Trouble is, its success and its sector has given it a profile that attracts attention from the likes of Softbank who have other ideas. A company doesn't need to have a Nvidia like P/E ratio to be successful.
Absolutely true. Sadly nowadays, especially in the US, and especially in tech, unless the company is growing like crazy or massive, it's considered as insignificant and dimissed.
Maybe in Silicon Valley, were decades of totem disdain for anything resembling a business education is starting to take its toll. For anyone with a financial background, slow-growing profitable companies are most American industry. If you want to grow slowly (or barely at all), and want investors who like that, offer a dividend and price at a reasonable P/E.
I wonder to what extent the overarching business culture of the UK (which I'd categorise as being generally apathetical, if not hostile, to the engineering profession) might have anything to do with it.
(...speaking as a former UK eng myself)
That's nothing to do with it - the company is only listing on NASDAQ - ARM has office all over the world but will still be based and managed in the UK along with most of its employees (engineers) like when it was owned by a Japanese company.
Listing on the tech heavy NASDAQ rather than the LSE gives the company more access to investors that are likely to buy shares: retail, commercial, and hundreds of index trackers and funds - increasing the share price.
A lot of US funds have restrictions as to how much they can invest outside the US.
I'm not sure that's relevant. ARM is listing American Depository Shares, so this is still usually viewed as an international investment.
Any chance you could elaborate on this? Arm exists and is British, after all.
The UK has a great engineering tradition, especially from the Victorian and Empire eras, all the way up to WW2, but it seems that after that there was a dramatic and incredibly short sighted turn to economisation and avoiding investment.
The absolute poster child for this was the UK space programme, which was cancelled just before the launch of its first rocket. The director of the programme decided to defy orders and launch anyway, on the grounds that everything was ready and he was in Australia. But this pervades everything. The TBMs for Euston HS2 have been bought, but are going to spend the next year buried doing nothing, because there's a persistent desire to cancel HS2 after most of the work has been done but before any of the benefits are gained.
Concorde somehow escaped cancellation multiple times. The UK developed its own nuclear reactor technology (Magnox) then gave up and let Electricite de France run everything.
I've heard this complaint from several people in Cambridge's "startup" industry too. There are hardly any angel investors. The amounts of money available are tiny. Got an idea? Tough, you'll have to develop it in your own literal garden shed at your own expense. The local capital owners are far more interested in property, which doesn't require any thinking.
* The UK's sudden deindustrialisation (1970s-1990s) was inevitable but foreseeable and yet still poorly managed by both political parties, IMHO: my perception is Labour was more interested in propping up whatever heavy-industry remained rather than ease the UK into the future - and as for the Tories... probably best I say nothing there.
* Even before deindustrialisation the overarching business-culture in medium to large businesses in the UK was, and still is, tied to the entrenched class system, insofar as the board-level positions, upper management, sometimes even middle-management, and many specialties like legal, are held by a kind of unofficial aristocacy that looks-out for each-other rather than what's best for the business that they run (let alone the country): some combination of Eton, Harrow, having read Classics at Oxbridge, you can see what I'm getting at. This alone explains how Boris Johnson won his party's leadership and remained in-office despite clear evidence of misconduct in office, and so on and so on. Nepotism is rife here: the middling, uninterested, types get to work at daddy's friends's firm if they can't get recruited by the banks when they do their milk-runs.
* For reasons I haven't fully explored yet, despite the UK being the birthplace of the industrial revolution, and of so many inventions we still rely on today, and of great engineers like Isambard Kingdom Brunel - the engineering profession was never elevated to something Etonians would be interested in - it became a very middle-class occupation. That itself isn't a real problem as far as I'm concerned - the problem comes back to how the layers of management would be literally a class apart from engineering, and that class-divide results in engineering being excluded from management and leadership decisions, no-matter how central or critical engineering is to the company's identity or very purpose - for this reason you won't find many former-engineers being promoted to leadership or management or their experiences and inputs being valued: after all, the board read Classics so of course they know far better about how to run a successful business than a silly engineer from Lancs who plays with his funny slide-rule all day long.
* Even in more progressive companies without the problem of aristocratic management it's difficult to get access to capital, especially for anything remotely risky.
* A small, but still contributing point, that I feel matters slightly, is that different social groups in the UK tend to have differing mental pictures of what "engineering" even is: for many people (possibly even most people? maybe at least oop north...) they'll tell you an engineer is someone who stokes the fire on a stream-train, or fixes their telly when it breaks - MAYBE a civil-engineer - while our preferred answer: "someone who solves problems" would probably be 3rd or 4th down on the Family Fueds survey screen. This is my perception and I hope I'm wrong. As an anecdote, I was in secondary-school and 6th Form during the last of the Labour years when the careers advice service ("Connexxions"[1]) was pushing a very egalitarian view of how careers, further-ed and higher-ed, and professional development should operate - I support their goals, but I feel they got the messaging wrong and misrepresented how many careers operated - for a solid example, I still have my A2-sized full-colour print careers guidebook (with lots of flashy photos to boot) we all got when we were 14 (15? 16?) which certainly contributed towards the perception that (excepting civil engineering) that "engineer" is just another word for "technician": while the book did do justice to civil and chemical engineering, it made no mention of software engineering or electronics engineering, while mechnical engineering was really under-sold to its readers, and electrical engineering was down-right misrepresented. Experiences like these are only going to put-off kids from considering engineering precisely at that age when they're thinking about what they want to do with their life.
* More broadly, I don't think the UK really has many (any?) public-figures who are celebrated as engineering figures - in fact all, of the celebrities I know who have engineering backgrounds got famous for deciding to stop being an engineer: Rowan Atkinson (Mr. Bean) is an elctrical engineer who went to Queen's College, Carol Voderman did engineering at Cambridge, and so on - while the people I suppose we could be celebrating, like James Dyson, clearly act against the interests of the UK's engineering sector (he moved huge chunks of the company to Singapore). Yes, we have Rolls-Royce jet-engines, BAE Systems, and an assortment of luxury carmakers - but I'm convinced they're only still around because they are strategic national interests, and the UK government has had to bail them out of bankruptcy more times than we'd like, so excepting the defence sector, the UK has no real equivalent of NASA with which to inspire its young children, pre-uni students, and mid-career-shifters.
* Another aspect that I think matters, even if only somewhat slightly, the attitudes of those-in-charge (regardless of their class background: Tory or Labour) towards people-on-the-spectrum and those adjacent to it (i.e. us) - it's a nebulous thing I can't pin-down easily - but until 6th Form I was under constant pressure to conform (because if you don't support any footy team at all then you must be a right spesh) - it starts right from Reception year in Primary. Of course this is not unique to the UK, I've heard the exact same stories told from people I know who grew up in Iowa or Idaho - but those states aren't exactly known for their engineering sectors either. This extends to an undercurrent of scepticism of things like ADHD; while paternalism and gatekeeping remain in the medical profession, especially in mental health (though things are definitely better than they were 20-30 years ago) - right down to the anti-trans crap Rishi Sunak is still pushing to deflect criticsm of 13 years of Tory rule, never mind it led to the murder of a teenage girl. At least David Cameron wasn't that bad.
* One of the things that Boris Johnson's government did while in power was to up-end the 6th Form examinations system - I'll admit I don't know all the details, but I understand his changed the system to be much closer to the (almost social-Darwinian) way things were when Boris himself was doing his A-Levels: where your final subject grade depends far more on how you do in your finals exams instead of continuous assessment/coursework, with no or very limited opportunities for resits, and removing choices like a-la-carte module selection - but it is exactly and only because of the flexibility afforded to me when I was at that age that my comorbid ASD+ADHD-addled brain was able to get into university (and a very good one at that), whereas I'm certain that I would not be able to manage today with that level of intense exam-prep in only a 2-month window - and without my degree I would not be able to qualify for the H-1B (where a BSc is an absolute requirement) and eventually get my US Green Card.
* It is true that the UK does, actually, succeed in software in one crucial area: video games: Rockstar, DMA, Rare, Codemasters, Hello Games (No Man's Sky), just to name a few - but as others in this thread have remarked: successive UK governments, again, regardless of party, fail to give the sector the credit and support it needs and the UK's success here is in-spite of everything, not because of it. Crucially, the UK's games sector was built on the home-computer revolution of the 1980s - successive governments have had plenty of opportunities to repeat that success, but so far all I've seen is the 2016 BBC micro:bit project - which honestly felt like a gimmick than something to inspire kids with.
* Things aren't all bad though: I'm happy to see things like Scratch being taught in primary-schools and A-Level Computer Science now being closer to undergraduate level than glorified-ICT than it was in my day - but these things won't address the larger social, cultural, and attitudinal issues at play here.
Our current government is indifferent to this.
Having said this, there is still a reasonable amount of industry in the UK, the UK is by far the best country in the EU to buy engineering supplies but I think this is a remnant of the past. Most of the major engineering companies in industrial estates are Asian or American owned, now.
Finding a place to rent on the other hand is still difficult, particularly without a history of renting in the UK
This almost certainly required a personal guarantee (the friend would have to promise to repay the loan in the case the LLC could not).
It begun with the invention of the computer as we know it... - Charles Babbage,"Father of the computer", British - Alan Turing, "Father of modern computer science", British
Then there was Margret Thatcher who decided the internet was a fad and wasn't worth investing in internet infrastructure in the country.
Where did the multi billion (if not trillion by now) industry end up? Silicon Valley and elsewhere....
Bravo UK... Bravo </sarcasm>
The mistake Thatcher made was to open up the telecoms market to competition at a time when the legacy provider (BT) were starting to build a high speed internet highway/backbone. In hindsight, this could indeed be considered an error but looking how BT have fared since, perhaps not?
We're now in the absurd situation where 4 out of 6 power generating companies are foreign owned and the Japanese own our chip manufacturer.
All because of her policies that originally envisioned that the share holding would be by the British public, not foreigners.
And the latest scandal is that our water companies are dumping ridiculous amounts of sewage into our waterways while giving out huge dividends. And there's nothing anyone seems to be able to do about it.
She decided it was better to open the market to foreign cable TV providers and so barred BT from selling TV access.
Without TV there was no driver for fibre investment.
Where BT would have had a requirement to provide universal access to fibre, as with phone provision, Telewest and NTL just did geograhically limited roll outs of legacy coax and the rest is history.
This seems unbelievable now, but the relevant reference is https://www.techradar.com/news/world-of-tech/how-the-uk-lost...
What about indexes? If they qualify for NASDAQ or some other major index, there's some "mandatory" investment that gets triggered by a bunch of funds that do index tracking.
I would presume where you choose to list is kind of a flag of convenience, like it is in maritime. It's probably not as irrelevant as to where things actually happen as flying the Liberian flag or incorporating in Delaware but I'd bet it's close.
Yes, and yes.
> What about indexes? If they qualify for NASDAQ or some other major index, there's some "mandatory" investment that gets triggered by a bunch of funds that do index tracking.
NASDAQ is an exchange, not an index.
The most prominent index on NASDAQ is the QQQ, the top 100 stocks,market cap weighted.
But this is the big boy playground, the smallest stocks in QQQ should have at least $400B marketcap. ARM by the most optimistic estimation should be 1/10th of that.
QQQ is an index fund:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invesco_QQQ
That follows the Nasdaq-100 index:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasdaq-100
There are other funds that track it too from companies other than Invesco.
Unstable government.
High tax.
Questionable access to other markets.
Questionable reliability when it comes to international agreements (which is pretty fucking vital to a company like AIM).
It's sad (I'm a londoner) but the UK cannot blame anyone but our selves. We're just going through the national equivalent of a tantrum.
There must be some benefit for governments to make such a request.
What justifies such crazy increase in value? Also, I believe Nvidia overpaid for the company regardless. Nvidia was willing to pay $40b because they want a world-class CPU design team to integrate their GeForce IP into SoCs and service chips.
But a standalone ARM is not very valuable. The reason is that ARM's business model (licensing core designs and ISA) makes peanuts compared to Qualcomm, Apple, Intel, AMD, etc. In addition, ARM's biggest customers are also their biggest competitors. For example, Apple competes with stock ARM designs with Apple Silicon. Qualcomm will be competing with ARM designs via Nuvia chips. Ampere Computing just designed a custom ARM core of their own.
When ARM only license the ISA (Apple Silicon, Nuvia, and Ampere One), they make peanuts. When they license ARM core designs, they make slightly more than peanuts.
It's generally not a good business to invest in. I find it hard to justify the $60b - $70b valuation. No doubt Softbank will try to sell ARM as an AI company. It's not.
i agree.
> Arm reported $524 million in net income on $2.68 billion in revenue in its fiscal 2023, which ended in March
i find the current valuation ludicrous, and it seems like it's pushed more by Softbank's Vision Fund than a firm grasp in reality.
>i find the current valuation ludicrous, and it seems like it's pushed more by Softbank's Vision Fund than a firm grasp in reality.
Just for comparison, AMD, which is still quite small, gets about $2b - $4b annual net profit. Intel, before their recent disaster quarters, had as much as $24b in annual net profit.
$524m in net income is peanuts compared to the big boys. This is what I was saying in my original post. ARM is a more valuable company if they were acquired by Nvidia. As a standalone company, it's not that great. Again, a weird quirk of ARM is that their biggest customers are also their biggest competitors. This puts a cap on how much profit they can make. If ARM decides to raise licensing fees exponentially, which is likely not simple due to long-term contracts, then companies will seriously look to RISC-V.
Because ARM is the smallest fish in the pond, it can't pay for the best engineers. The best chip engineers will go to AMD, Intel, Nvidia, Apple, Qualcomm, and startups. ARM is where these companies go to poach.
It seems a bit like Linux to me - you could say Linus Torvalds is disappointing because he's not as rich as Elon Musk and yet one might argue both that he has done more and that if he had tried to get super rich out of it he would not have achieved so much because every effort to extract significant money would have lessened the breadth of his impact. People wouldn't have co-operated.
I haven't looked into all their changes in detail but they're not just going to suddenly increase profit without their customers fighting back.
"Arm China is 25% of our revenue, but we have no control over them, they have failed to pay us in the past resulting in us taking on additional costs to recover the money, also we have no way of knowing what they actually owe us and other than what they say, which has already been a problem"
https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Caixin/In-Depth-How-SoftBa...
Having myself been part of a joint venture with the Chinese (in the education space), and having a Chinese employee go rogue, I only advise against western firms (even large ones with clout) from engaging in such ventures. The Chinese will take control by any means necessary and bleed you dry from the inside.
Nope, the F-1 addresses this: "Neither we [Arm] nor SoftBank Group control the operations of Arm China, which operates independently of us. "
(page 18, FY2023)
96% gross profit margin? Ahh to be an IP licensing company....why would anyone invest in building physical things when there are opportunities like this out there! </s>
edit: clarify gross profit margin
Net income: 0.524 bb
So 19.6% profit margin. Still nice.
I think your math refers to operating margin, that's after they subtract all the operating overheads which are fixed, and not proportional to sales volume. In other words a 96% gross margin means they have virtually no friction to increasing sales.
Compare to Intel statement [2], they have a 35.8% gross margin and a negative operating margin this year, which would be the apples to apples comparison against 96% gross margin and 19.6% operating margin in the F1.
My read on the income line is they do a good job of 'spending money', but they are signaling that can be turned into things like dividends to shareholders once they IPO, perhaps by doing short sighted things like cutting R&D expenses and/or accounting tricks.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_margin
[2] https://www.intc.com/news-events/press-releases/detail/1637/...
One option is to embrace it as an opportunity. ARM designs some pretty good CPU cores, so imagine they offered good RISC-V cores as well. RISC-V can be free, but a lot of companies still license core designs.
This is the approach MIPS took. They deprecated their legacy ISA, embracing the industry-standard RISC-V.
Problem is, ARM's management hasn't shown any signs of actually being capable of doing this. It would have to be replaced, and the business model would need a deep redesign.
But everything hardware takes a long time. Can ARM survive until they have competitive RISC-V designs ready?
I will not bet on that.
For a SoC (or bigger uC) include both ARM & RISC-V cores. They can work side by side, be used as development platform for either, share memory or peripherals included in the SoC (or perhaps share different but overlapping subsets of those resources). Or a Big.Little style setup where the "Big" and "Little" are different ISA.
Where utilising chip resources 100% is not too important (like, in most applications), designers could simply work with the ISA cores they're comfortable with. Switch use to the other cores, use the same peripherals.
Would this be difficult to work with? Unlikely. Software support for such setups exists, suitable defaults / boot settings & go.
At the very least this would get ARM foot in the door if it turns out RISC-V eating ARMs market share (which is already happening, be it limited scale so far). Or collect the 'ARM tax' for SoCs whose designers wanted RISC-V but don't mind including ARM as well.
Forget it, Jake. It’s China.
I wonder how many of those are buried in landfill now.
(okay, maybe this is an exaggeration, but these small things are pretty much everywhere... not even speaking about chips in other, more complex devices)
In other words, nearly all of them.
I've started calling it "Landfill Boot".
“Despite our significant reliance on Arm China through our commercial relationship with them, both as a source of revenue and as a conduit to the important [Chinese] market, Arm China operates independently of us,” the prospectus warned, adding that Arm did not have any direct management rights or the right to representation on Arm China’s board.
They have designed a processor architecture that is RISC-style. For some companies, ARM sells the design and others manufacture the chip. So what do Apple and Qualcomm get out of it, if they design their own architecture? Is apple tacking on proprietary extensions or instructions?
Why didn't apple design a CPU architecture from the ground up ala RISC-V?
An ISA is the Instruction Set Architecture, the interface between software and hardware.
A microarchitecture is a hardware implementation of an ISA.
RISC-V is an ISA.
ARM is a company that has both an ISA (actually several, but their current is ARMv9) and a bunch of microarchitectures.
Their business model is to license their IP:
- They may license you a microarchitecture, so that you can include it in your chip's design.
- They may license you the ISA, so you can implement your own microarchitecture for the ISA. Note that you can't then license your microarchitecture to others, that's ARM's sole privilege.
RISC-V's instruction space has some room for custom extensions. Thus it can be adapted to find specific needs, without asking for permission nor opting out of the strongest software ecosystem which RISC-V is rapidly building.
But while RISC-V is pretty good technically, enabling the best processors, what's most disruptive is that it is an open ISA.
It means there's now an open market with RISC-V microarchitectures to license, from a range of vendors. There's also some open source microarchitectures.
Microarchitecture licensing aside, there's an ecosystem of companies offering related services, such as helping you verify your designs, trace your code and so on.
Reads like FUD, as you go on to list a bunch of items that RISC-V actually already delivers.
Point per point:
>long term support
Is achieved via upstreaming drivers[0] and providing documentation[1], something that e.g. StarFive is doing much better than Raspberry Pi ever has.
>strong software ecosystem support
RISC-V is rapidly building the strongest ecosystem.
>performance parity
JH7110 SoC used in boards like VisionFive 2 provides CPU performance between Raspberry Pi 3b and 4, at much lower power consumption.
TH1520 SoC used in boards like Sipeed Lichee Pi4A[2] provides performance above Raspberry Pi 4.
Both SoCs provide faster GPU (JH7110 is 4x that of Pi 4, TH1520 is faster), better hardware video codec blocks, cryptography acceleration, faster memory interface, faster I/O outside of the SoC and otherwise better and more built in peripherals.
Note: Raspberry Pi have been used as reference points as they are, by far, the most popular ARM SBCs.
>It'll be a few more years
As proven above, it's already there against the Raspberry Pi line.
But next year it'll be better, as RISC-V will finally compete with the fastest cores available. This is based solely on what's already announced (Ascalon, Veyron, P570 and so on).
RISC-V enables the best processors.
0. https://rvspace.org/en/project/JH7110_Upstream_Plan
Lots of companies have made their decisions, projects are kicking off -- for example Samsung just started porting .NET and Tizen to RISC-V for use in their future TVs and other products. LG similarly. It will take five years for the products resulting from that to emerge, but they are coming.
The RISC-V ISA didn't even formally exist as a frozen spec a little over four years ago. Ratification in July 2019 was the starting gun for many to start projects. The results of that are just emerging in the last months -- the VisionFive 2, tne Lichee Pi 4A, the 64 core Milk-V Pioneer.
A lot more things have gone into the pipeline since then, and will be emerging in the next two to three years. Things up to around Apple M1 performance ... from multiple companies.
That's not what ARM thinks[0].
>There is nothing inevitable about RISC V.
As it turns out, the decisions have long been made, and RISC-V has been chosen.
0. https://thechipletter.substack.com/p/risc-v-part-2-ambitious...
I assume regulators would block a hostile takeover like they would a regular buyout if there are concerns regarding market power?
Quite honestly, ARM falling on its face hard is actually a benefit to Apple. That would mean that Apple Silicon and iPhone SoCs have less competition. Imagine if Qualcomm chips based on ARM designs are 5 years behind instead of the 2-3 years now.
But the Nvidia + ARM combo made sense from a technical and strategic standpoint though.
Made sense for Nvidia. Not for other Arm customers.
Was. They're now at Qualcomm.
You answered your own question:
> Quite honestly, ARM falling on its face hard is actually a benefit to Apple. That would mean that Apple Silicon and iPhone SoCs have less competition.
Very, very unlikely anyone would get a perpetual license that covers all future products just because they were a founding shareholder.
I did some detective work on this a while ago for my newsletter (link in bio) from behind the paywall:
> … Apple and Acorn were paying royalty fees soon after they founded the company why should that change to grant Apple a royalty-free license at some point later?
This idea that they have a special license keeps getting thrown about.
But nobody has ever been able to provide any proof or otherwise reference a believable source.
Until proven otherwise, it's a myth.
