Probably back to SI.

They don’t prevent their users from reading post which are accurate and correct the errors that were previously posted.

Good bye

Glta

Ian

It reminds me of the old joke, “how can you tell when a lawyer is lying?“. “ his lips are moving“

About the only thing I could think of, is that 18 Angstrom should’ve been written as 18 nm in order for Intel to have a better yield than TSMC’s at the time that the article was written.

On SI, i welcomed dissenting views. Often, that was where I got useful and valuable information that I did not previously have. I don’t think I ever had anybody lie or deliberately mislead either myself or any other potential readers.

You win! As soon as I finish this post, you are officially on “IGNORE”.

If you read the last, AFRL PR, even the military had to go to Congress to get sufficient funding to allow them to buy and install one of IONQ‘s quantum devices.

In most companies, the equivalent process would be for an officer of that company to take and argue a business case in front of the board of directors.

At the current price for IONQ product and services, very few will ever be sold and revenues will not increase at a rapid rate, if at all.

Unless and until, their product becomes much more affordable, the share price will continue to fall until revenues substantially increase, and there’s at least a glimmer of hope that there will be some earnings in the foreseeable future.

The amount of misinformation that you continuously spread is amazing. Is English not your first language? … Or even your second or third language?

For your information, following are accurate facts on what Nvidia has reported with respect to the gross margin and what its CFO is predicting for its gross margin for the rest of the year.

You don’t have to like Nvidia. You can continue to bad mouth it. But if you deliberately lie or deliberately misinform with your posts, people will just put you on ignore and allow you to waste your time without bothering them.

Nvidia reported a gross margin of 73% for its Q4 2025 earnings. This figure is slightly lower than the 76% gross margin from the previous year, primarily due to the shift toward more complex and higher-cost systems in its Data Center segment.

Nvidia’s CFO, Colette Kress, has projected that the company’s gross margin will stabilize in the mid-70% range for the rest of the calendar year. The gross margin had peaked at 78.4% in Q1 FY 2025 but has since declined to 74.6%. This slight contraction is attributed to competitive pressures, but Nvidia expects its new Blackwell GPU architecture to help maintain profitability at these levels as production ramps up.

It also coincided with the overall market falling after increased tariffs were announced for Canada, Mexico, and China.

WhiIe I can’t speak for you, there are very few, if any, journalists that I would take any investing advice from. And I might say the same thing about many of the analysts.

Perhaps we need to be more selective about whose posts we read and which journalist we respect enough to even skin through their articles. I used to highly regard Barron’s. most of the time I no longer read more than the headline for any particular article.

Many factors affect stock prices. Looking at average numbers for a sector can be very misleading as there are almost always very high variations from top to bottom and not all factors affecting pricing will be consistent with each other go to the whole sector.

While Andy Grove was the CEO at Intel, Intel had the best margins in the industry and priced its products so that potential competitors were kept on the verge of bankruptcy.

I doubt that either you or Shawne would buy a stock based upon looking at a single factor. Both of you seem to have a reasonable understanding of both fundamentals and technicals.

I find posts that focus on a single factor without any regard for many of the more important factors. I have no value to myself and probably of not much value of any to others.


I had prepared the table, which somehow got thrown away. It would’ve gone right about here.

I’m too lazy to prepare it agaiin

The following takeaways, probably give you the gist of what I was going to say.




Key Takeaways:
• Nvidia has a strong gross margin (75.86%) and a relatively lower PEG ratio (0.80), indicating expected growth relative to valuation.
• Intel currently has a negative P/E ratio (-5.42) due to losses, so a PEG ratio is not meaningful.
• Broadcom has an extremely high P/E ratio (162.13), suggesting an expensive valuation despite its strong gross margin (75%).
• AMD has a high P/E ratio (99.86) but lacks a PEG ratio estimate.

Sources: StockAnalysis Investing.com FinanceCharts ? ? ? ?.

On what basis could this law firm think that the company that has never forecasted any earnings could be held liable for losses incurred by speculators who willingly paying exorbitant prices that has absolutely no basis in the company fundamentals?

I don’t remember seeing Portnoy before, so I asked ChatGPT to tell me a little bit about them.

It sounds as if they just ride on the coattails of other class, action firms rather than earning a decent living practising law. … But what do I know?


the Portnoy Law Firm has filed numerous class action lawsuits against businesses, primarily on behalf of investors and consumers. Some of the cases include lawsuits against companies like Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation for allegedly misleading investors about environmental violations and Johnson & Johnson for failing to disclose dangerous levels of benzene in certain sunscreen products ? ?.

While the firm claims that its founding partner has helped recover over $5.5 billion for investors, there is no publicly available record confirming specific cases that the firm has won. Many of its lawsuits are part of broader investor litigation efforts, which can take years to resolve.

I was under the impression that there is a very rigourous certification and recertification process with generally well known costs for several years into the future. Even a Piper Cub owned by a private individual and used exclusively for pleasure flying must comply with most of the following procedures.


In North America, commercial airplanes must undergo continuous airworthiness certification to remain operational. The certification process includes several key requirements:

1. Initial Type Certification

Before an aircraft model can be used commercially, it must receive a Type Certificate from aviation authorities like the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in the U.S. or Transport Canada (TC). This ensures the aircraft meets all safety and performance standards.

2. Airworthiness Certification

Each individual aircraft must receive an Airworthiness Certificate, confirming that it complies with its type design and is in condition for safe operation.

3. Ongoing Inspections and Maintenance

After certification, commercial aircraft must undergo regular inspections and maintenance to remain airworthy:
• Daily Inspections: Conducted before and after flights.
• A-Check (Every 400–600 flight hours or about every 1–2 months): Light maintenance, including system checks and fluid servicing.
• B-Check (Every 3–6 months): More detailed inspections of aircraft systems and components.
• C-Check (Every 18–24 months): Comprehensive inspection requiring several days in a maintenance hangar.
• D-Check (Every 6–12 years): The most extensive inspection, involving complete disassembly and thorough examination.

4. Recertification and Modifications

If an aircraft undergoes major modifications (e.g., new avionics or engines), it may require Supplemental Type Certification (STC).

5. Airline Compliance with Regulatory Audits

Airlines must maintain compliance with FAA, Transport Canada, and other regulatory audits. If an aircraft fails to meet standards, it can be grounded until it is recertified.

I suspected that you removed that post because I put an individual’s name in it.

The post that you replied to was not removed, so now I’m convinced that I should not have used an individuals name.

Like you, I think it’s unlikely that the new tariffs or increased tariffs in today’s news will ever even occur for a minute. …. And if they do, I doubt that they will stay in effect long enough to have the effects of a recession on stock prices in any significant fashion.

I really was concerned that macro economic posts might be considered as being off-topic. I accept that I should not have had that concern and apologize for expressing it publicly.

Best regards,
Ian.

Jet,

Macro economics affect stock prices. Recessionary, macro, economic changes tend to cause stocks to lose value.

From a macro economic perspective, tariffs are likely to lead to recessions. The longer they last, the larger they are and the broader they are applied, directly affects the extent of the recession.

This morning, there were several posts complaining about Nvidia’s stock price going down even though from almost every perspective the earnings report was quite positive. No one had commented on today’s news that new or increased tariffs would be applied on March 4 to China, Mexico, and Canada. You removed my post because you believed it was too political. Surely, I wasn’t the only one to point out that increased tariffs are not going to help stock prices.

Clearly, removing all macroeconomic posts, is not gonna help any of the investors here, regardless of their political outlook. Hopefully that was not your intent. And I refrained from using anybody’s name as an adjective to describe the origin of the tariffs in this post.

Best,
Ian

Having the product list with normal retail prices might generate a little bit more interest from corporations if there were some profit, making applications or at least some money savings from the use of the products.

Perhaps if Trump wasn’t hell-bent on starting a global tariff war, the markets would fare much better.

Every company needs to have a viable plan for producing earnings.

Without one, sooner or later, Wall Street will stop throwing good money after bad.

Perhaps the cost of an IONQ quantum computer might help some people understand why the price isn’t continuing to go over the moon. It definitely isn’t something that most individuals will ever be able to afford, and it’s not something at most companies would consider buying unless it were much more capable of processing many more business functions profitably. Personally, I think it’ll be more than a decade or two before quantum computing will be attractive for the general business community if you look at capability and price.

IonQ has not publicly disclosed the exact cost of deploying its quantum computers in data centers. However, the company has introduced two rack-mounted quantum computing systems, the IonQ Forte Enterprise and IonQ Tempo, designed for seamless integration into existing data centers. These systems are meant to be enterprise-grade solutions that help businesses and governments incorporate quantum capabilities without requiring specialized infrastructure modifications.

IonQ has been selling these systems to clients, including a deal with Switzerland’s QuantumBasel, and has received a $25.5 million contract from the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory for quantum computing initiatives ? ?. While the cost per system is unclear, these contracts suggest that deployments involve multimillion-dollar investments.

What an amazing insight!

Less than 12% of the SNP 500 companies had total earnings for the quarter the match or exceed just the earnings beat the Nvidia had for the quarter.

Note: I’m not talking about their earnings for the quarter. I’m talking about their earnings beat for the quarter and the vast majority of the S&P 500 companies can’t come anywhere close to just their earnings beat.

With your insight, I suspect you don’t have any problem paying all of your taxes. Good luck

…. And just what dollar amounts would you consider to be absolutely spectacular?

Can you define or be more specific by what you mean when you use IONQ and “hitting it out of the park“ in the same question?


IonQ has provided revenue guidance for both the next quarter and the full year. For Q4 2024, the company expects revenue between $38.5 million and $42.5 million. For the full year 2024, IonQ reaffirmed its bookings target of $75 million to $95 million.

For Q3 2024, IonQ reported revenue of $12.4 million, up from $6.1 million in Q3 2023, indicating strong year-over-year growth even if the actual dollar amounts are rather trivial.

Note that this number may change as we approach 4 PM today. My least admired technology specialist guest on BNN during the noon hour expects revenue to be nearer to $39 billion for the quarter.



I would tend to trust ChatGPT‘s response much more than anything I hear from Kim Bolton on BNN

What an amazingly insightful observation.

If the stock doesn’t go up, it will probably go down.

Geez, I wish I had known and understood that brilliant in sight before.

Thank you ever so much for sharing your fabulous knowledge and insight.

For the most part, very well said.

With respect to patents in a fast moving technology sector, patents can be essential (for example, in the emerging biotech area) ..

However, it’s vital to have the best patent lawyer and you need patents that generate enough revenue that other corporations want to steal your IP. Momenta pharmaceutical (MNTA) lost two potential blockbusters in a row even though they had patents but not the best patent lawyers.

If a company has minimal or no revenue and no prospect of profits anytime soon, the patents can be nothing more than a cost with very few, if any benefits.

IMO

Here’s a three paragraph taste from that article and Barrons.

“Sell-side ratings are mostly useless,” wrote Trivariate Research founder, and former Morgan Stanley chief U.S. equity strategist Adam Parker in a Friday report. Sell-side refers to analyst firms on Wall Street that “sell” research to the buy-side—mainly large institutions that manage trillions of dollars.

That’s quite a statement from Parker. To justify it, he looked at stock returns for the past 25 years and found that the best returns were concentrated in the least-loved stocks. Still, that doesn’t mean investors should pile into the least-loved stocks and wait, he added. It just means that buying up the best-loved stocks on Wall Street isn’t a great idea.

One reason investors can’t overreact to any one signal or research observation is that things change—a lot. There are regulatory changes that upend Wall Street, such as Reg FD, or regulation fair disclosure, implemented in the aftermath of the dot.com bubble that stopped companies from selectively disclosing information to analysts and large shareholders. There are also hosts of investors looking for an edge who will arbitrage gains from any new informational signal.

Very simply. Just produce enough revenue to generate growing earnings quarter after quarter.

Quit wasting time effort and money on activities that don’t produce any revenue like building the most wonderful patent moat. Focus on building products and services that people and companies want to buy and will pay money for.

For those of us, especially myself included, who realize that we do not know everything about everything, AI is a very current source for getting the most current information.

Worst case, it’s a superior tool to Google, and one doesn’t have to go through all of the sponsored items to get to the desired info.

But congratulations to you. You may be the only person in the world who knows everything about everything including what’s been published today.

Very few of the posts on this thread come anywhere close to being as accurate or useful as a simple AI query.

Most of the posters that specialize in nonsense have already been put on ignore. Sooner or later, the fundamentals will be reflected in the price of the stock.

At that point in time, I suspect many of the losers will regret not having used AI more effectively and more often.

GLTA

Nothing intended.

When I have a TV on in the background, Siri seems to have a mind of her own.. yesterday I was too lazy to clean up the mess.

On the other hand, you don’t find a whole lot of companies that are looked at as being a threat to Intel or Netflix or Meta or whatever company you want to think about.

Nvidia is clearly the leader and innovation and in improving productivity for real corporations each and every day without requiring any special skills from the owner of the quantum corporation to help them post their question in a fashion that might lead to a dilution.

For the timeframe that we can look at, I strongly suspect that in video will continue to maintain a commanding lead over any of its competitors.

And I’m still not a believer that any quantum corporation will take over Nvidia‘s role in my lifetime or anywhere near that time frame.

I asked Copilot “How many years does Jensen Huang or Bill Gates think it’ll be before quantum computing is a useful tool by corporations as opposed to just a promise coming from the researchers into this area?”

First, in the letter that you posted, after the writer described all the wonderful research that his company has been involved in he stated that he believes it’ll be at least 7 to 15 years before quantum computing becomes a reality.

There’s a bit of a debate on this topic. Bill Gates is quite optimistic and believes that quantum computing could become a useful tool within the next **three to five years.

On the other hand, Jensen Huang, the CEO of Nvidia, has a more conservative view. He thinks that practical quantum computing might still be **15 to 30 years

So, it seems we have a range of opinions from three to five years on the optimistic side to 15 to 30 years on the more cautious side.

It certainly wasn’t Jensen.

Maybe it was Jack T or Kuna whatever

Right now, Nvidia IS the future of computing. And if you check their website, they’ll continue to be the future of computing for the next few years with plans that will maintain the leadership that they now enjoy.

When do you think that quantum will in fact, be the future of computing as opposed to promising to have something to do with it within the next one or two decades? …. Or longer!

Do you know how many shares Nvidia has?
… And how much $1.74 per share is?
Do you have any clue how insignificant a $10 billion debt in its most recent quarter is, in actual fact?

Do you know anything at all about investing?

Are you just a complete utter idiot?

good luck, you’re obviously going to need it. You seem to have no skill whatsoever.

If the deal is terminated without Crown Labs buying RVNC, then those who have not yet sold their shares will get whatever the market offers.

Worst case, given that Revance management has issued multiple going concern warnings, those still holding the shares may end up with zero dollars to show for it.

If crown labs gets at least 50% of the shares (plus one share), then it can force any remaining holders of its shares to sell at the tender price

Outstanding managers produce outstanding results.

Even Warren Buffett screwed up from time to time. Nevertheless, he has remained one of the most highly respected fund managers.

NVDA has, and will remain, an outstanding company under his direction.

IMO

Encryption already is almost universal. I could care less if all of my personal data were published on the front page of any national newspaper in the world. And I suspect the rest of the world would show the same lack of interest in seeing any or all of my data.

While most governments and many corporations may want vastly superior encryption to what I get by default, I fail to see that as being an application that will make quantum corporations profitable.

In what world does a quantum chip which can successfully break encryption yield increased sales that are meaningful?

There needs to be a quantum application that allows businesses to serve their customers better and more profitably.

Until that happens, revenues for quantum companies will continue to be far less than costs.

A clarification from Google’s Gemini

I asked Gemini AI. Now I am baffled. While l Ihaven’t searched Google’s website directly, this is the first I’m hearing anything at all about something called Sycamore.

????????????????