Connect with us

Published

on

The following is excerpted from the book “The Nvidia Way: Jensen Huang and the Making of a Tech Giant,” written by Tae Kim, a senior technology writer at Barron’s, and publishing Dec. 10 by W.W. Norton & Company. The excerpt is from a chapter about activist hedge fund Starboard Value, founded by Jeff Smith.

Early in 2013, Nvidia’s shareholders were getting restless. The stock price had been roughly flat for four years, and the financial performance was mixed. In its latest quarter ending in January, sales were up 7 percent year-­over-­year, but earnings were down 2 percent.

Nvidia had a strong balance sheet of about $3 billion in net cash, which was a significant asset when the overall market value of the company was $8 billion total. However, its growth rate was only in the single digits, which resulted in a price-­to-­earnings (P/E) multiple of just 14 times earnings. After backing out Nvidia’s cash on hand, Starboard believed that the company was severely undervalued, and its core assets had far more room to grow. The fund pounced: according to Securities and Exchange Commission 13F filings, the hedge fund accumulated a stake of 4.4 million shares in Nvidia, worth about $62 million, during the quarter ending in June of 2013.

Some executives at Nvidia weren’t excited about having Starboard as an investor. One senior Nvidia executive said the company’s board was very worried that the activist fund would force a reorganization of the company, install its own board, and make Nvidia cut back on its investments in CUDA—­the kind of drastic reshaping that it would attempt with Darden the following year. Another Nvidia executive said Starboard wanted a board seat, but the board had pushed back.

Still, the relationship never became too antagonistic. “I don’t think it ever got to what I would call a crisis stage. You know DEFCON 1?” one Nvidia executive said, referring to the alert system used by the U.S. military for nuclear war. DEFCON 5 indicates peace, while DEFCON 1 means nuclear war is imminent. “It got to DEFCON 3.”

The Starboard team met several times with Jensen and other Nvidia leaders to discuss strategy. Looking back on the investment years later, Smith said that Starboard primarily advocated for an aggressive stock buyback program and a de-­emphasis on non-­GPU projects such as phone processors. Starboard refrained from applying additional pressure after the meetings. The hedge fund eventually got its wish on the buybacks. In November 2013, Nvidia made two announcements: a commitment to buy back $1 billion of stock by fiscal 2015 and the authorization of an additional $1 billion stock buyback. The stock price rallied about 20 percent in the ensuing few months, and Starboard sold its position in Nvidia by March the following year.

Far from a contentious relationship, Nvidia and Starboard seemed to work well together in this brief period.

“We were incredibly impressed with Jensen,” said Smith.

For his part, Jensen recalls the meetings with Starboard but doesn’t particularly remember what was discussed. Before he knew it, Starboard was no longer an investor. But that wasn’t the end of Starboard’s influence on the chip industry, and on Nvidia.

A company called Mellanox was founded in 1999 by several Israeli technology executives, led by Eyal Waldman, who became its CEO. Mellanox provided high-­speed networking products for data centers and supercomputers under the “InfiniBand” standard and soon became an industry leader. It had impressive revenue growth, going from $500 million in 2012 to $858 million in 2016. However, its high research and development spend left it with very thin profit margins.

In January 2017, Starboard bought an 11 percent stake in Mellanox. It sent a letter criticizing Waldman and his team for their disappointing performance over the prior five years. Mellanox’s share price had fallen even though the semiconductor industry index had risen in value by 470 percent. Its operating margins were half of the average of its peer companies. “Mellanox has been one of the worst performing semiconductor companies for an extended period of time,” read Starboard’s letter. “The time for fringe changes and marginal improvements has long passed.”

After a long series of discussions with the board, Starboard and Mellanox reached a compromise in June 2018. Mellanox would appoint three Starboard-­approved members to its board and give the hedge fund additional future rights if Mellanox didn’t meet certain undisclosed financial targets. Even with those concessions in hand, Starboard retained the option of waging a proxy fight to replace Waldman. Alternatively, Mellanox could choose to sell itself to a company that could generate better returns on its assets than it could as an independent company. The groundwork was laid for what would be one of the most consequential transactions in the history of the chip industry.

In September 2018, Mellanox received a nonbinding purchase offer from an outside company at $102 per share—­a premium of almost a third over its current stock price of $76.90. Mellanox was now fully in play. It solicited an investment bank to seek other bidders and eventually expanded its list of potential buyers to seven in total.

Jensen wasn’t thinking about acquiring Mellanox when it became available, according to another Nvidia executive. But he quickly saw the strategic importance of the asset, decided Nvidia had to win the auction, and joined the hunt in October.

Eventually, the list was narrowed down to three serious bidders: Nvidia, Intel, and Xilinx, which made chips primarily for industrial uses. The three potential buyers got into a multi-­month bidding war, with Intel and Xilinx topping out around a bid of $122.50 a share. Nvidia went just a little bit higher, at $125 per share. It won the bidding war on March 7, 2019, for an all-­cash offer of $6.9 billion.

Days later, Nvidia and Mellanox made the deal public and held a conference call with analysts and investors.

“Let me tell you why this makes sense for Nvidia and why I’m excited about it,” Jensen said. He talked about how the demand for high-­performance computing would rise—­how workloads including AI, scientific computing, and data analytics required enormous performance increases, which could only be attained through accelerated computing with GPUs and better networking. He explained how AI applications would eventually require tens of thousands of servers connected to one another and working together in concert, and the market-­leading networking technology from Mellanox would be critical to make that possible.

“Emerging AI and data-­analytics workloads demand data-­center-­scale optimization,” he said. Jensen was predicting that computing would move beyond one device—­that the entire data center would become the computer.

Jensen’s vision came true just a few years later. In May 2024, Nvidia disclosed that the portion of the company that was formerly Mellanox had generated $3.2 billion in quarterly revenue, up more than seven times from the final quarter in early 2020 in which Mellanox reported as a public company. After just four years, the former Mellanox business, which had cost Nvidia a one-­time fee of $6.9 billion, was generating more than $12 billion in annualized revenue and growing at triple-­digit rates.

“Mellanox was frankly a wonderful thing thrown in our lap by activists,” a senior Nvidia executive said. “If you talk to AI start-­ups today, InfiniBand, Mellanox’s networking technology, is incredibly important to scale the computing power and make everything work.”

Brian Venturo, cofounder and CTO of CoreWeave, a leading GPU cloud-­computing provider and a customer of Nvidia’s, argues that InfiniBand technology still has the best solution to minimize latency, control network congestion, and to make workloads perform efficiently.

Mellanox was a happy accident for Nvidia in some respects. Jensen wasn’t on top of it from the start. But once Nvidia identified and understood the opportunity, it made the decision to pursue Mellanox aggressively. It was a great deal, though the outcome depended on Nvidia’s ability to execute once the new business became part of the company. In those ways, Mellanox was a typical Nvidia achievement: the company pounced when others didn’t, and Mellanox helped power Nvidia’s rise to dominance in the AI space.

“It’s absolutely going to go down in history as one of the best acquisitions ever,” Nvidia’s head of global field operations, Jay Puri, said. “Jensen realized that data-­center-­scale computing requires really good high-­performance networking, and Mellanox was the best in the world at that.”

After seeing Nvidia achieve all that is has over the past decade, Jeff Smith of Starboard Value had one summarizing thought, too.

“We never should have exited the position.”

Continue Reading

Technology

Affirm’s stock soars 15% on earnings, revenue beat

Published

on

By

Affirm's stock soars 15% on earnings, revenue beat

Max Levchin, co-founder of PayPal and chief executive officer of financial technology company Affirm, arrives at the Sun Valley Resort for the annual Allen & Company Sun Valley Conference, in Sun Valley, Idaho.

Drew Angerer | Getty Images

Affirm shares rose 15% in extended trading on Thursday after the provider of buy now, pay later loans reported better-than-expected earnings and revenue for the fiscal fourth quarter.

Here’s how the company did versus LSEG consensus estimates:

  • EPS: 20 cents vs. 11 cents estimated
  • Revenue: $876 million vs. $837 million estimated

Revenue climbed 33% in the period from $659 million in the same quarter a year earlier. Gross merchandise volume rose 43% to $10.4 billion from $7.2 billion a year ago.

Affirm reported net income of $69.2 million, or 20 cents a share, after recording a loss a year earlier of $45.1 million, or 14 cents a share.

 “This consistent execution led Affirm to achieve operating income profitability in FQ4’25 – right on the schedule we committed to a year ago,” the company said in its shareholder letter.

For the first quarter, Affirm said revenue will be between $855 million and $885 million, while gross merchandise volume will be $10.1 billion to 10.4 billion.

Shares of Affirm were up 31% this year before the after-hours pop, topping the Nasdaq’s 12% gain.

Affirm, which went public in 2021, faces growing competition in e-commerce. It has partnerships with Amazon and Shopify, but Walmart recently shifted to competitor Klarna, which is expected to go public in the near future. Last year, Affirm announced a deal with Apple.

WATCH: Affirm posts earnings and revenue beat

Affirm posts earnings and revenue beat for Q4

Continue Reading

Technology

Tesla FSD turns off more U.S. consumers than its attracts, survey finds

Published

on

By

Tesla FSD turns off more U.S. consumers than its attracts, survey finds

Elon Musk reacts during a press event with U.S. President Donald Trump (not pictured), at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., May 30, 2025.

Nathan Howard | Reuters

Elon Musk’s fervent promotion of Tesla‘s self-driving technology isn’t doing much to win over prospective buyers.

According to a new survey, more U.S. consumers say that Tesla’s FSD, or Full Self-Driving (Supervised) systems, would push them away from the brand rather than drawing them to it.

The Electric Vehicle Intelligence Report for August, published by political consulting firm Slingshot Strategies, polled 8,000 Americans. Only 14% of those surveyed said FSD would make them more likely to buy a Tesla, while 35% said the technology would make them less likely to purchase one.

The remaining 51% said the availability of FSD would make no difference to them in terms of their car buying decisions. Nearly half of consumers surveyed by Slingshot said they think FSD technology should be illegal.

For Tesla, the troubling results land in the middle of a sales slump resulting from an aging lineup of electric vehicles and increased competition from rivals. There’s also reputational damage in response to Musk, his incendiary political rhetoric, work with the Trump administration and support of Germany’s far-right AfD party.

Sales of Tesla cars in Europe plunged 40% in July from a year earlier, the seventh consecutive month of declines.

In the robotaxi market, Tesla is lagging Alphabet-owned Waymo, and Baidu’s Apollo Go. It’s now in the early stages of testing a ride-hailing service in Austin, Texas, and in the San Francisco Bay Area, with hopes to reach more cities this year. Cars in Austin have human supervisors on board, while those in San Francisco have drivers at the wheel.

Musk, the world’s richest person, has said the future of Tesla hangs on its ability to deliver autonomous vehicles and related services. He recently said a new variant of the Model Y, which launched in China, won’t “start production in the U.S. until the end of next year,” and “might not ever, given the advent of self-driving in America.”

Tesla sales fall 40% in Europe as Chinese EV rival BYD's triple

For now, Tesla still relies on EV sales for the vast majority of its revenue, though Musk has touted FSD as one of the company’s big advantages over competitors.

Last month, executives suggested that Tesla has a market education problem when it comes to driving adoption of FSD.

“The vast majority of people don’t know it exists,” Musk said on the company’s second-quarter earnings call. “And it’s still like half of Tesla owners who could use it, haven’t tried it even once.”

Musk said he would start telling customers about FSD when they bring their cars in for service, and would begin reaching out to drivers, sending them videos of how it works.

Tesla CFO Vaibhav Taneja said on the July earnings call that people who subscribe to the premium FSD option get something like a “personal chauffeur” for about $3.33 a day.

The version of FSD Supervised that Tesla sells today is available to owners for $99 per month or an up-front purchase. The system gives users a limited set of self-driving capabilities on residential and city streets.

On Thursday, Tesla sent out a promotion offering 0% APR financing for customers ordering a new Model 3 by Sept. 1, as long as they add FSD Supervised to their order, or transfer it from their previously owned Tesla.

‘Holding AV manufacturers responsible’

Musk has said in posts on X that FSD can “can operate in all conditions,” will “save lives” and will be a “life-changing product” for many people. He’s also shared user-generated videos showing Tesla owners using FSD without their hands on the wheel.

However, in owners manuals, Tesla lists many conditions in which FSD Supervised may not be reliable, and warns users to keep their hands on the steering wheel at all times, and be ready to take over steering or braking.

Among the subset of survey respondents actively looking to buy a fully electric vehicle, only 20% said they were more likely to buy a Tesla because of FSD, while 33% said they were less likely. Evan Roth Smith, Slingshot’s head of research, said a lack of clarity and honesty in the company’s marketing could be a factor.

Most consumers polled by the firm want clear and strong regulations in the U.S. governing autonomous vehicles, whether they’re fully or partially automated.

“There is strong support for holding AV manufacturers responsible for accidents and requiring stricter regulatory and advertising guardrails around features such as FSD,” the Slingshot report said.

Smith said the data shows that beyond its FSD woes, Tesla has “the worst reputation of any EV maker in the U.S.”

“The drop in the company’s brand reputation this year is remarkable,” he said, adding that recent product liability lawsuits and verdicts may be playing a role.

In early August, a jury found Tesla partially liable for a fatal crash where the driver was relying on its autopilot systems. Tesla, which plans to appeal the decision, must pay around $243 million in damages to victims and a survivor.

In the past two months, the number of consumers who view Tesla cars as unsafe has increased to 36% from 34%, the Slingshot report found, while those viewing Tesla as very safe fell to 13% from 17%.

Honda, Toyota and Chevrolet were seen as safest among the greatest number of respondents.

Tesla didn’t respond to a request for comment. Slingshot said it sent the survey results to the company but also didn’t hear back from the automaker.

Tesla may find that owners in other markets embrace its brand, and FSD, with greater enthusiasm. The company just started offering FSD Supervised in Australia this week.

Read Slingshot’s full Electric Vehicle Intelligence Report for August 2025 here.

WATCH: Wedbush’s Ives says 80% of Musk lawsuit against Apple, OpenAI is ‘noise’

Wedbush's Dan Ives: 80% of Musk lawsuit against Apple, OpenAI is 'noise'

Continue Reading

Technology

Dell shares fall on soft third-quarter earnings outlook

Published

on

By

Dell shares fall on soft third-quarter earnings outlook

A Dell Technologies sign is seen in Round Rock, Texas, on June 2, 2023.

Brandon Bell | Getty Images

Despite beating on its top and bottom lines, shares of Dell Technologies fell more than 5% Thursday in extended trading after giving third-quarter earnings per share guidance that below Wall Street’s expectations.

Here’s how the systems integrator did versus LSEG consensus estimates:

  • EPS: $2.32, adjusted vs. $2.30 estimated
  • Revenue: $29.78 billion vs. $29.17 billion estimated

Dell raised its full year outlook for revenue to be $107 billion at its midpoint and diluted earnings per share to $9.55 at the midpoint, topping Wall Street estimates of $104.6 billion and $9.38 per share.

However, Dell’s guidance for third-quarter earnings per share of $2.45 came in short versus LSEG’s mark of $2.55, despite Dell’s guide for $27 billion in third-quarter revenue topping estimates of $26.1 billion.

Dell said that part of the reason its profit forecast is concentrated in the fourth quarter is due to seasonality, particularly in its storage business.

For the second quarter, overall revenue rose 19% on an annual basis. That was driven by the company’s Servers and Networking revenue, including AI servers, which came in at $12.9 billion, which was up 69% on an annual basis.

Dell is one of Nvidia’s key customers. Dell buys chips from the AI leader and builds computers around them, which it sells to end-users such as CoreWeave, a cloud service. Dell said it shipped $10 billion in AI servers in its past two quarters.

Dell said that it now plans to ship $20 billion of artificial intelligence servers in its fiscal 2026, double what it sold last year.

However, the company’s storage revenue declined 3% to $3.86 billion and missed a StreetAccount estimate of $4.1 billion in sales.

Revenue in the company’s client solutions group, which includes PC sales to enterprises, rose 1% on an annual basis to $12.5 billion. While it used to be Dell’s largest business group, in recent quarters it has grown much slowly than the company’s data center business.

Dell said it spent $1.3 billion on share repurchases and dividends during the quarter.

WATCH: Nvidia’s data center opportunity is still enormous and it’s early, says Bernstein’s Stacy Rasgon

Nvidia's data center opportunity is still enormous and it's early, says Bernstein's Stacy Rasgon

Continue Reading

Trending