He means its stock price vs dividends per share. Nvidia will pay shareholders 4c per each share for the ending quarter, which is very low vs its stock price. So a $380 investment per share in Nvidia today will bring you only about 16c per year in return (roughly averaged).
Meaning its current stock price is based more on crazy speculation on what the future may hold than solid fundamentals. Nvidias earnings per share (not dividends) is also very high. The stock price to earnings ratio (PE ratio) is 218. Meaning the company earns only 57c per year on each share based on its current valuation ($380/0.57c = 218 PE ratio)
https://ycharts.com/companies/NVDA/pe_ratio
So what he's meaning is basically that the dividend is so low it doesn't even sum up to more than inflation, now I understand (I think). Thanks for helping me understand.
He's right then, I'd say. But, if he doesn't like it, nobody forces him to buy or hold his stock. I'm not really bothered, one just don't buy this particular stock for a divi based approach to your portfolio. I share the sentiment that I could honestly live without such a divi though too.
So what he's meaning is basically that the dividend is so low it doesn't even sum up to more than inflation, now I understand (I think). Thanks for helping me understand.
He's right then, I'd say. But, if he doesn't like it, nobody forces him to buy or hold his stock. I'm not really bothered, one just don't buy this particular stock for a divi based approach to your portfolio. I share the sentiment that I could honestly live without such a divi though too.
Let me correct a missing word in my earlier statement:
"Nvidias price to earnings per share (not dividends) is also very high. The stock price to earnings ratio (PE ratio) is 218."
But you're right. This stock is not for investing based on fundamentals, it is more a stock for speculators due to its very high PE ratio.
He means its stock price vs dividends per share. Nvidia will pay shareholders 4c per each share for the ending quarter, which is very low vs its stock price. So a $380 investment per share in Nvidia today will bring you only about 16c per year in return (roughly averaged).
Meaning its current stock price is based more on crazy speculation on what the future may hold than solid fundamentals. Nvidias price to earnings per share (not dividends) is also very high. The stock price to earnings ratio (PE ratio) is 218. Meaning the company earns only 57c per year on each share based on its current valuation ($380/0.57c = 218 PE ratio)
https://ycharts.com/companies/NVDA/pe_ratio
Crazy stock prices are always based on what the future may bring, instead of being based on present merits...
Crazy stock prices are always based on what the future may bring that on present merits...
*All stock prices period.
No one is valuating equity on only current earnings. The question is how much they are looking at the future. In Nvidia's case its probably a lot.
when i set up my 401k (American tax deferred retirement savings plan) i invested directly w/ Intel, Apple, and Nvidia only for the first ten years. which was quite risky at the time but the stock was cheap particularly for Apple and Nvidia but i had faith in all three. out of those three it was Intel, a blue chip stock that gave me agita and disillusionment (until they hired Pat Gelsinger) to the point i was going to sell off shares. right now it's Nvidia giving me questions but the market giving me the answer (Occam's Razor), particulary with Nvidia getting a front page story on the Wall Street Journal (serious Murdoch paywall) today about Nvidia's trillon dollar valuation being driven by A.I.
so in the vernacular, you're supposed to "dance with them that brung you" but Nvidia's clearly is more interested in A.I. than gaming.
so while they are my 2nd best investment (Apple) i have to get my mind around that today Nvidia's an A.I. company with a boutique line of consumer gpus instead of Nvidia being a gaming company that sold enterprise/research gpus.
a single gpu 500eur more expensive than a good condition 2005 focus II tdci is pretty crazy. and this is not a crypto price. it's only justified as a workstation card imo, at least it's excellent at any task you throw at it, not just gaming.
also, didn't know Romanian language is so much like Italian.
when i set up my 401k (American tax deferred retirement savings plan) i invested directly w/ Intel, Apple, and Nvidia only for the first ten years. which was quite risky at the time but the stock was cheap particularly for Apple and Nvidia but i had faith in all three. out of those three it was Intel, a blue chip stock that gave me agita and disillusionment (until they hired Pat Gelsinger) to the point i was going to sell off shares. right now it's Nvidia giving me questions but the market giving me the answer (Occam's Razor), particulary with Nvidia getting a front page story on the Wall Street Journal (serious Murdoch paywall) today about Nvidia's trillon dollar valuation being driven by A.I.
so in the vernacular, you're supposed to "dance with them that brung you" but Nvidia's clearly is more interested in A.I. than gaming.
so while they are my 2nd best investment (Apple) i have to get my mind around that today Nvidia's an A.I. company with a boutique line of consumer gpus instead of Nvidia being a gaming company that sold enterprise/research gpus.
isn't nvidia worth more in terms of market cap than intel ? I think I heard something like that.
isn't nvidia worth more in terms of market cap than intel ? I think I heard something like that.
times change
Intel was my first stock as i stuck to what my professors said in "invest in what you know", but they've never been cheap.
i first bought Apple during the hard times without Steve Jobs so the stock was dirt cheap. i bought Nvidia when they went public and promised Silicon Graphics quality for pc and all three companies are local to me and i interacted with the employees before i got a job where i'm a vendor so i knew the companies well.
as much as you might perceive i'm hard on or "against" Nvidia i'm not. it's "tough love" and 50% what the hell are you doing with my money.
the smartest thing Jen has ever done was to enable and cultivate the A.I. market to the point Nvidia is in the top ten companies in the world by valuation @ #7. and while the economy is mixed...which means bad for ground level, awesome at the top, Nvidia's selling to companies that if they aren't multi-billion/ state or uni research they're start-ups getting lots and lots of capital...not folks that earn a wage.
and they're acting like it. they could throw us a bone and one-up those skeezy Chinese vendors who sold mobile for desktop - as good as Lovelace is for the desktop, it's better for mobile and a bare bones line of mobile gpus as two slot, low power sloutions would sell faster than any Lovelace offering to date.
times change
Intel was my first stock as i stuck to what my professors said in "invest in what you know", but they've never been cheap.
i first bought Apple during the hard times without Steve Jobs so the stock was dirt cheap. i bought Nvidia when they went public and promised Silicon Graphics quality for pc and all three companies are local to me and i interacted with the employees before i got a job where i'm a vendor so i knew the companies well.
as much as you might perceive i'm hard on or "against" Nvidia i'm not. it's "tough love" and 50% what the hell are you doing with my money.
the smartest thing Jen has ever done was to enable and cultivate the A.I. market to the point Nvidia is in the top ten companies in the world by valuation @ #7. and while the economy is mixed...which means bad for ground level, awesome at the top, Nvidia's selling to companies that if they aren't multi-billion/ state or uni research they're start-ups getting lots and lots of capital...not folks that earn a wage.
and they're acting like it. they could throw us a bone and one-up those skeezy Chinese vendors who sold mobile for laptop - as good as Lovelace is for the desktop, it's better for mobile and a bare bones line of mobile gpus as two slot, low power sloutions would sell faster than any Lovelace offering to date.
amd are not doing as great for you then, at least atm. saw them down pretty much all across the board compared to last year, and that is after both new gpus and new cpus launched.
amd are not doing as great for you then, at least atm. saw them down pretty much all across the board compared to last year, and that is after both new gpus and new cpus launched.
no, they're doing well just not what the N.Y. stock guys think. another company i bought at hard times...after GloFlo sell-off
so that's my perspective, long term for all three. AMD has done the hard work for future success and they're dominating the supercomputer market with the most powerful computers ever made with several in the top ten and all above the Chinese.
this market is rather like the racing market for auto makers - small part of overall picture but huge in marketing and buyer confidence.
which has definitely been spilling over. it's a deep read into the numbers for sure but AMD for me is a keeper, not so much for the day trader or short term investor
so that's my perspective, long term for all three.
yeah, am5 will earn them a heap of money eventually. maybe not this early yet, but it's rather inevitable. tsmc has been making everyone their b**ch recently. sources say nvidia will go for samsung's 3nm GAA instead of tsmc, while amd will stay and pay the insane premiums for n3 (which apparently isn't even close to being as good as n7 and n5).
times change
Intel was my first stock as i stuck to what my professors said in "invest in what you know", but they've never been cheap.
i first bought Apple during the hard times without Steve Jobs so the stock was dirt cheap. i bought Nvidia when they went public and promised Silicon Graphics quality for pc and all three companies are local to me and i interacted with the employees before i got a job where i'm a vendor so i knew the companies well.
as much as you might perceive i'm hard on or "against" Nvidia i'm not. it's "tough love" and 50% what the hell are you doing with my money.
the smartest thing Jen has ever done was to enable and cultivate the A.I. market to the point Nvidia is in the top ten companies in the world by valuation @ #7. and while the economy is mixed...which means bad for ground level, awesome at the top, Nvidia's selling to companies that if they aren't multi-billion/ state or uni research they're start-ups getting lots and lots of capital...not folks that earn a wage.
and they're acting like it. they could throw us a bone and one-up those skeezy Chinese vendors who sold mobile for laptop - as good as Lovelace is for the desktop, it's better for mobile and a bare bones line of mobile gpus as two slot, low power sloutions would sell faster than any Lovelace offering to date.
Jens has done a bunch of higher level stuff that have been smart from a business perspective - CUDA was another big one imo. The company in general is well run and they take care of their employees - idk if that's entirely on Jens but it definitely was cultivated under his leadership. The glass door reviews for Nvidia are one of the highest in any industry. I think one of the most important things about being a technology company, especially one that lasts decades, is hiring the latest and greatest minds. A lot of these companies do that, create a great product, but then gain a monopoly leadership and start hiring bean counters. The core engineering group eventually leaves because there's nothing interesting going on and the company stagnates. This is what happened to Intel.
Nvidia has done the opposite - they constantly push internal projects, knowing a ton of them won't go anywhere because it keeps the engineering teams happy. They have insane benefits, great work environments, etc. They also have excellent hiring practices. I studied Computer Engineering at RIT and Nvidia was at every job fair and they had the best booths. One thing that they did that few other companies do is focus on the bigger picture when hiring - especially at colleges. I remember AMD/Intel/TI/Etc would always be like "hey come work on the latest SIMD v3 chip, blah blah technobabble" Nvidia was always like "Hey come help us detect cancer and save lives". It was easy to see why the best in the class would gravitate towards that - even if starting salaries were similar or slightly in favor of other companies.
Jens has done a bunch of higher level stuff that have been smart from a business perspective - CUDA was another big one imo. The company in general is well run and they take care of their employees - idk if that's entirely on Jens but it definitely was cultivated under his leadership. The glass door reviews for Nvidia are one of the highest in any industry. I think one of the most important things about being a technology company, especially one that lasts decades, is hiring the latest and greatest minds. A lot of these companies do that, create a great product, but then gain a monopoly leadership and start hiring bean counters. The core engineering group eventually leaves because there's nothing interesting going on and the company stagnates. This is what happened to Intel.
Nvidia has done the opposite - they constantly push internal projects, knowing a ton of them won't go anywhere because it keeps the engineering teams happy. They have insane benefits, great work environments, etc. They also have excellent hiring practices. I studied Computer Engineering at RIT and Nvidia was at every job fair and they had the best booths. One thing that they did that few other companies do is focus on the bigger picture when hiring - especially at colleges. I remember AMD/Intel/TI/Etc would always be like "hey come work on the latest SIMD v3 chip, blah blah technobabble" Nvidia was always like "Hey come help us detect cancer and save lives". It was easy to see why the best in the class would gravitate towards that - even if starting salaries were similar or slightly in favor of other companies.
i only invest in "happy" companies, having worked for one for 20+ years
the financials of course are important but creativity and productivity come from people
Jens has done a bunch of higher level stuff that have been smart from a business perspective - CUDA was another big one imo. The company in general is well run and they take care of their employees - idk if that's entirely on Jens but it definitely was cultivated under his leadership. The glass door reviews for Nvidia are one of the highest in any industry. I think one of the most important things about being a technology company, especially one that lasts decades, is hiring the latest and greatest minds. A lot of these companies do that, create a great product, but then gain a monopoly leadership and start hiring bean counters. The core engineering group eventually leaves because there's nothing interesting going on and the company stagnates. This is what happened to Intel.
Nvidia has done the opposite - they constantly push internal projects, knowing a ton of them won't go anywhere because it keeps the engineering teams happy. They have insane benefits, great work environments, etc. They also have excellent hiring practices. I studied Computer Engineering at RIT and Nvidia was at every job fair and they had the best booths. One thing that they did that few other companies do is focus on the bigger picture when hiring - especially at colleges. I remember AMD/Intel/TI/Etc would always be like "hey come work on the latest SIMD v3 chip, blah blah technobabble" Nvidia was always like "Hey come help us detect cancer and save lives". It was easy to see why the best in the class would gravitate towards that - even if starting salaries were similar or slightly in favor of other companies.
CUDA for me was the masterstroke from Nvidia, it was then they realized that there was much more than just making GPUs for gamers and started diversiving into several stuff that can use the GPUs performance.
The problem is that gamers became secundary after this...
Inflation rate is the yearly amount of increase in prices.
It is given in % year over year.
A share is worth almost 400 dollars, 4 cents is 0.01% of 400 dollars.
I assume dividends are paid quarterly, not yearly so it would be 16 cents a year per share or 0.04%.
So if inflation is higher than 0.04% year over year, you are effectively loosing money if the stock is not going up to compensate.
Usually, any dividend under 5% is considered weak. Anything over 8% is considered good.
In todays world, these dividends are rather uncommon, especially from large known corporations, where they are treated more like gambling/speculative assets because people want to make money on the stock price change rather than dividends.
Low dividends also tend to be a sign of a stock being overvalued (does not mean it should go down, it means the fundamental results of its financial statements are not in line with the stock price).
Quick google search says inflation in the US is almost 5%.
Inflation rate is the yearly amount of increase in prices.
It is given in % year over year.
A share is worth almost 400 dollars, 4 cents is 0.01% of 400 dollars.
I assume dividends are paid quarterly, not yearly so it would be 16 cents a year per share or 0.04%.
So if inflation is higher than 0.04% year over year, you are effectively loosing money if the stock is not going up to compensate.
Usually, any dividend under 5% is considered weak. Anything over 8% is considered good.
In todays world, these dividends are rather uncommon, especially from large known corporations, where they are treated more like gambling/speculative assets because people want to make money on the stock price change rather than dividends.
Low dividends also tend to be a sign of a stock being overvalued (does not mean it should go down, it means the fundamental results of its financial statements are not in line with the stock price).
Quick google search says inflation in the US is almost 5%.
Ah, thanks for explaining.
To be honest, I'd find 8% dividends unsustainable with Nvidia's business model, since they would have to have net growth or even net growing earning with 5 or 8% plus inflation, thus going way above 10%. Which they obviously couldn't do and not lose company money.
THAT would tell me they are just paying that divi to get people to buy the stock, thus intentionally looking for short term overvaluation.
That still does not tell me or us though why one needs or pays a 0.4% divi at all (if your stock value isn't 5 digits before the comma). 😀
With the state of the gpu market I would think that the foot fall for The Guru of 3D has fallen off a cliff.
You know, when tickets for football get to expensive we move on to other things and stop following what did interest us a lot.
CUDA for me was the masterstroke from Nvidia, it was then they realized that there was much more than just making GPUs for gamers and started diversiving into several stuff that can use the GPUs performance.
The problem is that gamers became secundary after this...
It's not so much CUDA as the importance of software in general. Having a company that is a top tier hardware and and a top tier software provider is what enables them to take advantage of a lot of these things. The other company that does software and hardware well is Apple - look how much they are worth.
https://youtube.com/shorts/h5I0IhACqTk