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

Whoop says FDA is ‘overstepping its authority’ with warning about blood pressure feature

Published

on

By

Whoop says FDA is 'overstepping its authority' with warning about blood pressure feature

The logo for the Food and Drug Administration is seen ahead of a news conference on removing synthetic dyes from America’s food supply, at the Health and Human Services Headquarters in Washington, DC on April 22, 2025.

Nathan Posner | Anadolu | Getty Images

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Tuesday published a warning letter addressed to the wrist wearable company Whoop, alleging it is marketing a new blood pressure feature without proper approvals.

The letter centers around Whoop’s Blood Pressure Insights (BPI) feature, which the company introduced alongside its latest hardware launch in May.

Whoop said its BPI feature uses blood pressure information to offer performance and wellness insights that inform consumers and improve athletic performance.

But the FDA said Tuesday that Whoop’s BPI feature is intended to diagnose, cure, treat or prevent disease — a key distinction that would reclassify the wellness tracker as a “medical device” that has to undergo a rigorous testing and approval processes.

“Providing blood pressure estimation is not a low-risk function,” the FDA said in the letter. “An erroneously low or high blood pressure reading can have significant consequences for the user.”

A Whoop spokesperson said the company’s system offers only a single daily estimated range and midpoint, which distinguishes it from medical blood pressure devices used for diagnosis or management of high blood pressure.

Whoop users who purchase the $359 “Whoop Life” subscription tier can use the BPI feature to get daily insights about their blood pressure, including estimated systolic and diastolic ranges, according to the company.

Whoop also requires users to log three traditional cuff-readings to act as a baseline in order to unlock the BPI feature.

Additionally, the spokesperson said the BPI data is not unlike other wellness metrics that the company deals with. Just as heart rate variability and respiratory rate can have medical uses, the spokesperson said, they are permitted in a wellness context too.

“We believe the agency is overstepping its authority in this case by attempting to regulate a non-medical wellness feature as a medical device,” the Whoop spokesperson said.

Read more CNBC tech news

High blood pressure, also called hypertension, is the number one risk factor for heart attacks, strokes and other types of cardiovascular disease, according to Dr. Ian Kronish, an internist and co-director of Columbia University’s Hypertension Center.

Kronish told CNBC that wearables like Whoop are a big emerging topic of conversation among hypertension experts, in part because there’s “concern that these devices are not yet proven to be accurate.”

If patients don’t get accurate blood pressure readings, they can’t make informed decisions about the care they need.

At the same time, Kronish said wearables like Whoop present a “big opportunity” for patients to take more control over their health, and that many professionals are excited to work with these tools.

Understandably, it can be confusing for consumers to navigate. Kronish encouraged patients to talk with their doctor about how they should use wearables like Whoop.

“It’s really great to hear that the FDA is getting more involved around informing consumers,” Kronish said.

FILE PHOTO: The headquarters of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is seen in Silver Spring, Maryland November 4, 2009. 

Jason Reed | Reuters

Whoop is not the only wearable manufacturer that’s exploring blood pressure monitoring.

Omron and Garmin both offer medical blood pressure monitoring with on-demand readings that fall under FDA regulation. Samsung also offers blood-pressure-reading technology, but it is not available in the U.S. market.

Apple has also been teasing a blood pressure sensor for its watches, but has not been able to deliver. In 2024, the tech giant received FDA approval for its sleep apnea detection feature.

Whoop has previously received FDA clearance for its ECG feature, which is used to record and analyze a heart’s electrical activity to detect potential irregularities in rhythm. But when it comes to blood pressure, Whoop believes the FDA’s perspective is antiquated.

“We do not believe blood pressure should be considered any more or less sensitive than other physiological metrics like heart rate and respiratory rate,” a spokesperson said. “It appears that the FDA’s concerns may stem from outdated assumptions about blood pressure being strictly a clinical domain and inherently associated with a medical diagnosis.”

The FDA said Whoop could be subject to regulatory actions like seizure, injunction, and civil money penalties if it fails to address the violations that the agency identified in its letter.

Whoop has 15 business days to respond with steps the company has taken to address the violations, as well as how it will prevent similar issues from happening again.

“Even accounting for BPI’s disclaimers, they do not change this conclusion, because they are insufficient to outweigh the fact that the product is, by design, intended to provide a blood pressure estimation that is inherently associated with the diagnosis of a disease or condition,” the FDA said.

WATCH: Watch CNBC’s full interview with FDA commissioner Dr. Marty Makary

Watch CNBC's full interview with FDA commissioner Dr. Marty Makary

Continue Reading

Technology

Amazon turns to rival SpaceX to launch next batch of Kuiper internet satellites

Published

on

By

Amazon turns to rival SpaceX to launch next batch of Kuiper internet satellites

United Launch Alliance Atlas V rocket carrying the first two demonstration satellites for Amazon’s Project Kuiper broadband internet constellation stands ready for launch on pad 41 at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station on October 5, 2023 in Cape Canaveral, Florida, United States.

Paul Hennessey | Anadolu Agency | Getty Images

As Amazon chases SpaceX in the internet satellite market, the e-commerce and computing giant is now counting on Elon Musk’s rival company to get its next batch of devices into space.

On Wednesday, weather permitting, 24 Kuiper satellites will hitch a ride on one of SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rockets from a launchpad on Florida’s Space Coast. A 27-minute launch window for the mission, dubbed “KF-01,” opens at 2:18 a.m. ET.

The launch will be livestreamed on X, the social media platform also owned by Musk.

The mission marks an unusual alliance. SpaceX’s Starlink is currently the dominant provider of low earth orbit satellite internet, with a constellation of roughly 8,000 satellites and about 5 million customers worldwide.

Amazon launched Project Kuiper in 2019 with an aim to provide broadband internet from a constellation of more than 3,000 satellites. The company is working under a tight deadline imposed by the Federal Communications Commission that requires it to have about 1,600 satellites in orbit by the end of July 2026.

Amazon’s first two Kuiper launches came in April and June, sending 27 satellites each time aboard rockets supplied by United Launch Alliance.

Assuming Wednesday’s launch is a success, Amazon will have a total of 78 satellites in orbit. In order to meet the FCC’s tight deadline, Amazon needs to rapidly manufacture and deploy satellites, securing a hefty amount of capacity from rocket providers. Kuiper has booked up to 83 launches, including three rides with SpaceX.

Space has emerged as a battleground between Musk and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, two of the world’s richest men. Aside from Kuiper, Bezos also competes with Musk via his rocket company Blue Origin.

Blue Origin in January sent up its massive New Glenn rocket for the first time, which is intended to rival SpaceX’s reusable Falcon 9 rockets. While Blue Origin currently trails SpaceX, Bezos last year predicted his latest venture will one day be bigger than Amazon, which he started in 1994.

Kuiper has become one of Amazon’s biggest bets, with more than $10 billion earmarked for the project. The company may need to spend as much as $23 billion to build its full constellation, analysts at Bank of America wrote in a note to clients last week. That figure doesn’t include the cost of building terminals, which consumers will use to connect to the service.

The analysts estimate Amazon is spending $150 million per launch this year, while satellite production costs are projected to total $1.1 billion by the fourth quarter.

Amazon is going after a market that’s expected to grow to at least $40 billion by 2030, the analysts wrote, citing estimates by Boston Consulting Group. The firm estimated that Amazon could generate $7.1 billion in sales from Kuiper by 2032 if it claims 30% of the market.

“With Starlink’s solid early growth, our estimates could be conservative,” the analysts wrote.

WATCH: Amazon launches first Kuiper internet satellites into space

Amazon launches first Kuiper internet satellites into space

Continue Reading

Technology

Bitcoin falls below $117,000 after Trump crypto bills are blocked before vote

Published

on

By

Bitcoin falls below 7,000 after Trump crypto bills are blocked before vote

Bitcoin falls as lawmakers grapple with crypto regulation bills: CNBC Crypto World

Bitcoin fell below the $117,000 level on Tuesday after cryptocurrency-related bills were blocked in the House of Representatives.

The price of bitcoin was last down 2.8% at $116,516.00, according to Coin Metrics. That marks a pullback from the day’s high of $120,481.86.

Stock Chart IconStock chart icon

hide content

Bitcoin/USD Coin Metrics, 1-day

The drop comes on the heels of multiple crypto-related bills failing to overcome a procedural hurdle in the House, with 13 Republicans voting with Democrats to block the motion in a 196-223 vote.

In recent days, bitcoin has been trading at all-time highs, spurred by institutional buying of bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs) amid rising optimism that Congress would soon pass crypto legislation.

Stocks linked to crypto also came under pressure in late afternoon trading. Shares of bitcoin miners Riot Platforms and Mara Holdings closed down 3.3% and 2.3%, respectively. Others like crypto trading platforms Coinbase slid 1.5%. All were under pressure in extended trading.

Continue Reading

Trending