Hence the mention of "individual". Blackrock, Vanguard etc. don't own the shares themselves, but rather manage mutual funds/index funds/ETFs that millions of people participate in.
Otherwise these few companies are the largest holders of basically every security in existence.
A company can own lots of things (assets, IP, real estate, share of other companies), but shareholders of the company don't own or have direct access to that thing. If Intel pays dividends, it will go to Nvidia, not you. If Intel holds a shareholder vote, Nvidia leadership will be the one voting, and they don't have to listen to your opinion. They can also change or sell the holding without your permission.
If you own shares of Intel through a Vanguard fund, you do have actual ownership of Intel. You can cast a vote same as every other shareholder. The dividend they issue will be passed on to you. Vanguard is simply acting as a proxy.
Don’t disagree. I think the point I’m trying to make is that the idea of “individual investor” captures a range of attributes, but some of which are also shared by non-individuals or are not shared with “individual humans”.
So I generally think wha is more useful is saying in what particular ways “individual investor” is meant when it is used in debate, decision-making, etc.
BlackRock Investment Stewardship (BIS) team votes even in the name of ETF holders who don't specify their preferences. There are plenty of controversies after reviews of their voting like "voted against a record 91% of all shareholder proposals — and against 93% of those focused on environmental and social issues" (2023). That's from the 2nd result in a simple web search.
It just occurred to me that "East India Company" is very close to "East Nvidia Company". If only we had made warmongering more "socially acceptable"[1] earlier, Mr. Huang might've already employed a private military too.
I'm willing to be convinced different, but I think it would be better if companies had to be owned by a person or people ie that companies can't own companies.
It seems a layer of indirection that is more harmful than useful.
Unlikely to pass anti trust, they failed already acquiring ARM back in time.
Edit: I see a lot of confusion on the topic. The anti trust does not need to be from US to be essentially binding, UK, EU, etc have also a de facto veto on mergers of global companies, even if those are US based, this is especially true in global sectors like semiconductors where everybody depends on everybody else from patents to machinery.
"De facto" is the keyword there. Only the nation of origin has any say on company management and infrastructure in a de jure manner. The only power non-origin nations/entities have is via leveraging their ability to do business in the region and/or their local holdings.
I don't think that's allowed under the terms of the x86/x86_64 cross-license deal with AMD.
That's why, for example, any meaningful collaboration between Intel and Nvidia under this partnership has to be released in the form of an Intel product using Nvidia tech, rather than an Nvidia product using Intel tech.
What I find somewhat humorous: AMD originally wanted to acquire Nvidia, but walked away when Jensen apparently insisted on becoming the CEO of the merged company.
I wonder how AMD would have fared against Intel post-Conroe if Jensen was CEO. They were behind but still competitive until the Bulldozer flop, only recovering with Zen (and even then it took a few generations for Zen to mature).
Different country (UK vs US) + different administration might change the results. Who said you can't just try the same thing over and over again until it works?
Once again I am reminded of the circular nature of money flowing around in this economy. Michael Burry even commented on this, citing it as rhyming like other economic failures previously.
The problem is that there is all this capital and no place to put it, so yes it seems circular, but some of that is to be expected.
As for Burry, he recently called out the changes to how the big players are amortizing their capital expenses for all these data center build outs. He is correct in calling it out, but he's getting the wrong signal from it. Mores law died a long time ago, and now were basically hitting multiple walls at the same time: Node scaling at the chip fabs, power and cooling in the data center, and just more linear growth from product (because of all three factors).
Go back to 2008 ish time period. There were a lot of data centers that hit the wall with availability of power and cooling and they were hard problems to solve then. The solution was not to upgrade rather to "build new", and were seeing a lot of the same types of issues today.
Nvidia has unmaintainable margins, the memory manufacturing side is now in on the grift too... They are sucking up the profit while they can because the dip is going to be BRUTAL (likely a boon to consumers but neither here nor there).
1. US Government
2. Nvidia
3. Softbank
Interesting turn of events for the company...
> 1. US Government
> 2. Nvidia
> 3. Softbank
Not quite. (1) US Govt at 9.9% (2) BlackRock at 8.4% (3) Vanguard at 8.3% (4) State Street Corp probably (5) Nvidia (6) Softbank at 2%
Otherwise these few companies are the largest holders of basically every security in existence.
> Otherwise these few companies are the largest holders of basically every security in existence.
Indeed. Due to inclusion of Intel in S&P500 index funds and ETFs.
Together, institutional investors own over 50% of Intel Corporation, giving them a significant collective influence on major board decisions. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/67-institutional-ownership-in...
A company can own lots of things (assets, IP, real estate, share of other companies), but shareholders of the company don't own or have direct access to that thing. If Intel pays dividends, it will go to Nvidia, not you. If Intel holds a shareholder vote, Nvidia leadership will be the one voting, and they don't have to listen to your opinion. They can also change or sell the holding without your permission.
If you own shares of Intel through a Vanguard fund, you do have actual ownership of Intel. You can cast a vote same as every other shareholder. The dividend they issue will be passed on to you. Vanguard is simply acting as a proxy.
So I generally think wha is more useful is saying in what particular ways “individual investor” is meant when it is used in debate, decision-making, etc.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/s5TkOj2E5MA
It seems a layer of indirection that is more harmful than useful.
Intel needs expertise that only a few hundred people on Earth have, and most of them are in Taiwan, already working for someone else.
You don't just buy an EUV and start printing, you buy an EUV and give it to a wizard to use as a wand. Intel needs wizards.
Edit: I see a lot of confusion on the topic. The anti trust does not need to be from US to be essentially binding, UK, EU, etc have also a de facto veto on mergers of global companies, even if those are US based, this is especially true in global sectors like semiconductors where everybody depends on everybody else from patents to machinery.
Which is absolutely enormous, so this distinction is splitting hairs.
That's why, for example, any meaningful collaboration between Intel and Nvidia under this partnership has to be released in the form of an Intel product using Nvidia tech, rather than an Nvidia product using Intel tech.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATI_Technologies
https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/gpus/insider-says...
I wonder how AMD would have fared against Intel post-Conroe if Jensen was CEO. They were behind but still competitive until the Bulldozer flop, only recovering with Zen (and even then it took a few generations for Zen to mature).
> The stake will make Nvidia one of Intel's largest shareholders, giving it roughly 4% of the company after new shares are issued.
Is that 4% still accurate?
Its called the velocity of money, its a thing see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_of_money
The problem is that there is all this capital and no place to put it, so yes it seems circular, but some of that is to be expected.
As for Burry, he recently called out the changes to how the big players are amortizing their capital expenses for all these data center build outs. He is correct in calling it out, but he's getting the wrong signal from it. Mores law died a long time ago, and now were basically hitting multiple walls at the same time: Node scaling at the chip fabs, power and cooling in the data center, and just more linear growth from product (because of all three factors).
Go back to 2008 ish time period. There were a lot of data centers that hit the wall with availability of power and cooling and they were hard problems to solve then. The solution was not to upgrade rather to "build new", and were seeing a lot of the same types of issues today.
Nvidia has unmaintainable margins, the memory manufacturing side is now in on the grift too... They are sucking up the profit while they can because the dip is going to be BRUTAL (likely a boon to consumers but neither here nor there).