Intel trades at a higher multiple than monopolistic competitor TSMC because its valuation is partly based on the geopolitical goal of creating an independent U.S. foundry. The market may be overvaluing customer "engagements" as actual revenue, betting on future potential over current performance.

Related Insights

Contrary to typical competitive behavior, major memory chip manufacturers intentionally limit their market share with any single customer. They prefer their clients, like Dell, to be multi-sourced from their competitors. This ensures a more resilient and stable supply chain for the entire ecosystem, prioritizing long-term stability over short-term dominance.

The pro-export argument for selling NVIDIA chips to China is strategic: flooding their market with good-enough, affordable chips makes it uneconomical for their domestic industry to compete. This fosters dependency on the U.S. ecosystem and can slow their independent technological progress.

Despite strong macro demand for server CPUs driven by AI, Intel's disappointing revenue guidance points to internal execution and production issues. This raises questions about its ability to capitalize on the market boom, as demand outstrips its constrained supply.

Tech giants often initiate custom chip projects not with the primary goal of mass deployment, but to create negotiating power against incumbents like NVIDIA. The threat of a viable alternative is enough to secure better pricing and allocation, making the R&D cost a strategic investment.

Seemingly strange deals, like NVIDIA investing in companies that then buy its GPUs, serve a deep strategic purpose. It's not just financial engineering; it's a way to forge co-dependent alliances, secure its central role in the ecosystem, and effectively anoint winners in the AI arms race.

TSMC's "pure-play foundry" model, where it only manufactures chips and doesn't design its own, builds deep trust. Customers like Apple and NVIDIA can share sensitive designs without fear of competition, unlike with rivals Intel and Samsung who have their own chip products.

In semiconductors, missing a key innovation cycle (like mobile or EUV manufacturing) is catastrophic. Leaders like TSMC attract top customers, which helps them improve their tech, creating a flywheel that makes it incredibly difficult for laggards like Intel to ever recover.

Taiwan's TSMC dominates advanced chip manufacturing not only through technical excellence but also its business model. By acting as a pure-play foundry that doesn't compete with its clients (unlike Intel or Samsung), it fostered unique trust and partnerships, making it the central hub of the semiconductor ecosystem and a critical geopolitical asset.

U.S. chip companies that sell to Chinese tech giants are making a strategic error. They are building a temporary bridge for future competitors who are mandated to switch to domestic suppliers like Huawei once viable. This short-term revenue comes at the cost of shrinking their own long-term global market share.

A key risk to OpenAI's trillion-dollar valuation is not just market competition, but the rise of a state-backed, parallel AI ecosystem in China. This creates a future where global AI leadership could be fragmented along geopolitical lines, challenging long-term dominance.

Intel's Valuation Is Inflated by Geopolitical Hopes for its Foundry Business | RiffOn