Tech layoffs ravage the teams that fight online misinformation and hate speech
More Videos
Published
3 years agoon
By
admin
Mark Zuckerberg, chief executive officer of Meta Platforms Inc., left, arrives at federal court in San Jose, California, US, on Tuesday, Dec. 20, 2022.
David Paul Morris | Bloomberg | Getty Images
Toward the end of 2022, engineers on Meta’s team combating misinformation were ready to debut a key fact-checking tool that had taken half a year to build. The company needed all the reputational help it could get after a string of crises had badly damaged the credibility of Facebook and Instagram and given regulators additional ammunition to bear down on the platforms.
The new product would let third-party fact-checkers like The Associated Press and Reuters, as well as credible experts, add comments at the top of questionable articles on Facebook as a way to verify their trustworthiness.
But CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s commitment to make 2023 the “year of efficiency” spelled the end of the ambitious effort, according to three people familiar with the matter who asked not to be named due to confidentiality agreements.
Over multiple rounds of layoffs, Meta announced plans to eliminate roughly 21,000 jobs, a mass downsizing that had an outsized effect on the company’s trust and safety work. The fact-checking tool, which had initial buy-in from executives and was still in a testing phase early this year, was completely dissolved, the sources said.
A Meta spokesperson did not respond to questions related to job cuts in specific areas and said in an emailed statement that “we remain focused on advancing our industry-leading integrity efforts and continue to invest in teams and technologies to protect our community.”
Across the tech industry, as companies tighten their belts and impose hefty layoffs to address macroeconomic pressures and slowing revenue growth, wide swaths of people tasked with protecting the internet’s most-populous playgrounds are being shown the exits. The cuts come at a time of increased cyberbullying, which has been linked to higher rates of adolescent self-harm, and as the spread of misinformation and violent content collides with the exploding use of artificial intelligence.
In their most recent earnings calls, tech executives highlighted their commitment to “do more with less,” boosting productivity with fewer resources. Meta, Alphabet, Amazon and Microsoft have all cut thousands of jobs after staffing up rapidly before and during the Covid pandemic. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella recently said his company would suspend salary increases for full-time employees.
The slashing of teams tasked with trust and safety and AI ethics is a sign of how far companies are willing to go to meet Wall Street demands for efficiency, even with the 2024 U.S. election season — and the online chaos that’s expected to ensue — just months away from kickoff. AI ethics and trust and safety are different departments within tech companies but are aligned on goals related to limiting real-life harm that can stem from use of their companies’ products and services.
“Abuse actors are usually ahead of the game; it’s cat and mouse,” said Arjun Narayan, who previously served as a trust and safety lead at Google and TikTok parent ByteDance, and is now head of trust and safety at news aggregator app Smart News. “You’re always playing catch-up.”
For now, tech companies seem to view both trust and safety and AI ethics as cost centers.
Twitter effectively disbanded its ethical AI team in November and laid off all but one of its members, along with 15% of its trust and safety department, according to reports. In February, Google cut about one-third of a unit that aims to protect society from misinformation, radicalization, toxicity and censorship. Meta reportedly ended the contracts of about 200 content moderators in early January. It also laid off at least 16 members of Instagram’s well-being group and more than 100 positions related to trust, integrity and responsibility, according to documents filed with the U.S. Department of Labor.
Andy Jassy, chief executive officer of Amazon.Com Inc., during the GeekWire Summit in Seattle, Washington, U.S., on Tuesday, Oct. 5, 2021.
David Ryder | Bloomberg | Getty Images
In March, Amazon downsized its responsible AI team and Microsoft laid off its entire ethics and society team – the second of two layoff rounds that reportedly took the team from 30 members to zero. Amazon didn’t respond to a request for comment, and Microsoft pointed to a blog post regarding its job cuts.
At Amazon’s game streaming unit Twitch, staffers learned of their fate in March from an ill-timed internal post from Amazon CEO Andy Jassy.
Jassy’s announcement that 9,000 jobs would be cut companywide included 400 employees at Twitch. Of those, about 50 were part of the team responsible for monitoring abusive, illegal or harmful behavior, according to people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the details were private.
The trust and safety team, or T&S as it’s known internally, was losing about 15% of its staff just as content moderation was seemingly more important than ever.
In an email to employees, Twitch CEO Dan Clancy didn’t call out the T&S department specifically, but he confirmed the broader cuts among his staffers, who had just learned about the layoffs from Jassy’s post on a message board.
“I’m disappointed to share the news this way before we’re able to communicate directly to those who will be impacted,” Clancy wrote in the email, which was viewed by CNBC.
‘Hard to win back consumer trust’
A current member of Twitch’s T&S team said the remaining employees in the unit are feeling “whiplash” and worry about a potential second round of layoffs. The person said the cuts caused a big hit to institutional knowledge, adding that there was a significant reduction in Twitch’s law enforcement response team, which deals with physical threats, violence, terrorism groups and self-harm.
A Twitch spokesperson did not provide a comment for this story, instead directing CNBC to a blog post from March announcing the layoffs. The post didn’t include any mention of trust and safety or content moderation.
Narayan of Smart News said that with a lack of investment in safety at the major platforms, companies lose their ability to scale in a way that keeps pace with malicious activity. As more problematic content spreads, there’s an “erosion of trust,” he said.
“In the long run, it’s really hard to win back consumer trust,” Narayan added.
While layoffs at Meta and Amazon followed demands from investors and a dramatic slump in ad revenue and share prices, Twitter’s cuts resulted from a change in ownership.
Almost immediately after Elon Musk closed his $44 billion purchase of Twitter in October, he began eliminating thousands of jobs. That included all but one member of the company’s 17-person AI ethics team, according to Rumman Chowdhury, who served as director of Twitter’s machine learning ethics, transparency and accountability team. The last remaining person ended up quitting.
The team members learned of their status when their laptops were turned off remotely, Chowdhury said. Hours later, they received email notifications.
“I had just recently gotten head count to build out my AI red team, so these would be the people who would adversarially hack our models from an ethical perspective and try to do that work,” Chowdhury told CNBC. She added, “It really just felt like the rug was pulled as my team was getting into our stride.”
Part of that stride involved working on “algorithmic amplification monitoring,” Chowdhury said, or tracking elections and political parties to see if “content was being amplified in a way that it shouldn’t.”
Chowdhury referenced an initiative in July 2021, when Twitter’s AI ethics team led what was billed as the industry’s first-ever algorithmic bias bounty competition. The company invited outsiders to audit the platform for bias, and made the results public.
Chowdhury said she worries that now Musk “is actively seeking to undo all the work we have done.”
“There is no internal accountability,” she said. “We served two of the product teams to make sure that what’s happening behind the scenes was serving the people on the platform equitably.”
Twitter did not provide a comment for this story.

Advertisers are pulling back in places where they see increased reputational risk.
According to Sensor Tower, six of the top 10 categories of U.S. advertisers on Twitter spent much less in the first quarter of this year compared with a year earlier, with that group collectively slashing its spending by 53%. The site has recently come under fire for allowing the spread of violent images and videos.
The rapid rise in popularity of chatbots is only complicating matters. The types of AI models created by OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT, and others make it easier to populate fake accounts with content. Researchers from the Allen Institute for AI, Princeton University and Georgia Tech ran tests in ChatGPT’s application programming interface (API), and found up to a sixfold increase in toxicity, depending on which type of functional identity, such as a customer service agent or virtual assistant, a company assigned to the chatbot.
Regulators are paying close attention to AI’s growing influence and the simultaneous downsizing of groups dedicated to AI ethics and trust and safety. Michael Atleson, an attorney at the Federal Trade Commission’s division of advertising practices, called out the paradox in a blog post earlier this month.
“Given these many concerns about the use of new AI tools, it’s perhaps not the best time for firms building or deploying them to remove or fire personnel devoted to ethics and responsibility for AI and engineering,” Atleson wrote. “If the FTC comes calling and you want to convince us that you adequately assessed risks and mitigated harms, these reductions might not be a good look.”
Meta as a bellwether
For years, as the tech industry was enjoying an extended bull market and the top internet platforms were flush with cash, Meta was viewed by many experts as a leader in prioritizing ethics and safety.
The company spent years hiring trust and safety workers, including many with academic backgrounds in the social sciences, to help avoid a repeat of the 2016 presidential election cycle, when disinformation campaigns, often operated by foreign actors, ran rampant on Facebook. The embarrassment culminated in the 2018 Cambridge Analytica scandal, which exposed how a third party was illicitly using personal data from Facebook.
But following a brutal 2022 for Meta’s ad business — and its stock price — Zuckerberg went into cutting mode, winning plaudits along the way from investors who had complained of the company’s bloat.
Beyond the fact-checking project, the layoffs hit researchers, engineers, user design experts and others who worked on issues pertaining to societal concerns. The company’s dedicated team focused on combating misinformation suffered numerous losses, four former Meta employees said.
Prior to Meta’s first round of layoffs in November, the company had already taken steps to consolidate members of its integrity team into a single unit. In September, Meta merged its central integrity team, which handles social matters, with its business integrity group tasked with addressing ads and business-related issues like spam and fake accounts, ex-employees said.
In the ensuing months, as broader cuts swept across the company, former trust and safety employees described working under the fear of looming layoffs and for managers who sometimes failed to see how their work affected Meta’s bottom line.
For example, things like improving spam filters that required fewer resources could get clearance over long-term safety projects that would entail policy changes, such as initiatives involving misinformation. Employees felt incentivized to take on more manageable tasks because they could show their results in their six-month performance reviews, ex-staffers said.
Ravi Iyer, a former Meta project manager who left the company before the layoffs, said that the cuts across content moderation are less bothersome than the fact that many of the people he knows who lost their jobs were performing critical roles on design and policy changes.
“I don’t think we should reflexively think that having fewer trust and safety workers means platforms will necessarily be worse,” said Iyer, who’s now the managing director of the Psychology of Technology Institute at University of Southern California’s Neely Center. “However, many of the people I’ve seen laid off are amongst the most thoughtful in rethinking the fundamental designs of these platforms, and if platforms are not going to invest in reconsidering design choices that have been proven to be harmful — then yes, we should all be worried.”
A Meta spokesperson previously downplayed the significance of the job cuts in the misinformation unit, tweeting that the “team has been integrated into the broader content integrity team, which is substantially larger and focused on integrity work across the company.”
Still, sources familiar with the matter said that following the layoffs, the company has fewer people working on misinformation issues.

For those who’ve gained expertise in AI ethics, trust and safety and related content moderation, the employment picture looks grim.
Newly unemployed workers in those fields from across the social media landscape told CNBC that there aren’t many job openings in their area of specialization as companies continue to trim costs. One former Meta employee said that after interviewing for trust and safety roles at Microsoft and Google, those positions were suddenly axed.
An ex-Meta staffer said the company’s retreat from trust and safety is likely to filter down to smaller peers and startups that appear to be “following Meta in terms of their layoff strategy.”
Chowdhury, Twitter’s former AI ethics lead, said these types of jobs are a natural place for cuts because “they’re not seen as driving profit in product.”
“My perspective is that it’s completely the wrong framing,” she said. “But it’s hard to demonstrate value when your value is that you’re not being sued or someone is not being harmed. We don’t have a shiny widget or a fancy model at the end of what we do; what we have is a community that’s safe and protected. That is a long-term financial benefit, but in the quarter over quarter, it’s really hard to measure what that means.”
At Twitch, the T&S team included people who knew where to look to spot dangerous activity, according to a former employee in the group. That’s particularly important in gaming, which is “its own unique beast,” the person said.
Now, there are fewer people checking in on the “dark, scary places” where offenders hide and abusive activity gets groomed, the ex-employee added.
More importantly, nobody knows how bad it can get.

You may like
Technology
Broadcom and Costco’s rich valuations leave little room for error as battleground stocks
Published
4 hours agoon
December 14, 2025By
admin
Sometimes the stakes are so high, the degree of difficulty so immense, that it simply may be too hard to game. When that’s the case, no amount of formal research will help you fathom the stock implications. Yet, you have inherited the issues and they must be dealt with — or you are too at sea to judge them. We have not one, but two situations — and potentially three — that concern me especially because the price-to-earnings multiples are very high. The two stocks in question? Broadcom and Costco . Broadcom, the nervous system for many of the hyperscalers, is trying to encroach upon fellow Club name Nvidia , the leading AI chipmaker whose fast processors are at the heart of so many artificial intelligence data centers. Let’s take Broadcom first. For its custom AI chip business, Broadcom’s list of clients include Alphabet -owned Google, Meta Platforms , TikTok parent ByteDance, and OpenAI . Additionally, AI startup Anthropic also was recently revealed as a $10 billion customer . Meanwhile, Broadcom is rumored to be talking with Microsoft about shifting its business away from its director competitor in the custom chip design space, Marvell Technology . And there were also concerns that Marvell was losing some business from Amazon. Importantly, Marvell CEO Matt Murphy, whom I trust implicitly, came on “Mad Money” and said he hadn’t lost any business. I believe him. At the same time, Bloomberg News on Friday reported that Oracle pushed back the opening date for some of the data centers it’s building for OpenAI, the giant startup run by Sam Altman. OpenAI happens to be committed to spending $300 billion over five years for computing power from Oracle. That figure is thought to be rock solid because it is in Oracle’s RPO, or remaining performance obligations. It represents more than half of Oracle’s $523 billion RPO. Anything that indicates that OpenAI is not money good could cause a tremendous negative ripple for this entire ecosystem — not just OpenAI, although OpenAI is at the center of the debate. According to Bloomberg, the timeframe for the pushout is from 2027 to 2028, with labor and material shortages cited as the reason. Importantly, Oracle said in a statement there have been “no delays to any sites required to meet our contractual commitments, and all milestones remain on track.” Oracle is to be trusted because it is Larry Ellison’s company and Ellison doesn’t make false claims. But is Sam Altman to be trusted? We don’t know enough about him and his company is private. Bloomberg could be wrong in its story. But maybe it isn’t. Many took the story as gospel despite Oracle’s response in that statement. It is possible, however, for everyone to be right. We know from Coreweave’s quarterly report that these sites can have problems being built . They are very complicated and companies are all fighting for the same components. Oracle holds itself out as an expert in building them. What happens, however, if Oracle has problems building the data center sites for OpenAI and that is the source of the pushout? What happens to the pace of chip orders from Nvidia, which is almost always a part of every data center? These are the fundamental questions that must be answered. We thought we would get some clarity on the broader state of the AI buildout when Broadcom reported quarterly results Thursday night. But the answer was obscured by an issue identified by CFO Kristen Spears on the Broadcom conference call. At the beginning of the call, Broadcom said it had some $73 billion in AI backlog, including orders for its AI server systems that contain its custom chips and other components. That number excited Wall Street and initially drove the stock up about $15 a share in after-hours. But later on the call, Spears said the AI system business was less profitable than other chip-only orders because of some pass-through costs with lower margins. When Spears revealed that, Broadcom’s stock did the dreaded pirouette and it fell to about $380, giving up a frightening $35 from its overheated after-hours level. When that happens it’s a nightmare, which is why the stock fell even more during Friday’s regular session and ended the day at $359.93. Some of that additional decline came from the first issue I mentioned, the possible delay related to Oracle’s work for OpenAI. The rest was from the pass-through issue. AVGO YTD mountain Broadcom’s year-to-date stock performance. Now let’s go back to the first issue. I never like to be in a battleground because the possible results are too murky. These issues created their own battleground. They can’t really be resolved because OpenAI is private. When we hear about potential delays involving OpenAI, even if other reasons are cited in the article, we can’t help but wonder whether it will have the money to meet all its obligations in the coming years. How do we know if Broadcom’s business is not as robust as we thought? We do know OpenAI has access to $40 billion in capital , or at least that it says it has that access. We do know that it just landed a billion dollars from Disney for a stake in the company. It was all very odd. Why didn’t OpenAI have to pay Disney and not vice versa? Was it really about making sure OpenAI was able to get the characters for its AI video generation tool Sora and while blocking Google? Still, I found the deal murky and very similar to the kinds of crazy deals I heard about in 2000, deals that everyone told me were smart and I thought were preposterous. All of this is very theoretical. I don’t like theoretical. Who wants to be caught in this web of intrigue? Not me. Not anyone else. Hence the collapse in Broadcom’s stock. I can go round and round about how OpenAI is worth more than we thought because of this business-to-business deal. Enterprise business is worth more than business-to-consumer deals, the current focus model of OpenAI. That’s more like the aforementioned Anthropic, whose heavyweight investors include Amazon, Microsoft and Google. Anthropic is loved by the Street. OpenAI is not as trusted because of the craziness we have seen from the firm, including CFO Sarah Friar’s odd comment that the government could always “backstop” the company . That’s been denied later on by Friar, but it’s kind of a genie-out-of-the bottle comment. Again, it’s all too hard. Which means that Broadcom’s stock is worth less than we thought, at least around this one issue. Once again, we have to play a game of “who do you trust?” I trust Hock Tan, the longtime CEO of Broadcom, which means you shouldn’t be bailing from the stock. Others clearly have less faith, or else the stock wouldn’t have come down a horrendous $46, or 11.4%, on Friday. This is not the first time Hock has been doubted by the market. It is also not the first time that the market has been wrong. I am with Hock. We are, of course, standing by Broadcom, which even with Friday’s pullback remains up 55% year to date. However, because its price-to-earnings ratio is so high, at almost 42 before earnings, there’s not much room for error. That’s just how it goes with high-multiple stocks. So, it’s fraught and we don’t like fraught – the battleground. We do think Hock will be right, just as we did a few years ago when the stock broke down after another quarter and it turned out to be a false worry accompanied by a huge amount of insider buying . Could that happen again? I think so. We just don’t know yet. To sum up, my judgment is that Broadcom is fine, but the position is a lot harder to defend at this moment. We will defend it by owning it, not buying more. Now, let’s cover Costco. The first, and most salient, issue is the P/E multiple, and yes it almost always comes back to the multiple. At 43 times next year’s earnings, it is high versus the S & P 500, which trades at roughly 22 times forward earnings. But Costco’s valuation being well above the market is not unusual historically speaking. In fact, at this time a year ago, Costco’s P/E ratio was north of 50 while the S & P 500’s was still around 22, according to FactSet data. Costco’s multiple coming down would be fine if the stock weren’t near its lows. What we’re seeing now indicates that the fear is the stock must go lower because investors are not as willing to pay up as much for future earnings — that is how you get multiple compression. To be sure, Costco’s quarter was solid, in line with the estimates. But it wasn’t better than the estimates. The earnings have to be better than the estimates to maintain its high multiple: witness Walmart with a 40 multiple, as close to Costco as I can recall. That, in and of itself, is telling. Why is that? There’s a couple of reasons. First, customers aren’t renewing their membership as they used to. We have seen this impact for several quarters, and it is quite unusual. The company has an excuse: These are mostly younger people who get their membership online versus warehouse signups. But I don’t care about the excuse. It is a red flag. Further, there was “lumpiness” to the quarter, something I don’t like but I think got better as the quarter ended. Third, Costco CFO Gary Millerchip – a rather new hire from Kroger brought in to replace the irreplaceable long-time finance chief Richard Galanti – once again used the word “choiceful” about the consumer. Choiceful, I think, is a code word for “too expensive.” I don’t associate that word with Costco. Suboptimal. COST WMT YTD mountain Costco’s year-to-date stock performance versus Walmart. So, what to do? As I said during a Morning Meeting last week , I am very concerned about this and about how the analysts seem to be focused more on Costco’s technology initiatives – although two analysts on the conference call did ask on about the renewal rate, and the answer was that thanks to some targeted initiatives, the renewal rate for online members will be a little better than it was. That wasn’t reassuring. Unlike Broadcom, the high multiple here can’t stay high when the comparable sales aren’t much better than expected. This distresses me. I have been kind of possessed by it. Is Walmart catching up? Is Walmart passing it? Is Walmart better than Costco? Comparisons, as I know from my mother, are odious. But it’s a real worry. I was thinking Costco would go up when it reported that quarter because there was progress with online and there was additional talk about bolstering its advertising initiatives like Walmart has. But they are so far behind, that, again it is worrisome. I play with an open hand. I weigh all of this against a long history of being special. I don’t think it helps that Costco is tussling with the administration over tariffs and, before that, diversity efforts . Whether you like or agree with Costco, you have to accept that some people might be turned off by these stances. As a shareholder, I am not happy about this because I am trying to figure out the real reason why there is a lower renewal rate, especially among young people. Why be as concerned as I am? Because of Target , that’s why. Many stuck with Target long after things went awry there. It’s retail. Retail is one of the hardest businesses. You can slip. You can fall. That’s why you should not be surprised if we take action on the position. I hate to ever sell this stock. The company is so amazing. My trips to the stores remain exciting. But we can’t afford a Target. We just can’t. That said, you have to expect some action. I can’t lose sleep over this one. So, sigh. It’s not what we want. But it almost has to happen. (Jim Cramer’s Charitable Trust is long COST, AVGO, NVDA, AMZN, MSFT and META. See here for a full list of the stocks.) As a subscriber to the CNBC Investing Club with Jim Cramer, you will receive a trade alert before Jim makes a trade. Jim waits 45 minutes after sending a trade alert before buying or selling a stock in his charitable trust’s portfolio. If Jim has talked about a stock on CNBC TV, he waits 72 hours after issuing the trade alert before executing the trade. THE ABOVE INVESTING CLUB INFORMATION IS SUBJECT TO OUR TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND PRIVACY POLICY , TOGETHER WITH OUR DISCLAIMER . NO FIDUCIARY OBLIGATION OR DUTY EXISTS, OR IS CREATED, BY VIRTUE OF YOUR RECEIPT OF ANY INFORMATION PROVIDED IN CONNECTION WITH THE INVESTING CLUB. NO SPECIFIC OUTCOME OR PROFIT IS GUARANTEED.
Technology
ServiceNow in talks to acquire cybersecurity startup Armis in potential $7 billion deal, Bloomberg reports
Published
9 hours agoon
December 14, 2025By
admin
Software company ServiceNow is in advanced talks to buy cybersecurity startup Armis, which was last valued at $6.1 billion, Bloomberg reported.
The deal, which could reach $7 billion in value, would be ServiceNow’s largest acquisition, the outlet said, citing people familiar with the situation who asked not to be identified because the talks are private.
The acquisition could be announced as soon as this week, but could still fall apart, according to the report.
Armis and ServiceNow did not immediately return a CNBC request for comment.
Armis, which helps companies secure and manage internet-connected devices and protect them against cyber threats, raised $435 million in a funding round just over a month ago and told CNBC about its eventual plans for an IPO.
Armis CEO Yevgeny Dibrov and CTO Nadir Izrael.
Courtesy: Armis
CEO and co-founder Yevgeny Dibrov said Armis was aiming for a public listing at the end of 2026 or early 2027, pending “market conditions.”
Armis’s decision to be acquired rather than wait for a public listing is a common path for startups at the moment. The IPO markets remain choppy and many startups are choosing to remain private for longer instead of risking a muted debut on the public markets.
Founded in 2016, Armis said in August it had surpassed $300 million in annual recurring revenues, a milestone it achieved less than a year after reaching $200 million in ARR.
Its latest funding round was led by Goldman Sachs Alternatives’ growth equity fund, with participation from CapitalG, a venture arm of Alphabet. Previous backers have included Sequoia Capital and Bain Capital Ventures.
Technology
Here are 4 major moments that drove the stock market last week
Published
1 day agoon
December 13, 2025By
admin
The S & P 500 ran into a brick wall Friday and finished the week lower, just one day after closing at a record high. The rotation out of tech stocks, which supported the Dow , was on full display. The across-the-board rally on Wednesday after the Federal Reserve cut interest rates for the third time this year was long forgotten. .SPX .IXIC,.DJI 5D mountain S & P 500, Nasdaq and Dow last week For the week, the broad-market S & P 500 lost roughly 0.6%, while the tech-heavy Nasdaq fell 1.6%, breaking a two-week win streak. The sector shuffle that made materials, financials, and industrials weekly winners — and communications services and information technology weekly losers — pushed the Dow 1% higher last week, its third consecutive weekly gain. Despite December historically being a strong month, the S & P 500 and Nasdaq are down 0.3% and 0.7%, respectively. The Dow is up nearly 1.6%. Perhaps the big man will bail out Wall Street. The so-called Santa Claus rally , a seasonal pattern that occurs in the final five trading days of the year and the first two of the new year, would begin on Dec. 19. Until then, here are four significant moments that drove the market last week. 1. Broad(com) worries Friday’s market was slammed by tech selling, led by Broadcom ‘s 11.5% plunge. The chipmaker’s quarterly beat and raise on Thursday were overshadowed by misinterpreted remarks from management during the earnings call. The Broadcom hit stoked AI-stock valuation worries that have been simmering. During the sell-off on Friday morning, Jim Cramer said the custom chipmaker’s business was “on fire,” and that the decline could be a buying opportunity. Broadcom was our worst performer of the week, followed by Meta Platforms and Nvidia . 2. Tarnished Oracle The second session sell-off of Oracle on Friday didn’t help. The stock was crushed nearly 11% on Thursday following a quarterly sales miss, a disappointing guidance update, and an increased spending outlook. The magnitude of the stock decline was compounded by what management did not address on Wednesday evening’s conference call: OpenAI’s ability to fulfill its massive commitments to purchase AI computing power from Oracle. On Friday, shares sank another 4.5% after Bloomberg reported that Oracle was pushing back the completion dates for some data centers it is completing for OpenAI. Oracle pushed back , asserting “all milestones remain on track.” 3. Nvidia gets China OK While Nvidia caught shrapnel from AI trade worries, the all-purpose artificial intelligence chip king received long-awaited good news last week. After Monday’s close, President Donald Trump said on social media that Nvidia will be allowed to ship its second-best H200 chips to “approved customers in China,” and the U.S. government would take a 25% cut. Nvidia reached a deal in August with the U.S. government to provide 15% of made-for-China, throttled-down H20 sales in exchange for export licenses. It turns out China did not want the H20s. The question of whether China will want H200s was debated all week. 4. Powerful guidance On the industrial side of the AI trade, GE Vernova was our top performer despite Friday’s 4.6% decline. The energy equipment company, whose products and services help power AI data centers, closed at a record high Wednesday on incredibly positive guidance all the way out to fiscal 2028. CEO Scott Strazik, on CNBC, amplified the compelling near- and long-term growth story that management outlined at Tuesday evening’s investor meeting. On Wednesday, we raised our GE Vernova price target to $800 per share from $700, and reiterated our buy-equivalent 1 rating. The Honeywell spinoff, Solstice Advanced Materials , and Dover were also weekly winners. (Jim Cramer’s Charitable Trust is long AVOG, META, NVDA, GEV, SOLS, DOV. See here for a full list of the stocks.) As a subscriber to the CNBC Investing Club with Jim Cramer, you will receive a trade alert before Jim makes a trade. Jim waits 45 minutes after sending a trade alert before buying or selling a stock in his charitable trust’s portfolio. If Jim has talked about a stock on CNBC TV, he waits 72 hours after issuing the trade alert before executing the trade. THE ABOVE INVESTING CLUB INFORMATION IS SUBJECT TO OUR TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND PRIVACY POLICY , TOGETHER WITH OUR DISCLAIMER . NO FIDUCIARY OBLIGATION OR DUTY EXISTS, OR IS CREATED, BY VIRTUE OF YOUR RECEIPT OF ANY INFORMATION PROVIDED IN CONNECTION WITH THE INVESTING CLUB. NO SPECIFIC OUTCOME OR PROFIT IS GUARANTEED.
Trending
-
Sports2 years agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports3 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports3 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment3 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment1 year agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024
