Connect with us

Published

on

Charles Liang, CEO, Super Micro 

Source: Supermicro 

It’s been a brutal year for tech stocks. The Nasdaq is headed for its worst slump since 2008 and is poised to underperform the S&P 500 for a second straight year. Among mega-cap tech stocks, Amazon, Meta and Tesla have each lost at least half their value.

Investors looking for some sign of optimism can turn to a 29-year-old server maker located in the heart of Silicon Valley. Shares of Super Micro Computer have soared 89% in 2022, topping all other U.S. tech companies valued at $1 billion or more. Supermicro has a market cap of $4.4 billion, up from $2.4 billion at the start of the year.

related investing news

These 'recession-resistant' cybersecurity stocks have over 60% upside, analysts say

CNBC Pro
Will 2023 be a better year for the chip sector? Wall Street pros weigh in and share their top picks

CNBC Pro

Supermicro manufactures computers and sells them to companies, which use them as servers for websites, data storage and applications like artificial intelligence algorithms. In the low-margin server business, Supermicro competes with Dell, IBM and Hewlett Packard Enterprise as well as lesser-known players such as China’s Inspur. According to estimates from The Next Platform, Supermicro had about 2.6% of the market in 2021.

Supermicro has sought to differentiate itself in the market by allowing customers to more easily customize their computers. That makes for a more profitable offering than off-the-shelf servers.

The strategy has been working. Supermicro reported 46% growth in its fiscal 2022, which ended in June, to $5.2 billion in revenue. Earnings per share climbed to $5.32 in 2022 from $2.09 in 2021 and $1.60 the year before that.

“The stock is actually just simply mirroring the EPS increases we have seen over two years,” said Nehal Chokshi, an analyst at Northland Capital Markets who recommends buying the stock. Chokshi has a price target of $165, by far the highest among five analysts tracked by FactSet.

Supermicro closed on Tuesday at $82.89.

Chokshi said that Supermicro’s profitability and growth have been strong enough that it might deserve a larger multiple. Yet even with this year’s rally, the stock is only trading at 8.6 times earnings over the next 12 months, which is lower than its five-year average of 9.5, according to FactSet. For the past 12 months, it trades at 10.1 times earnings, down from a five-year average of 17.8.

“There still hasn’t been multiple expansion,” Chokshi said. “A lot of investors, including myself, find that befuddling, because this is a name that has historically generated 20-plus percent revenue and EPS growth that’s trading only at 10 [times] earnings.”

Jim Cramer gives his take on Super Micro Computer

Across the board, investors have taken a hatchet to tech multiples, reflecting concerns that soaring inflation and rising interest rates will dampen enthusiasm for growth stocks for the foreseeable future. The Nasdaq currently trades for 26 times earnings, compared with its five-year average of 35, according to FactSet.

Supermicro shares started rising in July and continued going up in August, after the company’s annual earnings report. They soared another 30% in November, after Supermicro showed a nearly 80% increase in year-over-year sales for the September quarter to $1.85 billion.

Manufacturing servers involves putting many different parts together. Supermicro starts with one of its own motherboards, plugs in a processor from Intel or AMD, or a graphics processor from Nvidia, and adds a power supply, RAM, networking and whatever other parts the computer might need. Supermicro will sell the client the motherboard, a fully assembled server, or an entire rack of servers.

Heading into 2023, the outlook for the server market is murky, especially in the early part of the year. Companies are tightening their belts, and likely to spend less on capital expenditures. Supermicro’s revenue growth is expected to moderate to about 32% in fiscal 2023 and 9% the following year.

But the company has at least regained the support of Wall Street after a rough stretch in the middle of the last decade. From 2015 through 2017, Supermicro had misstated financial statements and published some key filings late, according to the SEC.

Super Micro plunges on new report of hacked hardware in US

“They have done a marvelous job of coming back,” said Susquehanna’s Mehdi Hosseini, who has a hold rating on the stock. “I would say they’re the comeback story of 2022. And that’s what’s reflected in the share price. But the management team has to remain very aggressive with their target.”

The comeback, according to Hosseini, is partially driven by confidence in CFO David Weigand, who has implemented strong internal financial controls since taking the job in early 2021.

“They became compliant with SEC filings in 2020, and it’s just been straight line up,” Hosseini said. “They have done really well.”

Bigger customers

Supermicro CEO Charles Liang told CNBC that the company’s recent performance reflects the size of the business and its ability to offer a wider array of products, particularly around customization.

While the company has been rapidly expanding in Taiwan, one component of its differentiation strategy, Liang said, is its San Jose, California, headquarters, where Supermicro still does the majority of its manufacturing.

Liang said it’s more expensive to build locally than overseas but doing so allows the company to be physically closer and more responsive to the chip companies it supplies as well as major customers like cloud providers and big websites.

“Silicon Valley enables us for better technology, faster time to market, and quick service, quick maintenance of our customer,” Liang said.

He said tech companies can move faster with Supermicro servers and are willing to pay for execution and the company’s design skills.

One area of notable growth is machine learning, or AI algorithms that require a large amount of computing power, usually centered around graphics processors made by Nvidia or AMD. Supermicro makes motherboards and systems that can combine up to eight GPUs together on a single board.

In the latest quarter, 45% of Supermicro’s revenue came from enterprise sales, including AI and machine learning products.

Another specialized market Supermicro is targeting is servers for 5G or telecom applications, using a new kind of approach called OpenRAN.

Supermicro is targeting $8 billion to $10 billion in revenue for fiscal 2024. To reach that goal, the company says it needs substantial growth from AI products and has to sell more complete systems, or servers already installed in a rack.

Current growth is being driven by Supermicro’s large data center business, which has been landing bigger accounts and comprised 50% of total sales in the September quarter, according to a November note from Wedbush analyst Matt Bryson, who has a neutral rating on the stock.

Supermicro said in November that a big unnamed customer was responsible for nearly 22% of the company’s sales in the quarter. In recent years, Supermicro had no single customer accounting for more than 10% of its sales.

‘Far more cautious’

Among analysts, there’s some skepticism that the company can hit its targets in a softer economic environment.

Susquehanna’s Hosseini said he recently downgraded the stock “because I think they will face headwinds in the next year” and the “growth targets are too aggressive.”

Intel and AMD have issued downbeat prospects for the server market, and companies of all sizes are cutting costs.

“While we applaud the quarter, we are far more cautious when thinking about Supermicro’s intermediate to longer term path and in particular view the company’s now stated goal of $8 billion to $10 billion in revenues in 2024 with trepidation given the headwinds noted above,” Wedbush’s Bryson wrote.

Analysts at Evercore said in a note this month that they expect server market revenue growth to slow to about 2.7% globally in 2023 from 13.5% last year. Server makers like Supermicro need to carry a lot of inventory and may face margin pressure if sales slow.

Northland’s Chokshi said that Supermicro’s strengths, especially in AI systems, could allow it to weather a market downturn better than its rivals.

“While their competitors are showing strong signs that there is a significant capex down cycle, their results are accelerating,” Chokshi said. “So far, they’re showing no signs of this cycle catching up to them.”

Liang is confident that Supermicro can continue to gain new customers, even if growth slows from its recent torrid pace.

“In a good year, growth will be around 80%,” he said. “In a bad year, hopefully 20%.”

WATCH: Tech stock expectations are coming down but not fast enough

Tech stock expectations are coming down but not fast enough, says MKM Partners' Rohit Kulkarni

Continue Reading

Technology

How Elon Musk’s plan to slash government agencies and regulation may benefit his empire

Published

on

By

How Elon Musk’s plan to slash government agencies and regulation may benefit his empire

Elon Musk’s business empire is sprawling. It includes electric vehicle maker Tesla, social media company X, artificial intelligence startup xAI, computer interface company Neuralink, tunneling venture Boring Company and aerospace firm SpaceX. 

Some of his ventures already benefit tremendously from federal contracts. SpaceX has received more than $19 billion from contracts with the federal government, according to research from FedScout. Under a second Trump presidency, more lucrative contracts could come its way. SpaceX is on track to take in billions of dollars annually from prime contracts with the federal government for years to come, according to FedScout CEO Geoff Orazem.

Musk, who has frequently blamed the government for stifling innovation, could also push for less regulation of his businesses. Earlier this month, Musk and former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy were tapped by Trump to lead a government efficiency group called the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE.

In a recent commentary piece in the Wall Street Journal, Musk and Ramaswamy wrote that DOGE will “pursue three major kinds of reform: regulatory rescissions, administrative reductions and cost savings.” They went on to say that many existing federal regulations were never passed by Congress and should therefore be nullified, which President-elect Trump could accomplish through executive action. Musk and Ramaswamy also championed the large-scale auditing of agencies, calling out the Pentagon for failing its seventh consecutive audit. 

“The number one way Elon Musk and his companies would benefit from a Trump administration is through deregulation and defanging, you know, giving fewer resources to federal agencies tasked with oversight of him and his businesses,” says CNBC technology reporter Lora Kolodny.

To learn how else Elon Musk and his companies may benefit from having the ear of the president-elect watch the video.

Continue Reading

Technology

Why X’s new terms of service are driving some users to leave Elon Musk’s platform

Published

on

By

Why X's new terms of service are driving some users to leave Elon Musk's platform

Elon Musk attends the America First Policy Institute gala at Mar-A-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, Nov. 14, 2024.

Carlos Barria | Reuters

X’s new terms of service, which took effect Nov. 15, are driving some users off Elon Musk’s microblogging platform. 

The new terms include expansive permissions requiring users to allow the company to use their data to train X’s artificial intelligence models while also making users liable for as much as $15,000 in damages if they use the platform too much. 

The terms are prompting some longtime users of the service, both celebrities and everyday people, to post that they are taking their content to other platforms. 

“With the recent and upcoming changes to the terms of service — and the return of volatile figures — I find myself at a crossroads, facing a direction I can no longer fully support,” actress Gabrielle Union posted on X the same day the new terms took effect, while announcing she would be leaving the platform.

“I’m going to start winding down my Twitter account,” a user with the handle @mplsFietser said in a post. “The changes to the terms of service are the final nail in the coffin for me.”

It’s unclear just how many users have left X due specifically to the company’s new terms of service, but since the start of November, many social media users have flocked to Bluesky, a microblogging startup whose origins stem from Twitter, the former name for X. Some users with new Bluesky accounts have posted that they moved to the service due to Musk and his support for President-elect Donald Trump.

Bluesky’s U.S. mobile app downloads have skyrocketed 651% since the start of November, according to estimates from Sensor Tower. In the same period, X and Meta’s Threads are up 20% and 42%, respectively. 

X and Threads have much larger monthly user bases. Although Musk said in May that X has 600 million monthly users, market intelligence firm Sensor Tower estimates X had 318 million monthly users as of October. That same month, Meta said Threads had nearly 275 million monthly users. Bluesky told CNBC on Thursday it had reached 21 million total users this week.

Here are some of the noteworthy changes in X’s new service terms and how they compare with those of rivals Bluesky and Threads.

Artificial intelligence training

X has come under heightened scrutiny because of its new terms, which say that any content on the service can be used royalty-free to train the company’s artificial intelligence large language models, including its Grok chatbot.

“You agree that this license includes the right for us to (i) provide, promote, and improve the Services, including, for example, for use with and training of our machine learning and artificial intelligence models, whether generative or another type,” X’s terms say.

Additionally, any “user interactions, inputs and results” shared with Grok can be used for what it calls “training and fine-tuning purposes,” according to the Grok section of the X app and website. This specific function, though, can be turned off manually. 

X’s terms do not specify whether users’ private messages can be used to train its AI models, and the company did not respond to a request for comment.

“You should only provide Content that you are comfortable sharing with others,” read a portion of X’s terms of service agreement.

Though X’s new terms may be expansive, Meta’s policies aren’t that different. 

The maker of Threads uses “information shared on Meta’s Products and services” to get its training data, according to the company’s Privacy Center. This includes “posts or photos and their captions.” There is also no direct way for users outside of the European Union to opt out of Meta’s AI training. Meta keeps training data “for as long as we need it on a case-by-case basis to ensure an AI model is operating appropriately, safely and efficiently,” according to its Privacy Center. 

Under Meta’s policy, private messages with friends or family aren’t used to train AI unless one of the users in a chat chooses to share it with the models, which can include Meta AI and AI Studio.

Bluesky, which has seen a user growth surge since Election Day, doesn’t do any generative AI training. 

“We do not use any of your content to train generative AI, and have no intention of doing so,” Bluesky said in a post on its platform Friday, confirming the same to CNBC as well.

Liquidated damages

Bluesky CEO: Our platform is 'radically different' from anything else in social media

Continue Reading

Technology

The Pentagon’s battle inside the U.S. for control of a new Cyber Force

Published

on

By

The Pentagon's battle inside the U.S. for control of a new Cyber Force

A recent Chinese cyber-espionage attack inside the nation’s major telecom networks that may have reached as high as the communications of President-elect Donald Trump and Vice President-elect J.D. Vance was designated this week by one U.S. senator as “far and away the most serious telecom hack in our history.”

The U.S. has yet to figure out the full scope of what China accomplished, and whether or not its spies are still inside U.S. communication networks.

“The barn door is still wide open, or mostly open,” Senator Mark Warner of Virginia and chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee told the New York Times on Thursday.

The revelations highlight the rising cyberthreats tied to geopolitics and nation-state actor rivals of the U.S., but inside the federal government, there’s disagreement on how to fight back, with some advocates calling for the creation of an independent federal U.S. Cyber Force. In September, the Department of Defense formally appealed to Congress, urging lawmakers to reject that approach.

Among one of the most prominent voices advocating for the new branch is the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a national security think tank, but the issue extends far beyond any single group. In June, defense committees in both the House and Senate approved measures calling for independent evaluations of the feasibility to create a separate cyber branch, as part of the annual defense policy deliberations.

Drawing on insights from more than 75 active-duty and retired military officers experienced in cyber operations, the FDD’s 40-page report highlights what it says are chronic structural issues within the U.S. Cyber Command (CYBERCOM), including fragmented recruitment and training practices across the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines.

“America’s cyber force generation system is clearly broken,” the FDD wrote, citing comments made in 2023 by then-leader of U.S. Cyber Command, Army General Paul Nakasone, who took over the role in 2018 and described current U.S. military cyber organization as unsustainable: “All options are on the table, except the status quo,” Nakasone had said.

Concern with Congress and a changing White House

The FDD analysis points to “deep concerns” that have existed within Congress for a decade — among members of both parties — about the military being able to staff up to successfully defend cyberspace. Talent shortages, inconsistent training, and misaligned missions, are undermining CYBERCOM’s capacity to respond effectively to complex cyber threats, it says. Creating a dedicated branch, proponents argue, would better position the U.S. in cyberspace. The Pentagon, however, warns that such a move could disrupt coordination, increase fragmentation, and ultimately weaken U.S. cyber readiness.

As the Pentagon doubles down on its resistance to establishment of a separate U.S. Cyber Force, the incoming Trump administration could play a significant role in shaping whether America leans toward a centralized cyber strategy or reinforces the current integrated framework that emphasizes cross-branch coordination.

Known for his assertive national security measures, Trump’s 2018 National Cyber Strategy emphasized embedding cyber capabilities across all elements of national power and focusing on cross-departmental coordination and public-private partnerships rather than creating a standalone cyber entity. At that time, the Trump’s administration emphasized centralizing civilian cybersecurity efforts under the Department of Homeland Security while tasking the Department of Defense with addressing more complex, defense-specific cyber threats. Trump’s pick for Secretary of Homeland Security, South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, has talked up her, and her state’s, focus on cybersecurity.

Former Trump officials believe that a second Trump administration will take an aggressive stance on national security, fill gaps at the Energy Department, and reduce regulatory burdens on the private sector. They anticipate a stronger focus on offensive cyber operations, tailored threat vulnerability protection, and greater coordination between state and local governments. Changes will be coming at the top of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which was created during Trump’s first term and where current director Jen Easterly has announced she will leave once Trump is inaugurated.

Cyber Command 2.0 and the U.S. military

John Cohen, executive director of the Program for Countering Hybrid Threats at the Center for Internet Security, is among those who share the Pentagon’s concerns. “We can no longer afford to operate in stovepipes,” Cohen said, warning that a separate cyber branch could worsen existing silos and further isolate cyber operations from other critical military efforts.

Cohen emphasized that adversaries like China and Russia employ cyber tactics as part of broader, integrated strategies that include economic, physical, and psychological components. To counter such threats, he argued, the U.S. needs a cohesive approach across its military branches. “Confronting that requires our military to adapt to the changing battlespace in a consistent way,” he said.

In 2018, CYBERCOM certified its Cyber Mission Force teams as fully staffed, but concerns have been expressed by the FDD and others that personnel were shifted between teams to meet staffing goals — a move they say masked deeper structural problems. Nakasone has called for a CYBERCOM 2.0, saying in comments early this year “How do we think about training differently? How do we think about personnel differently?” and adding that a major issue has been the approach to military staffing within the command.

Austin Berglas, a former head of the FBI’s cyber program in New York who worked on consolidation efforts inside the Bureau, believes a separate cyber force could enhance U.S. capabilities by centralizing resources and priorities. “When I first took over the [FBI] cyber program … the assets were scattered,” said Berglas, who is now the global head of professional services at supply chain cyber defense company BlueVoyant. Centralization brought focus and efficiency to the FBI’s cyber efforts, he said, and it’s a model he believes would benefit the military’s cyber efforts as well. “Cyber is a different beast,” Berglas said, emphasizing the need for specialized training, advancement, and resource allocation that isn’t diluted by competing military priorities.

Berglas also pointed to the ongoing “cyber arms race” with adversaries like China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. He warned that without a dedicated force, the U.S. risks falling behind as these nations expand their offensive cyber capabilities and exploit vulnerabilities across critical infrastructure.

Nakasone said in his comments earlier this year that a lot has changed since 2013 when U.S. Cyber Command began building out its Cyber Mission Force to combat issues like counterterrorism and financial cybercrime coming from Iran. “Completely different world in which we live in today,” he said, citing the threats from China and Russia.

Brandon Wales, a former executive director of the CISA, said there is the need to bolster U.S. cyber capabilities, but he cautions against major structural changes during a period of heightened global threats.

“A reorganization of this scale is obviously going to be disruptive and will take time,” said Wales, who is now vice president of cybersecurity strategy at SentinelOne.

He cited China’s preparations for a potential conflict over Taiwan as a reason the U.S. military needs to maintain readiness. Rather than creating a new branch, Wales supports initiatives like Cyber Command 2.0 and its aim to enhance coordination and capabilities within the existing structure. “Large reorganizations should always be the last resort because of how disruptive they are,” he said.

Wales says it’s important to ensure any structural changes do not undermine integration across military branches and recognize that coordination across existing branches is critical to addressing the complex, multidomain threats posed by U.S. adversaries. “You should not always assume that centralization solves all of your problems,” he said. “We need to enhance our capabilities, both defensively and offensively. This isn’t about one solution; it’s about ensuring we can quickly see, stop, disrupt, and prevent threats from hitting our critical infrastructure and systems,” he added.

Continue Reading

Trending