[azanimefan]

Thanks. I wish I knew how to invest. I'm scared of hidden fees.

It depends how you invest.

If you invest through a broker, make they do a brokerage account, and get their commission in writing. generally any legit broker will only take a small (3%) percentage of your annual growth, and get nothing if you lose money. The only fees you need to know about investing is whenever you MAKE money (as in goes into your checking/savings account) you need to pay capital gains taxes (typically 0%, 15%, or 20% on the earnings, this depends on your taxable income for the year). There are exceptions, for example, if you trade rapidly, say buy stock X today then sell it tomorrow your capital gains tax on the profit becomes == to your annual tax rate. So the motivation is to keep everything you buy for atleast a year before moving off the position. Now there is NO tax on a loss, in fact you typically can write off losses as a tax deduction for the year. However if you're investing you don't want to think about losses.

Remember, with all investing, it's only worth what you sell it for. Which is exactly how the taxes see it.

There are other rules for various investment types (IRAs, Annuities, 401K), but the basics are as I outlined above. Remember only deal through a broker, and only if he will work your account through a brokerage account (and put his fees in writing). There are too many "investment professionals" who will rob you blind out there if your not careful.

your other option is to do your trading yourself, but I usually suggest people don't do this. talk to a broker at least before you contemplate this option.

 

[Syldon]

If anyone observes stocks on a regular basis, any time a stock peaks or an entire industry peaks, their is only way for it to go, and this is down because investors are looking to make money . If you speed up the decline in stock value quickly, it regains its potential to make money again and becomes an attractive investment again. In my opinion, Intel wants their stock to go down so they can boost it back up again and make more money from new investors.

Take a look at the video game dev companies on the stock market, those all peaked. So now CEOs need to make it profitable again(because that's literally their responsibility) so to do this they tear down the company image as quickly as possible by creating loads of bad pr to control public perception so that current shareholders sell and tank the price. Trying to bank on a new product raising the stock price/increasing profitability after the peak but before the drop rarely works well enough to create the amount of profit these greedos want.

The faster the price tanks, the faster the stock becomes attractive to new potential investors and the faster these companies can make money again from said new potential investors. It's a formula. If they can manage/control this cycle on a early basis or once every 2 years, they can make more money faster in a shorter period of time and they also save a crap ton of dividend money they'd normally have to pay back out to shareholders who sit on stocks long term that ended up selling instead due to bad pr woes.


I think the us stock market is abusable without repercussion or consequences using these methods because no one would ever be able to prove a thing unless CEOs/Decision makers/schemers were caught on a recording conspiring to do this. But since telepathy is a thing, i think it is abusable without repercussion or consequences) and No, i don't participate in the stock market and I do not knowingly speak to or associate with anyone that does. I'm just an observer and this is 100% my opinion.


I could name 1 video game dev company who appears to be following this formula to the T. They were the king of PC gaming at one point, then the video game dev stocks peaked so I honestly don't believe for a second that they could continuously make the worst decisions possible in the public spotlight for the last year or year n a half straight. Seriously, the worse braindead decisions possible. I won't name the video game dev company though.


50 bux says Dee I was purposely made to look like a clone of another game to spark negative pr and that they knew that trying to get their current clientele to play games on phones wouldn't work in effort to get negative pr(i don't think they ever intended to release dee i on phones, It was finished last year according to the outsourced company). I think this crap was an elaborate con to be honest. Something out of the movies. I don't think i could've written it any better myself.

This entire post is my opinion.

You are aligning profits with stock prices and that is not really how it works. Stock prices have nothing to do with the profits the company makes, as they are two different things.

Some companies use some stocks as investment cash and that has an affect on the company value and cash flow. In this case it is actually beneficial for stocks to be at a good price.

People investing usually invest for the long term and get a return in profits sharing (dividends). No one wants quick return investor price gouging on their company stocks.

Anyone within a company who owns stocks and manages the company in such as way as to manipulate the price is then breaking the law under insider trading rules.

 

[skupples]

https://www.investopedia.com/articl...gterm-vs-shortterm-capital-gain-tax-rates.asp


i'd recommend reading this, if you're looking into putting some money up.



lots of people get hit with higher than 20%, specially crypto traders.

 

[Lass3]

Wooooooow. This is huge. It will be so interesting to see how AMD and intel compete when they are on essentially identical processing nodes.

Not sure it will be interresting, because AMD is in good conditioning because of TSMC 7nm and because Intel has been stuck on 14nm for years. If AMD did not have this advantage, Ryzen would not have succeded like it did. It was first after 3000 series, with TSMC 7nm, that Ryzen perforance went from decent to great.

Even Intel 10nm is superior to TSMC 7nm in terms of MT per mm2 and 10nm Superfin is working fine with decent yields now, which is why Alder Lake launches in a few months.

Maybe TSMC 3nm is for GPUs, not CPUs. We will see.

I think TSMC 6nm is mostly for PS5 and Xbox Series X/S to take load off 7nm and 5nm lines.. TSMC can't keep up which is why Intel has been selling tons of chips lately, in some parts of the world AMD Ryzen 5000 series and especially Radeon 6000 series is nowhere to be found but Intel chips and Nvidia chips can be bought

 

[azanimefan]

Maybe TSMC 3nm is for GPUs, not CPUs. We will see.

Intel apparently is using it for server and laptops, I suspect they're purchasing the low clock speed version of the 3nm run.

 

[Lass3]

Intel apparently is using it for server and laptops, I suspect they're purchasing the low clock speed version of the 3nm run.

Is this official? Did Intel say anything? Because I can't see the logic in going TSMC 3nm for laptop chips? Especially not when their 10nm Superfin proces is mature and on par with TSMC 7nm

Intel 7nm might launch in late 22 or 23 (should be on par with TSMC 5nm). So I don't really know why Intel bought into TSMC 3nm, maybe it's their backup if 7nm stale

 

[EniGma1987]

Is this official? Did Intel say anything? Because I can't see the logic in going TSMC 3nm for laptop chips? Especially not when their 10nm Superfin proces is mature and on par with TSMC 7nm

Intel 7nm might launch in late 22 or 23 (should be on par with TSMC 5nm). So I don't really know why Intel bought into TSMC 3nm, maybe it's their backup if 7nm stale

Intel did indeed sign on for 3nm chips at TSMC. We dont know what chips though, could be laptop and server which are low clocked, could be high performance, could be GPUs. We do know that TSMC 3nm is going to be in full production in 2023 which is not too far away, and that it will have the majority of layers on EUV now. It could be that Intel saw it will be more advanced than they will have and so signed on for chips to ensure they have a dominant node while they continue to advance their own fabs. Right now Intel just barely got 10nm working correctly, and supposedly 7nm is doing well but is still going to barely be in production mode by halfway through 2022. So that would mean Intels 5nm or better would be a while off yet, and could be why they signed with TSMC in the meantime. Intel's 10nm fiasco set them back a very long way in process node dominance. It is going to take a while for them to get back to being ahead in fabs.

 

[Lass3]

Intel did indeed sign on for 3nm chips at TSMC. We dont know what chips though, could be laptop and server which are low clocked, could be high performance, could be GPUs. We do know that TSMC 3nm is going to be in full production in 2023 which is not too far away, and that it will have the majority of layers on EUV now. It could be that Intel saw it will be more advanced than they will have and so signed on for chips to ensure they have a dominant node while they continue to advance their own fabs. Right now Intel just barely got 10nm working correctly, and supposedly 7nm is doing well but is still going to barely be in production mode by halfway through 2022. So that would mean Intels 5nm or better would be a while off yet, and could be why they signed with TSMC in the meantime. Intel's 10nm fiasco set them back a very long way in process node dominance. It is going to take a while for them to get back to being ahead in fabs.

Well 10nm Superfin works fine now or they would not do a full desktop and mobile release on this node. It took some time tho, but don't forget that Intel 10nm Superfin is on par with TSMC 7nm in terms of density.

You can't really compare nanometer across fabs, which is why Intel 7nm will be on par with TSMC 5nm and so on. TSMC always have the lower number. Samsung is somewhere in between TSMC and Intel right now.

I don't really see the point in Intel using 3nm TSMC for mobile chips. It has to be some high-end stuff, enterprise or desktop, or it would be pointless. 99% of mobile users DON'T need top performance, which is why Apple M1 is so succesful. Most just do browsing, streaming and office work. Hybrid design - big.LITTLE - is going to be insanely good for mobile.

Being fabless is not always good, just look at AMD now (struggling to deliver), meanwhile Intel spits so many chips out (regaining marketshare), so yeah, Intel needs their own fabs so they don't rely on 3rd party too much. TSMC 3nm is just temporary but this shows just how much money Intel still has (not much changed in terms of that). Even with all the AMD succes in the last years, Intel still has a way higher net worth and liquidity. They WILL come back, it's just a matter of time - this has happend every single time AMD had something good, altho this is AMDs best run ever, A BIG PART of this is also that Intel has been stuck on 14nm for so long and without TSMC, AMD would NOT have succeded. GloFo 12nm was and is a terrible node, even when compared to Intel 14nm. GloFo 12nm is more like 16nm or worse in terms of density and clockspeeds are terrible. Thats why AMD pulled out and left GloFo behind. No future and no hope for improvements.