mnl777

Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog, This is proof-positive we're not just poorer now than we were 40 years ago, we're much, much poorer. Armies of well-paid apologists, apparatchiks and propaganda peddlers--economists, pundits, statisticians, influencers--spend their entire careers pushing a big shining lie; we're more prosperous now than ever before. This is demonstrably false, as the truth--that we're much poorer than we were 40 or 50 years ago--would disrupt the status quo in which the few at the top get to control the narratives and wealth as long as the masses believe the propaganda that we're all better off. This is the reason why the four-decade collapse of the purchasing power of wages must be papered over with propaganda and gamed statistics. If we accept the reality of our declining standard of living and well-being, then a few reforms will be recognized as insufficient; we'll awaken to the necessity of a Reformation , not just a handful of standard-issue policy tweaks. Inflation statistics are easily gamed. So are statistics such as median wages. Official inflation is gamed by various statistical tricks (hedonics and what's in the price basket) to understate the real-world decline in purchasing power. There is only one true measure of prosperity: the purchasing power of an hour's labor / wage. It doesn't matter what the wage or price numbers are, what matters is: how much can you buy with an hour's wage? Fact: in 1977, it took 2.25 days of work (18 hours) to pay the monthly rent on my studio apartment in the most expensive city in the U.S., Honolulu. In virtually any other city or town, the rent would have been less. I was 23 years old, working as a non-union apprentice carpenter for a small contractor. The pay was a bit above average, but by no means fabulous. I wasn't working at Goldman Sachs. The rent was fair market; it wasn't some special deal offered by a relative. Since this was a cheap apartment, let's round that up to 3 days of work to pay the monthly rent. OK, so how many young wage earners today can pay the rent for their own apartment with 3 days' pay? Any hands? OK, the Ivy League MBA working at Goldman Sachs, making mega-six-figures in annual compensation. Any average folks out there paying their rent with 3 days' pay? No? Today, that would require an hourly wage of $60 to $90 an hour. The median annual wage is around $60,000, around $30/hour--half or a third of what it takes to pay the rent on a studio apartment in a high-cost urban area with 3 days of work. It's important to understand that I didn't have the only cheap apartment in the city. Most of my friends had similar cheap housing, because there were more nooks and crannies in the housing market and in the economy: more small landlords and lower costs of doing business. One friend rented a converted WW2-era Quonset hut on the edge of an upscale neighborhood. Another lived in an old apartment next to the freeway. Another rented an in-law cottage in a single-family home neighborhood. I rented a wealthy couple's poolside cabana for a year. (Most of the space was filled with their stuff, but the price was right.) Much of this low-cost housing has been demolished or rehabbed into high-priced rentals. Fact: in 1985, it took about four hours of work to pay my individual healthcare insurance premium for the month ($54). This wasn't phantom insurance with a huge deductible--it was the standard insurance offered by employers large and small. Being self-employed, I paid the premium myself. OK, everyone who can pay a market-rate, non-subsidized, non-giant-deductible monthly healthcare insurance premium (for an individual) with good coverage with 4 hours of work, raise your hand. With an average cost around $350 a month according to reputable sources, that requires a wage of $87 an hour--roughly triple the median wage. Costs were lower across the board: my monthly utility bill: two hours of work. Three full lunches at a working-class cafe--one hour of work. And so on. The key takeaway here is that the cost of doing business was lower across the board, so everything from auto repairs to going to the dentist was much cheaper. Compared to the present, it took very few hours of work to pay for auto repairs, dental work and other services. We're told our vehicles are so much better now, but this too is open to debate. Cars and trucks cost a fortune now, and they're bigger and heavier and dependent on electronics that can't be repaired at home and that are super-costly to repair. And what exactly makes them so much better? Recall that we all managed to get by without rearview cameras and hands-free mobile phone technology for decades. Let's look at vehicles as transport, not rolling entertainment centers. My 1979 Honda Accord (bought used for $2,600 ($7,350 in today's dollars) operated for many years with little more than routine maintenance despite being 8 years old when I bought it. It got about the same mileage (40 MPG) as my current 2016 Civic, which has a bigger engine and is much heavier. Is it a "better" vehicle given that repair estimates of $3,000 or more are now the norm? I could still replace a defective sensor in my 1998 Civic myself. Now--forget it. In terms of repairability, modern vehicles are off-the-scale worse than the highly reliable vehicles of 30 or even 40 years ago. Given the impossibility of doing much more than changing the oil at home and the insane costs of repairs, it's clear that the hedonics aren't worth the stupefying increases in costs. The same can be said of the 4-cylinder pickup trucks of that era, which did the same work as the far larger, far more costly and unrepairable trucks of today that cost $80,000. How many hours of work does it take now to own and operate a vehicle? Far more than in the past. In the 1980s, I paid my annual home insurance with a few days' labor. Is that possible now? Sure, if you make $80/hour. Even at that rate, it takes a couple weeks' earnings to pay home insurance in some areas. And yet we're all more prosperous now? How about the cost of building a new home? In the early 1980s, I built my own 1,400 square foot conventional house with a two-car garage for $26,000, which equates to about $90,000 in today's dollars. It took 2,600 hours of work to pay for my house in full (not counting my carpentry labor). I performed all the labor other than the licensed subcontractors (electrical, plumbing, cesspool excavation, carpet installation, etc.). Can an owner-builder construct the equivalent house today for 2,600 hours of work? At $30/hour, that's $78,000. Good luck building a middle-class house turnkey (all appliances, flooring, etc.) for $78,000, even if you do all the carpentry yourself. That might cover the materials--but maybe not. Around this same time (1983) I built numerous modest starter homes as a fully licensed and insured contractor for under $35,000, which equates to $110,000 in today's dollars. Compare this to today, where you need a construction loan of $400,000 to build a nothing-special middle-class house. Are the houses "better" today? In terms of the quality and durability of materials and appliances, they're worse. The materials today are low quality, as are the appliances. 30 or 40 years ago, you could buy a fridge, washer, stove/oven, etc. and it would last decades. Now, all I hear are accounts of costly appliances failing in a few years--and that's been my experience. Today's lumber is lower quality, too, as is the hardware. Standard (i.e. not fancy-expensive) locksets in 50-year old houses are still untarnished and working fine. Modern hardware is--sorry to be blunt--mostly rubbish. Meanwhile, as the costs in hours needed to pay for essentials have soared, we're told by apologists and propaganda pundits that cheap TVs and clothing have offset the the collapse of our purchasing power. Does anyone else find this ceaseless spew of lies irksomely misleading? The collapse of quality has stripped away the purchasing power of earnings. Two generations ago, you could buy just about anything you needed used for a low cost, and that product would last for years or decades. My Mom bought a "vintage" dining set in 1970 that supposedly came around the Horn. Given the square nails and other indicators, I would estimate it was 100 years old at that time. I still use it today, so it's 150 years old. I've reglued some of the chairs, but other than that, they've been zero-cost for 50 years. Are the chairs being bought today at Ikea going to last 150 years? I've repaired many that fell apart in the first year. The same can be said of almost everything being manufactured today. This collapse of quality has dramatically reduced the purchasing power of wages in fundamental ways. Then there's this chart: wages' share of the economy , which has dropped from 51.6% in 1975 to 43% today. Given that the U.S. GDP is $29 trillion, each point of that decline translates into major money. 8% of $29 trillion is $2.3 trillion. Now there are various ways to measure this, but you get the point: wage earners are receiving a smaller share of the economy's output. How many hours of work does it take to buy essential products and services now, and how long do the products last? By this measure, we're poorer, much poorer. After paying for essentials, we have less disposable income available to save or spend on non-essential stuff. In the mid-1970s, I was having lunch with two older buddies. One was a public school teacher (he taught science) who'd served in West Africa in the Peace Corps, the other was an ex-Marine officer who'd served boots on the ground in Vietnam. Both agreed that if anyone was serious about achieving anything that required money, they had to save 40% to 50% of their net pay. Anything less indicated they weren't actually serious. With even an average measure of frugality, this was entirely possible. It was well within reach. How many wage earners today save 40% - 50% of their net pay? Sure, some do, but how many do so without help from the family, special discounts or subsidies, or earnings in the top 10%? Not many. And this is proof-positive we're not just poorer now than we were 40 years ago, we're much, much poorer. If we refuse to accept reality, what are the chances we'll be able to fix what's broken? Delusion and wishful thinking are not successful survival strategies. * * * Become a $3/month patron of my work via patreon.com . Subscribe to my Substack for free3 Dividend Stocks to Double Up on Right Nowmnl777 。

SANTA CLARA, Calif., Nov. 26, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Ambarella, Inc. (NASDAQ: AMBA), an edge AI semiconductor company, today announced financial results for its third quarter of fiscal year 2025 ended October 31, 2024. Revenue for the third quarter of fiscal 2025 was $82.7 million, up 63% from $50.6 million in the same period in fiscal 2024. For the nine months ended October 31, 2024, revenue was $200.9 million, up 15% from $174.9 million for the nine months ended October 31, 2023. Gross margin under U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) for the third quarter of fiscal 2025 was 60.6%, compared with 59.3% for the same period in fiscal 2024. For the nine months ended October 31, 2024, GAAP gross margin was 60.7%, compared with 60.6% for the nine months ended October 31, 2023. GAAP net loss for the third quarter of fiscal 2025 was $24.1 million, or loss per diluted ordinary share of $0.58, compared with GAAP net loss of $41.7 million, or loss per diluted ordinary share of $1.04, for the same period in fiscal 2024. GAAP net loss for the nine months ended October 31, 2024 was $96.9 million or loss per diluted ordinary share of $2.36. This compares with GAAP net loss of $108.8 million, or loss per diluted ordinary share of $2.74, for the nine months ended October 31, 2023. Financial results on a non-GAAP basis for the third quarter of fiscal 2025 are as follows: Gross margin on a non-GAAP basis for the third quarter of fiscal 2025 was 62.6%, compared with 62.6% for the same period in fiscal 2024. For the nine months ended October 31, 2024, non-GAAP gross margin was 63.0%, compared with 63.5% for the nine months ended October 31, 2023. Non-GAAP net income for the third quarter of fiscal 2025 was $4.5 million, or earnings per diluted ordinary share of $0.11. This compares with non-GAAP net loss of $11.2 million, or loss per diluted ordinary share of $0.28, for the same period in fiscal 2024. Non-GAAP net loss for the nine months ended October 31, 2024 was $11.6 million, or loss per diluted ordinary share of $0.28. This compares with non-GAAP net loss of $23.2 million, or loss per diluted ordinary share of $0.59, for the nine months ended October 31, 2023. Based on information available as of today, Ambarella is offering the following guidance for the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2025, ending January 31, 2025: Revenue is expected to be between $76.0 million and $80.0 million. Gross margin on a non-GAAP basis is expected to be between 61.5% and 63.0%. Operating expenses on a non-GAAP basis are expected to be between $49.0 million and $52.0 million. Ambarella reports gross margin, net income (loss) and earnings (losses) per share in accordance with GAAP and, additionally, on a non-GAAP basis. Non-GAAP financial information excludes the impact of stock-based compensation, acquisition-related costs and restructuring expense adjusted for the associated tax impact, which includes the effect of any benefits or shortfalls recognized. Non-GAAP financial information also excludes the impact of the release of a valuation allowance on certain deferred tax assets. A reconciliation of the GAAP to non-GAAP gross margin, net income (loss) and earnings (losses) per share for the periods presented, as well as a description of the items excluded from the non-GAAP calculations, is included in the financial statements portion of this press release. Total cash, cash equivalents and marketable debt securities on hand at the end of the third quarter of fiscal 2025 was $226.5 million, compared with $219.8 million at the end of the prior quarter and $222.3 million at the end of the same quarter a year ago. “Company specific factors are more than offsetting broad market weakness, and we are reporting 30% sequential revenue growth in fiscal Q3, above the high-end of our guidance range, with strength led again by our customers’ new products, especially those incorporating our higher priced AI inference processors. Edge AI revenue represented about 70% of our total revenue, establishing a new record level, and this momentum is expected to enable growth in both our IoT and Auto markets in F2025 and F2026,” said Fermi Wang, President and CEO. “With the anticipated revenue growth, we intend to drive positive operating leverage and build upon our 15 consecutive fiscal years of positive free-cash-flow.” Quarterly Conference Call Ambarella plans to hold a conference call at 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time / 1:30 p.m. Pacific Time today with Fermi Wang, President and Chief Executive Officer, and John Young, Chief Financial Officer, to discuss the third quarter of fiscal year 2025 results. A live and archived webcast of the call will be available on Ambarella’s website at http://www.ambarella.com/ for up to 30 days after the call. About Ambarella Ambarella’s products are used in a wide variety of human vision and edge AI applications, including video security, advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS), electronic mirror, drive recorder, driver/cabin monitoring, autonomous driving and robotics applications. Ambarella’s low-power systems-on-chip (SoCs) offer high-resolution video compression, advanced image and radar processing, and powerful deep neural network processing to enable intelligent perception, fusion and planning. For more information, please visit www.ambarella.com . "Safe harbor" statement under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 This press release contains forward-looking statements that are not historical facts and often can be identified by terms such as “outlook,” “projected,” “intends,” “will,” “estimates,” “anticipates,” “expects,” “believes,” “could,” “should,” or similar expressions, including the guidance for the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2025 ending January 31, 2025, and the comments of our CEO relating to our expectation of future revenue growth, customer demand for our edge AI inference products, the growth potential of our new products, and our ability to generate positive free-cash flow in future periods. The achievement or success of the matters covered by such forward-looking statements involves risks, uncertainties and assumptions. Our actual results could differ materially from those predicted or implied and reported results should not be considered as an indication of our future performance. The risks and uncertainties referred to above include, but are not limited to, global economic and political conditions, including possible trade tariffs and restrictions; revenue being generated from new customers or design wins, neither of which is assured; the commercial success of our customers’ products; our customers’ ability to manage their inventory requirements; our growth strategy; our ability to anticipate future market demands and future needs of our customers, particularly for AI inference applications; our ability to introduce, and to generate revenue from, new and enhanced solutions; our ability to develop, and to generate revenue from, new advanced technologies, such as computer vision, AI functionality and advanced networks, including vision-language models and GenAI; our ability to retain and expand customer relationships and to achieve design wins; the expansion of our current markets and our ability to successfully enter new markets, such as the OEM automotive and robotics markets; anticipated trends and challenges, including competition, in the markets in which we operate; risks associated with global health conditions and associated risk mitigation measures; our ability to effectively manage growth; our ability to retain key employees; and the potential for intellectual property disputes or other litigation. Further information on these and other factors that could affect our financial results is included in the company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for our 2024 fiscal year, which is on file with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Additional information will also be set forth in the company’s quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, annual reports on Form 10-K and other filings the company makes with the Securities and Exchange Commission from time to time, copies of which may be obtained by visiting the Investor Relations portion of our web site at www.ambarella.com or the SEC's web site at www.sec.gov . Undue reliance should not be placed on the forward-looking statements in this release, which are based on information available to us on the date hereof. The results we report in our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the third fiscal quarter ended October 31, 2024 could differ from the preliminary results announced in this press release. Ambarella assumes no obligation and does not intend to update the forward-looking statements made in this press release, except as required by law. Non-GAAP Financial Measures The company has provided in this release non-GAAP financial information, including non-GAAP gross margin, net income (loss), and earnings (losses) per share, as a supplement to the condensed consolidated financial statements, which are prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP"). Management uses these non-GAAP financial measures internally in analyzing the company’s financial results to assess operational performance and liquidity. The company believes that both management and investors benefit from referring to these non-GAAP financial measures in assessing its performance and when planning, forecasting and analyzing future periods. Further, the company believes these non-GAAP financial measures are useful to investors because they allow for greater transparency with respect to key financial metrics that the company uses in making operating decisions and because the company believes that investors and analysts use them to help assess the health of its business and for comparison to other companies. Non-GAAP results are presented for supplemental informational purposes only for understanding the company’s operating results. The non-GAAP information should not be considered a substitute for financial information presented in accordance with GAAP, and may be different from non-GAAP measures used by other companies. With respect to its financial results for the third quarter of fiscal year 2025, the company has provided below reconciliations of its non-GAAP financial measures to its most directly comparable GAAP financial measures. With respect to the company’s expectations for the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2025, a reconciliation of non-GAAP gross margin and non-GAAP operating expenses guidance to the closest corresponding GAAP measure is not available without unreasonable efforts on a forward-looking basis due to the high variability and low visibility with respect to the charges excluded from these non-GAAP measures. We expect the variability of the above charges to have a significant, and potentially unpredictable, impact on our future GAAP financial results. The following tables present details of stock-based compensation, acquisition-related costs and restructuring expense included in each functional line item in the condensed consolidated statements of operations above: The difference between GAAP and non-GAAP gross margin was 2.0% and 3.3%, or $1.7 million and $1.7 million, for the three months ended October 31, 2024 and October 31, 2023, respectively. The difference between GAAP and non-GAAP gross margin was 2.3% and 2.9%, or $4.6 million and $5.0 million, for the nine months ended October 31, 2024 and October 31, 2023, respectively. The differences were due to the effect of stock-based compensation, amortization of acquisition-related costs and restructuring expense. Contact: Louis Gerhardy 408.636.2310 lgerhardy@ambarella.com

Previous:
Next: #mnl777