To put things in perspective no company was worth $500B total around a decade ago.
The demand for compute for AI is increasing, why would a compute producer lose value?
Their server CPUs are quite competitive and relevant for agentic stuff, but AMD CPUs are arguably better and every hyperscaler (and NVIDIA) has their own ARM based CPU nowadays.
On the GPU/AI accelerator side, they have basically nothing. Gaudi is dead, all the Ponte * accelerators are heavily delayed, Xe based GPUs are not competitive.
On client (think gaming and office PCs), memory has gotten so expensive that nobody buys new machines right now.
Again, not going to be "the" product to turn things around. But a very smart offering that no one else is doing, if they can price it ok. Which is barely in their control, given that it's once again overwhelmingly ram (by cost share).
Such a pity. Panther Lake and Wildcat are both really excellent chips. What a bad run of timing for an Intel that finally seems arising.
As for a cause, I read an article this morning about some kind of capex miss for Google, MSoft, Amazon and some AI revenue miss at ServiceNow and the analyst has declared the bubble pop underway. _Don’t read too much into that though_, analysts makes this claim and the inverse every single week.
If it keeps going or spreads to other, unrelated businesses (no, I don't count 2-5% adjustments), that's something to notice, but this just seems like people reacting fairly expectedly to the content of the report? To put this in perspective, Intel is still up 68% YoY.
But, as always, we'll see in the coming hours/days.
Now GPUs are sitting idle or are not even installed:
https://www.hpcwire.com/aiwire/2026/04/21/companies-are-raci...
It was all a big lie and AI bros who ruined a vibrant Silicon Valley economy can all go to hell.
More puzzling is the sale of other stocks that actually do.
1) Stocks priced for perfection. This applies mostly to Google that was priced to beat estimates. They did not and alot of people took that to mean Google was incorrectly priced and should have a multiple shift down.
2) worry about capital expenditures. Google was also guilty here as the market is starting to get worried about these companies getting over their skiis on cap ex. Microsoft did guide their capex lower but Google doubled down and said they'd spend even more. The market punished them for that.
to this point MSFT is only slightly down due more to the sector than the company as they did announce capex cuts for next year.
3) Intel just flat out failed to hit targets on their earnings that the market felt it should have been easy to do in this economy. And they got punished for it.
4) Most hedge funds and other large money managers have had decent allocations to the Mag7 and related companies as if you didn't have any tech exposure you would almost certainly outperform in the past 2-3 years.
This year we're starting to see a slow down or resetting of expectations for tech companies, Anthropic and Open AI seeing their IPO valuations get cut down is one large sign of this.
We've seen a large transition of hedge funds out of tech in the past 6 months that really accelerated with this earnings season.
5) Earnings capture. We're nearing the end of the year and alot of long/short funds are just starting to realize gains to lock them in for the year. Tech has had a good run and if you think that its going to get worse into the end of the year, you realize your gains here, or you get the sell side to write you a bespoke option at the price you want to realize your gains at if you don't want to realize it for tax purposes and then they go and sell the stock to hedge, which has the same effect of pushing down the stock as it would as if you just sold None of this is to say that AI or the tech sector is going away. its more of a changing allocation of money out of this sector due to their valuations getting ahead of their economics.
Sometimes there isn't one. Answering precisely why the price went down requires understanding the process, mindset, motivations, fears, of every buyer and every seller everywhere. To this date, there is no consensus on the causes of the crashes of 1929, 1973-74, 1987, 2000-2002, and 2007-2008, although there's no shortage of simple narratives claiming to explain the causes.
Seemingly small changes in the behavior of buyers and sellers can have a disproportionate impact on market capitalization, because share prices are set at the margin by the last trade executed, between a particular buyer and a particular seller. Billions of shares of a stock could trade hands at $100/share, but if one share then trades hands at $1/share, the company's market capitalization at that moment is 99% lower, even though only one dollar changed hands. This sort of thing was in fact seen during the great crash of 1929, when there were occasionally no normal bids for some stocks, and tiny orders to buy them for less than $1/share suddenly were filled, temporarily sending market caps to near zero.
EDIT: I made many changes to this comment so it better reflects what I meant to write the first time around.
Everyone wants a simple narrative that explains the drop and fits in their head. Sometimes there isn't one.
Who are the buyers and sellers of the stock? How have their process, mindset, motivations, fears changed?
I don't think it's easy to answer those questions.
I edited my comment so it better conveys my thoughts.
Intel needs to innovate under constraints and, if history is to be reinterpreted, this won't end well for them. They need less management and to double-down on engineering and their lithography pipeline.
You compared old times to new times. I am simply testing whether it makes sense. Just a bigger absolute number on one day does not change much, and just the 150B example only a decade ago is different from 150B now.
And you seem to know this.. so why offhand response?
edit: 150B clarification
Perhaps large investors are moving towards the distribution part of the cycle. (Longer time scales sure look like it on the index charts.) Time will tell
The earning report doesn't need to be bad for investors to see the projected outcomes for future quarters and say "hm... my money is best put somewhere else, whose earnings report showed more potential for growth".
Or IOW, we all want a “it’s because of this one thing…”, and sometimes it is, but especially in this case it’s probably been coming for a multitude of complex reasons. Doesn’t matter, INTL is down, deal with reality and move in. Knowing why won’t fix your portfolio. :-)
It's more than that, though. Anecdotally, in my experience, many smart people who own stocks but are not traders haven't given much thought to how these markets work.
I edited my comment to convey more clearly what I meant:
Sometimes, simple narratives cannot truly explain these events.
Dhanpraja231•1h ago
yako21000•1h ago
Kevin_Flynn•1h ago
yako21000•48m ago
paaloeye•1h ago
toomuchtodo•1h ago
- In the credit derivatives market, the cost of protecting Broadcom Inc.’s debt against default for five years rose by about 10 basis points to 175.4 basis points a year, the highest closing level on record, according to ICE Data Services. The gauge rises as investor worries grow.
- A similar gauge for SpaceX rose about 20 basis points to 266.5 basis points, its highest closing level since it started trading earlier this year. Meanwhile, CDS tied to Alphabet rose by about 5.1 basis points to about 84 basis points, the biggest increase in basis point terms since July.
- Investors are looking to hedge their credit exposure after the Google and YouTube parent posted weaker-than-expected revenue and earnings per share for the third quarter. That includes ad sales, critical for financing Alphabet’s massive AI investments.
- While equity investors could see huge gains if AI investments pay off, debtholders bear the pain if things unravel, said Gavan Nolan, fixed-income-pricing executive director at S&P Global Market Intelligence. Bond investors are laser-focused on capital spending and when AI revenue will be free cash flow positive, he added. “In some way credit is telling a bit of a different story than equities when it comes to the tech sector,” Nolan said in an interview.
yread•1h ago
throwaway384034•1h ago
xnx•57m ago
throwaway384034•51m ago