvidia is concentrating on balancing its response to this Chinese demand while adhering to U.S. regulations. The company additionally stated that it has created a new AI chip for China, aimed at applications in factory automation and logistics. This chip is based on Nvidia's most advanced Blackwell architecture but includes downgrades in certain features to address concerns raised by the U.S. government regarding the export of cutting-edge technology to China. Can This Take Nvidia Stock To $200? While Nvidia stock has momentum in its favor, we consider that the stock may already be somewhat overvalued. We value Nvidia stock at approximately $130 per share, around 20% below the current market price. Refer to our analysis of Nvidia valuation: Expensive or Cheap for more information. Certainly, Nvidia trades at about 40x forward earnings, which is justifiable considering that the company is set to increase revenues by 55% according to consensus estimates. However, there are some reasons to exercise caution. While Nvidia continues to be the benchmark for AI, the rally driven by "fear of missing out" that has propelled the stock over the past two years might start to lose momentum. Over the last three years, major technology companies have invested heavily in training increasingly larger AI models, significantly elevating the demand for Nvidia's high-performance chips. Nonetheless, incremental performance improvements from larger AI models could begin to plateau, and the availability of high-quality training data may also present as a bottleneck. Additionally, the AI landscape may begin shifting from training to inference, where efficiency and cost become more significant than sheer power. In this transition, AMD's MI series and open-source models might become more competitive. AMD's ROCm software platform, although not as sophisticated as Nvidia's CUDA, is expected to be sufficient for many inference tasks. This potential transition in AI workloads, combined with the risks associated with growth normalization, could negatively impact the demand for Nvidia's most powerful and costly GPUs, potentially slowing the pace of its earnings growth in the future. Worried about the risks to NVDA stock? The Trefis High Quality (HQ) Portfolio, consisting of 30 stocks, has a history of comfortably outperforming the S&P 500 over the last four years. What accounts for this? Overall, HQ Portfolio stocks delivered superior returns with less risk compared to the benchmark index; exhibiting less volatility, as demonstrated in HQ Portfolio performance metrics
Yomiuri Shimbun
19-05-2025
- Business
- Yomiuri Shimbun
Meet the Small-Business Owner Suing Trump over Tariffs
Dan Anderson/For The Washington Post Small-business owner Emily Ley is suing the Trump administration over its tariffs. PENSACOLA, Florida – After a long day promoting her new cookbook, entrepreneur Emily Ley sank into her couch and began writing about the threat that President Donald Trump's tariffs posed to her nine-person company. Ley sells high-end paper planners, advice books and other office staples online and at major stores such as Target. The only cost-effective way to run her company, Simplified, is to manufacture the products in China, she says. So when the White House signaled in March that it would escalate its trade war with Beijing, Ley wanted her Instagram followers to know who would foot the bill. 'I cannot be quiet about this anymore,' she wrote. 'Tariffs are killing businesses.' Ley watched as discussions about home organization and dinner prep in her Instagram comments shifted to debates over trade policy, with some commenters praising her transparency and others calling on her followers to switch to planners made in the United States. 'One minute I was talking about how to make an easy pot roast, and the next minute we're talking about an international trade war,' Ley said The post attracted the attention of the New Civil Liberties Alliance, a nonprofit that asked Ley to join a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the tariffs. Now the 42-year-old mother of three and one-time Trump voter is in the vanguard of a rapidly expanding legal campaign arguing that the president overstepped his authority and usurped the role of Congress in applying levies to almost all imports entering the United States. Ley said she had multiple conversations with the NCLA about what it would mean to sue the president. The NCLA describes itself as a nonpartisan organization that addresses violations of Americans' civil liberties, but it has previously received financial support from conservative donor Charles Koch's foundation – highlighting how backlash to Trump's tariffs does not neatly follow traditional political lines. 'I knew that I could be putting a target on my back,' Ley said. Bots have attacked every post she shares on Instagram with pornographic links since the day she sued the president, she said. Some customers have told her that they will stop buying her products because of the lawsuit, but she has also attracted new buyers who want to support her political cause. The Trump administration's chaotic trade war has imposed punishing tariffs on China and other countries in an effort to rebalance a globalized economy that Trump says has disadvantaged American manufacturers. While the on-again, off-again tariffs have roiled markets and global supply chains, many large companies and top business executives have remained silent, in part for fear of drawing Trump's ire, and no Fortune 500 company has pursued legal action. That has left small businesses like Simplified to take the lead in challenging the tariffs. Operating on narrow margins dependent on cheaper foreign labor, many small businesses view the tariff payments they would owe the government as an existential threat, forcing them to weigh raising prices, laying off staff – or even closing. Since Simplified filed its lawsuit in federal court in Florida in early April, four additional Florida small businesses joined the litigation. Another nonprofit, Liberty Justice Center, has filed a suit in the U.S. Court of International Trade on behalf of a group of small businesses – including a fishing gear provider, a women's cycling business, and a wine and spirits company. The states of Oregon and California have also sued. The complaints argue that no other president has used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to implement tariffs, and that Trump cannot bypass Congress's authority to draft tariff laws simply by invoking an emergency. Andrew Morris, the NCLA's Senior Litigation Counsel, said traditionally, businesses would be able to share input with federal agencies and lawmakers before tariffs of this magnitude are imposed. 'It's not a one-man process,' Morris said. 'That's what happens when you bypass the democratic and administrative process.' Tim Meyer, the co-director of the Center for International and Comparative Law at Duke University Law School, said the lawsuits have 'a good chance of succeeding,' especially if any eventually reach the Supreme Court. Trump is 'trying to basically wholesale rewrite a whole bunch of federal legislation that Congress has passed over the years on the basis of a statute that doesn't even use the word tariff,' said Meyer, who clerked for Trump-appointed Supreme Court Justice Neil M. Gorsuch when he served on the 10th Circuit Court. Small businesses – defined as having fewer than 500 employees – employ more than 61.7 million Americans, about 46.4 percent of private-sector employees, according to 2023 data from the U.S. Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy. They make up 43.5 percent of U.S. gross domestic product, the standard measure of a country's economic output. When Trump was asked whether he would consider tariff relief for small businesses during an interview with NBC News in May, he brushed off concerns. 'They're not going to need it. They're going to make so much money,' he said. Ley said she wanted to 'throw rocks' when she saw that interview. 'When you listen to the president talk about it, it's like we don't exist,' Ley said. 'It's impacting real families, real American jobs, real American livelihoods, real American customers – but he won't acknowledge it.' Ley's road to suing the president of the United States began in 2011, shortly after her first son was born. Overwhelmed by the responsibilities of managing a house, a business and a newborn, Ley did what many American mothers would do: She drove to Target. But every product she picked up stressed her out more, as she paged through prompts to manage household budgets. Ley realized she could use the design skills she honed making her wedding invitations and stationery to create a planner that contained a simple schedule and a to-do list. Soon, she began selling the plastic-bound planners with laminated covers on Etsy, an online marketplace. After she paid off her business expenses, she had zero profit for the first year. So she began meeting with manufacturers in the United States, in search of a cost-effective plan for production. Her vision for the planners included gold spiral binding and stickers that could be used to mark key events. Again and again, Ley said, she was told that there was no way to make the product in a profitable way in the United States. She began staying up late and sending emails to factories in China. In 2012, she finally connected with a Chinese manufacturer who took a chance on her. 'It just took off from there,' she said. As Ley juggled a growing business and family, the 2016 presidential race was not at the top of her mind. Originally from the South, Ley said she was raised to vote for 'party not person' and grew up in a family that revered Republican politicians like George W. Bush. In November of that year, Ley walked into a voting booth at her local library with her then 5-year-old son in tow. They said a prayer and Ley cast her ballot for Trump. Ley said she regretted the decision almost immediately. As a mother who had just undergone IVF to have twins a year earlier, she soon realized that she did not agree with the policies of the man she voted for. Shortly after the election, Ley changed her voter registration to Democrat. After Trump announced he would run for president again, Ley said she worried about his campaign promises to increase tariffs and tried to convince other voters he was serious about overhauling the global economy. Then, when he was reelected, she braced for impact. The levies Trump implemented during his first term had created new costs for the company, snarling plans to hire more staff and launch an app. Ley knew the tariffs would be higher in Trump's second term, but even her most pessimistic projections did not account for the chaos to come. Each of Simplified's signature planners costs about $12 to make in China and includes specialized pieces that Simplified was unable to source in the United States. At the height of trade tensions with China this spring, Simplified was looking at paying tariff rates of 145 percent – which would add an almost $18 tax on each planner. The levies threatened to eat into Ley's profits and increase the costs of running her business. Simplified already sells the planners for $54 each, and Ley said she does not think she can stay competitive if she raises the price any further. Simplified employees have been exploring whether other countries have the manufacturing capabilities to produce its planners and other products, fielding calls from potential partners in India, Turkey and Southeast Asia. But the company is struggling to make long-term plans as the White House repeatedly changes its tariff policies. Since the inauguration on Jan. 20, Trump administration officials have announced new or revised tariff policies more than 50 times, according to a Washington Post analysis. Tariffs now stand at 30 percent on imports from China after the Trump administration announced a deal Monday to lower tariffs for 90 days. But the continued uncertainty is making it impossible to make plans, Ley said. Ley has paused plans to launch an Amazon storefront and to expand her product line. She is making cuts to bring down the cost of each planner, like replacing the keepsake boxes the planners ship in with bubble wrap. She's even looking at downsizing her staff or reducing salaries. Ley said she's frustrated that she's confronting these choices not because of a lack of consumer demand or bad business decisions, but because of intentional policies by the White House. 'It feels a little bit like our business didn't fail. Our government failed us, Ley said. She recently wrote on Instagram that she feels like a 'pawn' in a game. 'I feel like we're red and black checker pieces in a cheap checkers game when it could be chess,' she told The Post. 'I don't feel like we're part of some sort of really forward-thinking strategy.'
Washington Post
18-05-2025
- Business
- Washington Post
Meet the small-business owner suing Trump over tariffs
PENSACOLA, Florida — After a long day promoting her new cookbook, entrepreneur Emily Ley sank into her couch and began writing about the threat that President Donald Trump's tariffs posed to her nine-person company. Ley sells high-end paper planners, advice books and other office staples online and at major stores such as Target. The only cost-effective way to run her company, Simplified, is to manufacture the products in China, she says. So when the White House signaled in March that it would escalate its trade war with Beijing, Ley wanted her Instagram followers to know who would foot the bill.
Globe and Mail
20-04-2025
- Business
- Globe and Mail
Will the Federal Courts Ignite a Stock Market Rally by Nixing Trump's Tariffs?
You might have noticed an interesting phenomenon in recent weeks. News about the implementation of President Donald Trump's tariffs tends to cause the stock market to sink like a brick. However, even the slightest hint that those tariffs will be relaxed or delayed usually causes stocks to rebound. It stands to reason that a complete reversal of the Trump administration's tariffs could serve as a significant catalyst for the stock market. The chances that the president will make such a move on his own seem very low. With the GOP in control of the Senate and the House, don't expect Congress to halt tariffs, either. Where to invest $1,000 right now? Our analyst team just revealed what they believe are the 10 best stocks to buy right now. Learn More » However, there is one other mechanism for checks and balances built into the U.S. Constitution. Will the federal courts ignite a stock market rally by nixing Trump's tariffs? The answer: It's a definite maybe. Multiple lawsuits, one goal We could soon find out whether the "definite maybe" answer becomes a "definite yes." Multiple lawsuits have been filed in recent days seeking to overturn the Trump administration's tariffs. One of those lawsuits was filed by the New Civil Liberties Alliance on behalf of a small business in Florida named Simplified. The company sells home management products, organizational tools, and planners. The New Civil Liberties Alliance and Simplified are arguing that President Trump's tariffs will cause Simplified financial harm by requiring it to pay significant tariffs and change its supply chain. The Liberty Justice Center filed a similar lawsuit on April 14, 2025, in the U.S. Court of International Trade. This lawsuit was initiated on behalf of five small businesses: New York-based wine, spirits, and sake importer VOS Selections; sportfishing products e-commerce retailer and wholesaler FishUSA; Utah pipe manufacturer Genova Pipe; Virginia educational electronic kits and musical instruments company MicroKits; and Vermont women's cycling apparel company Terry Precision Cycling. On April 16, California became the first state to sue the Trump administration over its tariffs. California Governor Gavin Newsom said in a statement, "President Trump's unlawful tariffs are wreaking chaos on California families, businesses, and our economy -- driving up prices and threatening jobs. We're standing up for American families who can't afford to let the chaos continue." California, which ranks as the fifth-largest economy in the world, with several major industries involved in global trade, could be significantly impacted by tariffs. The legal arguments against Trump's tariffs All these lawsuits share common legal arguments against President Trump's tariffs. Most importantly, they all maintain that the tariffs are unconstitutional. The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the exclusive right to levy tariffs. However, Congress has passed legislation in the past that delegates some of its authority to the president in certain circumstances. President Trump used one of those pieces of legislation, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), as the basis of his executive order implementing steep reciprocal tariffs on most countries. But the IEEPA grants the president only the power to take financial actions against other countries to "deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat" by declaring a national emergency. The Liberty Justice Law Center's lawsuit argues that trade deficits, the justification used by President Trump to impose tariffs, are "neither an emergency nor an unusual or extraordinary threat." The organization argued that "Trade deficits have existed for decades, and do not constitute a national emergency or threat to security." Its lawsuit noted that the Trump administration's tariffs even apply to countries with which the U.S. doesn't have a trade deficit, which further undermines the White House's justification. California is taking a similar approach. The state's lawsuit argues that the president is misusing the emergency powers granted by the IEEPA and that Congress must approve the type of tariffs the White House is levying. The New Civil Liberties Alliance's lawsuit doesn't challenge the president's power to declare a national emergency. Instead, it argues that the IEEPA doesn't mention tariffs and that the Trump administration can't demonstrate that tariffs are necessary to address the "emergency" on which they're based. Do these lawsuits have a chance of succeeding? Could these lawsuits really reverse the Trump administration's tariffs? Again, it's a definite maybe. George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin wrote in Reason magazine earlier this year (before the various lawsuits were filed) that the constitutional arguments against using the IEEPA to impose tariffs "are strong." Somin said that the Supreme Court's "major questions" doctrine requires Congress to "speak clearly" when it empowers the executive branch to make decisions that have a major economic and political impact. Since the IEEPA doesn't specifically grant the president the power to levy tariffs, this argument could be compelling to the federal courts. Ultimately, the Supreme Court will probably have to determine whether President Trump's tariffs are constitutional. If at least five justices decide the administration has gone beyond its authority, the tariffs will go away. And the stock market will almost certainly take off again. Where to invest $1,000 right now When our analyst team has a stock tip, it can pay to listen. After all, Stock Advisor's total average return is 792%* — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 153% for the S&P 500. They just revealed what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy right now, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of April 14, 2025
Yahoo
20-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Will the Federal Courts Ignite a Stock Market Rally by Nixing Trump's Tariffs?
You might have noticed an interesting phenomenon in recent weeks. News about the implementation of President Donald Trump's tariffs tends to cause the stock market to sink like a brick. However, even the slightest hint that those tariffs will be relaxed or delayed usually causes stocks to rebound. It stands to reason that a complete reversal of the Trump administration's tariffs could serve as a significant catalyst for the stock market. The chances that the president will make such a move on his own seem very low. With the GOP in control of the Senate and the House, don't expect Congress to halt tariffs, either. Where to invest $1,000 right now? Our analyst team just revealed what they believe are the 10 best stocks to buy right now. Continue » However, there is one other mechanism for checks and balances built into the U.S. Constitution. Will the federal courts ignite a stock market rally by nixing Trump's tariffs? The answer: It's a definite maybe. We could soon find out whether the "definite maybe" answer becomes a "definite yes." Multiple lawsuits have been filed in recent days seeking to overturn the Trump administration's tariffs. One of those lawsuits was filed by the New Civil Liberties Alliance on behalf of a small business in Florida named Simplified. The company sells home management products, organizational tools, and planners. The New Civil Liberties Alliance and Simplified are arguing that President Trump's tariffs will cause Simplified financial harm by requiring it to pay significant tariffs and change its supply chain. The Liberty Justice Center filed a similar lawsuit on April 14, 2025, in the U.S. Court of International Trade. This lawsuit was initiated on behalf of five small businesses: New York-based wine, spirits, and sake importer VOS Selections; sportfishing products e-commerce retailer and wholesaler FishUSA; Utah pipe manufacturer Genova Pipe; Virginia educational electronic kits and musical instruments company MicroKits; and Vermont women's cycling apparel company Terry Precision Cycling. On April 16, California became the first state to sue the Trump administration over its tariffs. California Governor Gavin Newsom said in a statement, "President Trump's unlawful tariffs are wreaking chaos on California families, businesses, and our economy -- driving up prices and threatening jobs. We're standing up for American families who can't afford to let the chaos continue." California, which ranks as the fifth-largest economy in the world, with several major industries involved in global trade, could be significantly impacted by tariffs. All these lawsuits share common legal arguments against President Trump's tariffs. Most importantly, they all maintain that the tariffs are unconstitutional. The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the exclusive right to levy tariffs. However, Congress has passed legislation in the past that delegates some of its authority to the president in certain circumstances. President Trump used one of those pieces of legislation, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), as the basis of his executive order implementing steep reciprocal tariffs on most countries. But the IEEPA grants the president only the power to take financial actions against other countries to "deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat" by declaring a national emergency. The Liberty Justice Law Center's lawsuit argues that trade deficits, the justification used by President Trump to impose tariffs, are "neither an emergency nor an unusual or extraordinary threat." The organization argued that "Trade deficits have existed for decades, and do not constitute a national emergency or threat to security." Its lawsuit noted that the Trump administration's tariffs even apply to countries with which the U.S. doesn't have a trade deficit, which further undermines the White House's justification. California is taking a similar approach. The state's lawsuit argues that the president is misusing the emergency powers granted by the IEEPA and that Congress must approve the type of tariffs the White House is levying. The New Civil Liberties Alliance's lawsuit doesn't challenge the president's power to declare a national emergency. Instead, it argues that the IEEPA doesn't mention tariffs and that the Trump administration can't demonstrate that tariffs are necessary to address the "emergency" on which they're based. Could these lawsuits really reverse the Trump administration's tariffs? Again, it's a definite maybe. George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin wrote in Reason magazine earlier this year (before the various lawsuits were filed) that the constitutional arguments against using the IEEPA to impose tariffs "are strong." Somin said that the Supreme Court's "major questions" doctrine requires Congress to "speak clearly" when it empowers the executive branch to make decisions that have a major economic and political impact. Since the IEEPA doesn't specifically grant the president the power to levy tariffs, this argument could be compelling to the federal courts. Ultimately, the Supreme Court will probably have to determine whether President Trump's tariffs are constitutional. If at least five justices decide the administration has gone beyond its authority, the tariffs will go away. And the stock market will almost certainly take off again. Ever feel like you missed the boat in buying the most successful stocks? Then you'll want to hear this. On rare occasions, our expert team of analysts issues a 'Double Down' stock recommendation for companies that they think are about to pop. If you're worried you've already missed your chance to invest, now is the best time to buy before it's too late. And the numbers speak for themselves: Nvidia: if you invested $1,000 when we doubled down in 2009, you'd have $263,189!* Apple: if you invested $1,000 when we doubled down in 2008, you'd have $37,346!* Netflix: if you invested $1,000 when we doubled down in 2004, you'd have $524,747!* Right now, we're issuing 'Double Down' alerts for three incredible companies, available when you join , and there may not be another chance like this anytime soon.*Stock Advisor returns as of April 14, 2025 The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Will the Federal Courts Ignite a Stock Market Rally by Nixing Trump's Tariffs? was originally published by The Motley Fool
