If you’re trying to implement green energy solutions in Asia, chances are you’re going to need to rely on China one way or another. 

Southeast Asia’s demand for renewable energy is rising, driven by tech manufacturing and data center growth, according to Nikkei. Solarvest, the region’s leading renewable energy provider, plans to capitalize on this boom by increasing imports from China, according to a local manager.

That manager told Nikkei: “We aim to invest more in the next couple of years. Buying equipment and components from Chinese suppliers, who have mastered the supply chain and solar tech, gives us the best opportunity to generate green energy with a price that is low enough to compete against fossil fuels.”

Through its Belt and Road Initiative, Beijing has extended its influence over power infrastructure in countries like Malaysia, Thailand, and Pakistan. However, the U.S. has criticized China for subsidizing manufacturers and underpricing goods, leading to tariffs and trade barriers.

The Nikkei report says that despite U.S. opposition, China maintains an edge with economies of scale and growing climate urgency. Solar energy, seen as the most accessible renewable source, attracted $500 billion in investment in 2024, surpassing all other energy types, according to the International Energy Agency.

Offshore wind projects take over eight years to complete, while solar plants can be built in under two, making solar a faster choice for companies transitioning to renewables, industry leaders told Nikkei.

This urgency is especially pronounced in emerging Asian economies like Malaysia and Thailand, which rely on fossil fuels but aim to attract tech giants like Apple and Google, committed to 100% renewable energy through the RE100 initiative.

China dominates the global solar energy market, housing leading players like Longi Green Energy, Tongwei, and Jinko Solar, as well as the top three inverter makers: Huawei, Sungrow, and Ginlong.

Despite efforts by the U.S. and India to localize production, China is projected to maintain over 80% of global photovoltaic manufacturing capacity by 2030, with its solar products costing 20-30% less than competitors, according to the IEA.

Analysts attribute China’s edge to its economic scale, advanced technology, and cost efficiency. Even as countries impose trade barriers to curb dependence on Chinese products, demand for China’s affordable solar solutions remains strong globally.

Companies like Foxconn highlight that Chinese solar energy rivals fossil fuels in cost, driving its adoption worldwide, particularly in markets eager to expand renewable energy capacity.

China’s dominance in solar wasn’t always guaranteed. In the 2000s, Japanese and Taiwanese firms led the photovoltaic industry, but China’s massive scale and government subsidies allowed it to outpace competitors.

Now, China controls over 90% of the solar supply chain, from polysilicon production to module manufacturing.

Authored by Katabella Roberts via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Suicides increased among U.S. military service members in 2023, continuing a gradual rise seen over the past decade, according to the Department of Defense’s annual report on suicide in the military.

A total of 523 service members—including active, reserve, and National Guard—died by suicide in 2023, up from 493 in 2022, according to the Pentagon’s report, while the total force rate of suicide deaths per 100,000 service members was 9 percent higher than in 2022, at 25.6 per 100,000.

The Pentagon’s report highlighted an upward trend since 2011 among active-duty military members: A total of 363 active-duty service members died by suicide in 2023, up from 331 in 2022 and 328 in 2021.

The report noted that military suicide rates have been comparable to those seen across the wider U.S. population between 2011 and 2022.

The findings “urgently demonstrate the need for the Department to redouble its work in the complex fields of suicide prevention and postvention. One loss to suicide is one too many,” Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said in a Nov. 14 statement.

The defense secretary said the Pentagon is focused on long-term, sustained initiatives to prevent suicide and is taking a “comprehensive” and “integrated” approach to increasing protective factors and decreasing the risk of suicide among service members.

“Our efforts aim to meet the military community where they are in their personal and professional lives—whether through bolstering financial readiness and support, building healthy relationships, improving mental health, or supporting them through life transitions,” Austin said.

The defense secretary noted that there has been a decrease from previous years in the number of military family members (spouses and dependent children combined) who died by suicide.

A total of 146 military family members died by suicide in 2022 compared to 165 in 2021, and 200 in 2020, according to the report. Numbers for 2023 were unavailable due to the time it takes to process data for this category.

The report noted that the complexity of suicidal behavior means it is difficult to identify a single root cause that might explain the trend.

Pentagon Working to Combat Suicide Rates

Overall, in 2023, 158 deaths were attributed to suicide among active-duty Army personnel, according to the report. Another 72 were reported among active-duty members of the Air Force, 70 among Navy members, and 61 among Marine Corps members, while two suicides were reported among members of the Space Force.

Among reserve members, 44 suicides were reported in the Army, 10 in the Marine Corps, eight in the Navy, and seven in the Air Force.

Similar to previous years, the majority of the deaths (around 60 percent) were among males under the age of 30, the Pentagon report found.

Firearms were the primary method of suicide deaths for service members and their families, according to the Pentagon, which noted the importance of promoting awareness regarding safely securing and storing firearms.

Speaking on Thursday, Austin touted the work the Pentagon is doing to tackle rising suicide rates among military personnel, including establishing the Suicide Prevention Response and Independent Review Committee in 2022 to conduct a review of clinical and nonclinical suicide prevention and response programs.

That review has resulted in more than 100 recommendations so far, Austin said.

In 2025, the Department of Defense also plans to invest $250 million in suicide prevention, Austin and other officials noted.

“We are dedicated to fighting for our Service members by fostering supportive team cultures and tackling the stigma of asking for help and other barriers to care,” Austin said.

“We continue working hard to improve the delivery of mental health care, bolster suicide prevention training, and educate people about lethal means safety. There’s still much more work to do, and we won’t let up.”

If you or someone you know is experiencing a mental health crisis, considering suicide, or engaging in substance abuse, dial or text the U.S. Suicide & Crisis Lifeline at 988 to speak with a counselor. If you’re in the UK, call the Samaritans at 116123.

Authored by Dmytro “Henry” Aleksandrov via Headline USA,

It was recently revealed that President-elect Donald Trump surpassed one of the most famous pop stars, Taylor Swift, in Twitter followers, proving that Americans like him more.

“BREAKING: Donald Trump (@realDonaldTrump) has surpassed Taylor Swift in followers to become the 8th most-followed account on [Twitter],” popular conservative commentator @alx reported.

BREAKING: Donald Trump (@realDonaldTrump) has surpassed Taylor Swift in followers to become the 8th most followed account on 𝕏 pic.twitter.com/3fzL11JIqh

— ALX 🇺🇸 (@alx) November 18, 2024

As of Nov. 18, Trump had 94.8 million followers, and Swift had 94.7 million followers.

“OVERTAKEN,” conservative commentator and senior editor at Human Events Jack Posobeic wrote in response to the recent news.

OVERTAKEN https://t.co/qXLU7yScWr

— Jack Poso 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) November 18, 2024

Like almost any other Hollywood celebrity, Swift publicly expressed her far-left political beliefs, specifically her opposition to Trump.

Even though Swift refused to endorse Hillary Clinton for president in 2016, she supported Joe Biden for president while he was still in the race, which resulted in Trump attacking her on social media.

“I signed and was responsible for the Music Modernization Act for Taylor Swift and all other Musical Artists. Joe Biden didn’t do anything for Taylor, and never will,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. 

“There’s no way she could endorse Crooked Joe Biden, the worst and most corrupt President in the History of our Country, and be disloyal to the man who made her so much money.”

Trump, however, stated that Swift is “unusually beautiful” even though she is a leftist.

Swift endorsed Kamala Harris in her Instagram post after Democrats orchestrated a coup against Biden and replaced him with Harris.

“I think she is a steady-handed, gifted leader and I believe we can accomplish so much more in this country if we are led by calm and not chaos. I was so heartened and impressed by her selection of running mate @timwalz, who has been standing up for LGBTQ+ rights, IVF, and a woman’s right to her own body for decades,” she wrote.

However, Swift’s endorsement didn’t affect Americans, with only 6% saying that they were now more likely to vote for Harris.

According to Gallup’s latest polling, support for a handgun ban has fallen to just 20 percent and support for an “assault weapons” ban has cratered to just 52 percent.

Gun bans were a constant call from both President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris over the last four years.

President Biden often combined the call with dubious factual, legal, and historical arguments.

Jonathan Turley previously wrote about the failure of politicians to acknowledge the limits posed by the Second Amendment and controlling case law. While there are good-faith objections to how the Second Amendment has been interpreted, the current case law makes such bans very difficult to defend.

In 2008, the Supreme Court handed down a landmark ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, recognizing the Second Amendment as encompassing an individual right to bear arms.

Yet, the 2024 campaign showed a belated recognition that the Administration has failed to galvanize public opinion in support of gun limits and bans.

Harris came under fire during the campaign when she suddenly seemed to embrace one of the very guns that she previously vilified as it became clear that she was too far left from much of the country.

Years ago, Turley wrote that the rise in gun ownership in the United States, including among minority gun owners, was strikingly out of sync with the Democratic talking point.

In 2019, support for an assault weapons ban stood at 61%. It is now barely at a majority.

The drop in support for a handgun ban is notable in that only 33 percent of Democrats support such a ban.

The rise in gun ownership and the drop in polling raise another issue where Democratic candidates seem to be speaking to an increasingly empty room. The gun ownership rates are a problem for the party because most political issues do not involve a large personal investment by citizens. When someone becomes a gun owner, they spend hundreds of dollars on the weapon, ammunition, and other costs. The ban campaigns become more of a personal and financial issue for them.

Harris’s attempt to appeal to gun owners fell flat after years of calling for limits and bans.

The question is whether the party is ready to pivot on this and other issues — and whether it can given its political base.

That 33 percent is the core voting block in primaries even as the rest of the country moves toward the center of the political spectrum.

On Monday the government of Sweden began issuing pamphlets advising its population on how to survive an unexpected disastrous war scenario, at a moment tensions are on edge with Russia, and after weekend reports saying the Biden administration has authorized Ukraine to conduct long-range missile strikes on Russian territory using US-supplied weapon systesm.

Millions of Swedes are receiving the directives, entitled “in case of crisis of war” – which is an updated version of something the Swedish government issued six years ago. But now things are very different, given there is a hot war in Eastern Europe, and given Sweden is NATO’s newest member state. It’s all about being able to survive for a few days or a week, and imagines something like a shock invasion by a foreign hostile power.

The newly updated booklet is said to be twice the size as the one that was issued in the last decade. The other new NATO member, Finland, has also issued its own guidelines to the Finnish population on “preparing for incidents and crisis”. The warnings document how to cope with not just war-time situations where basic services and infrastructure may go offline, but how to survive extreme weather events as well.

According to the BBC, the Swedish pamphlet reflects the new realities of Stockholm having abandoned its historic post-WW2 neutrality: 

For Swedes, the idea of a civil emergency booklet is nothing new. The first edition of “If War Comes” was produced during World War Two and it was updated during the Cold War.

But one message has been moved up from the middle of the booklet: “If Sweden is attacked by another country, we will never give up. All information to the effect that resistance is to cease is false.”

“We live in uncertain times. Armed conflicts are currently being waged in our corner of the world. Terrorism, cyber attacks, and disinformation campaigns are being used to undermine and influence us,” the booklet’s introduction section reads.

“To resist these threats, we must stand united. If Sweden is attacked, everyone must do their part to defend Sweden’s independence — and our democracy. We build resilience every day,” the pamphlet continues. “You are part of Sweden’s overall emergency preparedness.”

The booklet even addresses local collective preparedness, such as citizens banding together to form volunteer defense units, and giving blood, or giving classes on CPR and survival skills.

in the case of Finland, its digital booklet states that the country which shares a border with Russia “has always been prepared for the worst possible threat, war.”

🚨🇸🇪 SWEDEN TELLS CITIZENS TO PREPARE FOR WAR

Sweden is sending 5.2 million “If Crisis or War Comes” pamphlets to households, urging people to stockpile food, water.

The booklet, updated for modern threats, declares, “We will never give up.”

Finland has launched a similar… pic.twitter.com/6COEVILUZ6

— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) November 18, 2024

Such instructions from Nordic governments, envisioning the worst-case scenarios that could befall the region, have only stepped up since the start of the Ukraine war. 

One 24-year old Finnish student, Melissa Eve Ajosmaki, has told BBC: “Now I feel less worried but I still have the thought at the back of my head on what I should do if there was a war. Especially as I have my family back in Finland.”

Authored by Josiah Lippincott via American Greatness,

Liberals who are in the throes of capitulation and despair after Donald Trump’s crushing electoral and popular vote win can lay blame for their disastrous loss at the feet of one man: Barack Hussein Obama.

Obama built the Trump wave. His failure to live up to the promises of his populist 2008 run has cursed the Democratic Party, probably for a generation. The Washington DC establishment in just two short months is going to get “scholonged” by an angry and vengeful Trump, ready to rain executive hellfire on the bureaucrats and institutions that have spent the last nine years fighting him tooth and nail.

All of this could have been prevented. In 2008, Obama swept into power with a crushing electoral college and popular vote majority. He won Iowa, Florida, Ohio, and North Carolina. He even won Indiana. Democrats swept into power in Congress with a 74-seat lead in the House, nearly 59% of seats, and were gifted with a magical 60-seat filibuster-proof supermajority in the Senate.

This was a generational victory, a sign that voters were fed up with politics as usual and the failures of the GOP and the Washington and Wall Street establishment as such. This victory wasn’t just about electing the first Black president, though that was important: The policies and platform at stake appealed deeply to voters.

It is worth remembering what exactly those policies were.

Obama promised to end the war in Iraq, end the Afghanistan war with honor, help the economy by reducing health care costs (prioritizing “Main Street” over Wall Street), and bring about a new era of racial harmony. Moreover, Obama explicitly eschewed radical leftist politics. He explicitly defended traditional marriage. In his DNC nomination speech, he condemned employers who “undercut American wages by hiring illegal workers.”

Obama ran a campaign on bringing “change” to DC. He made much of his status as a newcomer who lacked the “typical pedigree” of a candidate for the nation’s highest office.

Put another way, Obama won a decisive victory in 2008 by campaigning as a Washington outsider bent on ending foreign wars, boosting the economy by helping ordinary people, and being a moderate on social issues like abortion and gay marriage. Does this message sound familiar? It should.

In broad measure, it is the same formula that brought Donald Trump to power in 2016 and has given him, like Obama, unified control over the executive and legislative branches after a crushing electoral and popular vote win.

Obama’s hubris is the reason the Democratic Party stands here today—powerless in the face of “Orange Hitler.”

Obama did not close Guantanamo Bay, he ended the Iraq War only to get sucked back in, killed Osama Bin Laden but kept troops in Afghanistan, started wars in Libya and Syria, and, most damningly, inflamed racial tensions when he had a chance to calm them.

Far from being a moderate on social issues, Obama was the president whose picks for the Supreme Court rammed gay marriage down Americans throats after it had suffered numerous state-level electoral setbacks, including in California of all places in the very election that brought Obama to power!

Obama’s pledge to reduce health care costs in 2008 did not come with an individual mandate to purchase health insurance. The final bill that snaked its way through Congress and was signed into law did contain such a penalty. Instead of lowering health care costs, Americans watched as their premiums went up.

Instead of fewer foreign wars, we got more. Instead of declaring victory after the death of the mastermind behind 9/11, we got eight more years of war. On every front, Obama didn’t just fail to follow through on his mandate, he actively worked for the opposite outcome.

Obama lacked the strength of character and will to follow through on his promises and to deliver the shake-up in Washington that he promised. He was more concerned with hanging out with celebrities and being cool than facing down his own Party’s bosses to deliver on the promises he made to the American people. Nancy Pelosi, 16 years later, still remains one of the most powerful figures in the Party.

Americans sent a refined, urbane, grassroots college professor to do their bidding in DC. When he failed, they decided to send their message in a language that no one could misunderstand. They sent Trump.

Trump is everything Obama is not: loud, dominating, and brash. There is none of Obama’s snark in his demeanor. And, unlike Obama, Trump has proven durable and faithful. Unlike Obama, Trump has built on his popular vote total with each successive election.

Nothing can stop him: not the GOP leadership class (compare Paul Ryan and Nancy Pelosi’s careers), not the bureaucracy, not the media, not even an assassin’s bullet. Trump is the avenging angel of American populist rage. The post-1945 world order—especially after the fall of the Soviet Union—was supposed to deliver peace and prosperity on an untold scale.

Instead, we’ve gotten more war, more debt, and more of our economy shipped overseas. Americans, even those who are successful, live in a world increasingly pockmarked by obesity, homelessness, crazed radicalism, and a flood of foreigners looking for a hand-out.

This was not what we were promised! Looking back on the last two decades of war in the Middle East, what can anyone say we won in these places? Peace? Stability? The region is as broken and violent as ever. The 9/11 hijackers all came in legally. No one has ever solved that problem or even acknowledged that it existed.

Moreover, the wars never end. Trump is the only president in my lifetime not to get us engaged in any new conflicts, but even he wasn’t able to bring the troops home from Afghanistan in his first term. Biden did, but then immediately hauled the nation back into war in Europe.

We are never allowed to be neutral, never allowed to focus on ourselves, never allowed to rest. Millions of migrants invade our southern border and flood our communities with drugs that kill more than a hundred thousand Americans yearly and not one politician in DC blinks. They care infinitely more about Ukraine’s border than our own. Americans are fed up with this attitude.

Obama’s failures on race were the most striking feature of his presidency and have done the most lasting damage. Race relations have hit an all-time low. Obama could have put a lot of the turmoil to rest, using his position as the first Black president as a way to shore up confidence in our institutions. He could have brought the Civil Rights movement to an end, insisting that our work now was not to gain equality but to preserve the hard and painful work we’d already accomplished. But no. Instead we got George Floyd and the 2020 Summer of Love, in which a dozen major American cities burned because a career criminal died in police custody from an overdose.

And every year, some new cause gets added to the pantheon of aggrieved minorities demanding social justice. First, it was gay marriage; now it is transgenderism. God only knows what will come next. Furries? Polycules? Worse? With each new wave of leftist radicalism has come vicious shrieking from activists aimed at ordinary Americans. The latest cause—the post-COVID explosion of transgenderism—has touched ordinary Americans’ lives in a way that even homosexuality did not.

The LGBT wave has finally hit upon children and teens with its full force. The loss of community and the social upheaval of the COVID period has resulted in a generation of youth particularly susceptible to the promises of transgender identity.

Speaking of COVID, the American medical establishment worked for two whole years to end normal life, destroy free association, and impose draconian measures on the population.

Once the COVID paranoia died down, the regime immediately turned to trying to put the opposition leader into prison for made-up crimes. That all-out media and legal blitz ended with two attempted assassination attempts, one that nearly blew the president’s head off on live television.

The supposedly “apolitical” military, medical, media and legal establishments have shorn themselves of any pretense of neutrality. They have thrown their lot in with the Democratic Party and its most radical wing.

None of this had to happen.

Obama had a golden chance in 2008 to lock in Democratic rule for a generation. All he had to do was follow through. He had to keep his word and he needed to stand up to his own party when they sought to drag him back into their moribund consensus. But Obama chose wealth and respectability over doing the right thing.

He chose to divide the country further instead of rallying it around a new multi-racial coalition dedicated to peace abroad and prosperity at home. Trump has inherited that mantle. Here, in his second term, Trump finally has the full, unquestionable mandate that once rested on Obama’s shoulders.

If he succeeds, the GOP can expect decades of political and cultural dominance. The Trump era will last far beyond Trump’s actual death. There is reason to hope, as well. Trump’s first term and his years in the wilderness have armed him with a better knowledge of DC and a clearer understanding of the qualities and allies he needs to advance his goals.

His slate of cabinet picks is hated by the DC chatterati. This bodes well. Clean house. Go to war. Trump has nothing to lose and everything to gain.

All he needs to do is deliver. He needs to give the voters what he promised them: mass deportations, increased election security, and no new wars. Do those things on Day 1 and the Republicans have 2026 sewn up. Get us out of Ukraine and deliver real economic growth and JD Vance is a lock for 2028. It really is that simple.

Trump has everything he needs. Now all that remains is to act.

It appears Netanyahu’s reported “gift” of a Lebanon ceasefire in the wake of Trump’s election victory is coming to fruition. Reuters and other international outlets are reporting that agreement on a US-proposed ceasefire has been reached.

“Lebanon and Hezbollah have agreed to a U.S. proposal for a ceasefire with Israel with some comments on the content, a top Lebanese official told Reuters on Monday, describing the effort as the most serious yet to end to the fighting.”

A Lebanese source, Ali Hassan Khalil, an aide to Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, has said “Lebanon had delivered its written response to the U.S. ambassador in Lebanon on Monday, and White House envoy Amos Hochstein was travelling to Beirut to continue talks,” Reuters writes late in the day Monday.

Israel has yet to issue official comment, and much remains to be seen on whether it will actually take effect or hold:

“Lebanon presented its comments on the paper in a positive atmosphere,” Khalil said, declining to give further details. “All the comments that we presented affirm the precise adherence to (U.N.) Resolution 1701 with all its provisions,” he said.

It comes as a bit of a surprise, given how violent the past 24 hours have been on both sides of the border. 

At least five Lebanese were killed Monday due to an Israeli strike on the Zuqaq al-Blat area, with casualty figures expected to increase amid an emergency response. Over 30 were injured in the attack, others remain missing.

On the Israeli side of the war-ravaged border area, Israeli sources are saying a number of Hezbollah missiles scored direct hits on civilian areas:

A woman was killed and at least 17 people were wounded in several rocket barrages fired by Hezbollah on Monday, as the terror group launched more than 100 rockets at northern Israel and one missile at the country’s center throughout the day.

The woman, identified as Safaa Awad, 41, was killed and dozens of others wounded in the evening by a rocket that hit a three-story building in the northern town of Shfar’am after Hezbollah fired five projectiles at the Galilee.

Among the wounded victims were a woman aged 41 and a 4-year-old boy in serious condition, Rambam Hospital in Haifa said.

The medical center said a total of 56 victims were brought for treatment, mostly for acute anxiety. Among the victims were 18 children, the hospital adds.

There was also a major Hezbollah missile strike on Tel Aviv Monday:

⚡️Impact on terrorists in Tel Aviv pic.twitter.com/68GYokrfHG

— War Monitor (@WarMonitors) November 18, 2024

Israeli media has also picked up on the breaking report of the ceasefire deal, also emphasizing there’s been no initial comment from the Israeli government:

Its terms require Hezbollah to have no armed presence in the area between the Lebanese-Israeli border and the Litani River, which runs some 30 kilometers (20 miles) north of the frontier — clauses the terror group violated from the get-go.

Khalil claims the success of the initiative now depended on Israel, saying if Israel did not want a solution, “it could make 100 problems.

Lebanese officials are now saying the ball is in Israel’s court. Currently an Israeli ground offensive is still active, and Beirut has been heavily pummeled by Israel’s aerial offensive, which has also reached into central and northeastern Lebanon of late, especially the Bekaa Valley.

Like with Ukraine, President-elect Trump is pledging to quickly bring to an end wars which have Washington involvement; however, in a phone call last month he told PM Netanyahu to “do what you have to do” against Hezbollah and Hamas.

One career US diplomat in the Middle East region was cited in WaPo as saying “Netanyahu has no loyalty to Biden and will be focused entirely on currying favor with Trump.”

Ahead of Nvidia’s earnings report on Wednesday after the bell, a new report from The Information reveals that the world’s most valuable company has requested suppliers to redesign the racks for new Blackwell graphics cards to address overheating issues. 

According to the report…

In recent months, Nvidia has asked its suppliers to change the design of the racks several times as it has tried to overcome the overheating problems, according to Nvidia employees who have been working on the issue, as well as several customers and suppliers with knowledge of it. Word of the repeated design changes has sparked anxiety among customers about a potential delay in when they will be able to use the racks.

In August, Bloomberg reported that Nvidia’s highly anticipated Blackwell series of AI chips encountered “engineering snags,” which signifies the mounting challenges of meeting customer demand for its AI GPUs. 

Here’s more from The Information: 

Now, though, some big customers are concerned. While Nvidia often changes its server designs before launch, changes to the Blackwell racks have come late in the production process, according to several customers and suppliers. However, Nvidia may still be able to deliver the racks to customers by the end of the first half next year, in line with its original schedule, and it hasn’t notified customers of a delay.

Meta Platforms, Elon Musk’s xAI, and Microsoft are some of Nvidia’s largest customers. Next year (likely in the second half), Nvidia will deliver new Blackwell racks to server farms.

The Information’s report comes ahead of a major earnings catalyst for the world’s most valuable company on Wednesday after the bell. 

Goldman’s Toshiya Hari recently published a note on Nvidia, indicating “GS Research is bullish here…” 

• GS Research is bullish here as Toshi models $34.3bn (+14% qoq, +90% yoy) in revenue, 75.4% in non-GAAP gross margin (excl. SBC) and $0.79 in non-GAAP EPS (excl. SBC) – all above cons. The magnitude of Nvidia’s revenue beats have narrowed over the last few quarters, but could expand again in CY2025 driven by Blackwell. Though Toshiya expects FY1Q to be the true ‘break out’ quarter in which the ramp of Blackwell coupled with improved supply-side conditions drives meaningful positive EPS revisions, he expects FY3Q guidance and management commentary on the earnings call to support his constructive thesis. Four of Nvidia’s largest customers (GOOGL, META, MSFT and AMZN) reported earnings with GOOGL, MSFT and AMZN explicitly stating or implying that supply, not demand, remains a constraining factor.

• Investor sentiment skews positive into results on Nov 20th (desk thinks sentiment = 9 out of 10, up from last qtr) with investors focused on the upcoming Blackwell product ramp as well as broader commentary around visibility and ROIs / use-cases for GenAI (think: Agents / Assistants, robotaxis, etc). Into CY25, key debates on the stock are around linearity of spending as LLMs continue to scale, customer diversification (think: Enterprise, Sovereigns) and margins (GMs/mix + Opex/R&D). Hedge funds have net bought AI stocks since October, and investors for the most part plan to maintain long positions.

In recent sessions, some of Nvidia’s most active options have been calls linked to shares soaring to $155 and $162.50 after earnings. Nvidia shares closed Friday at $141.98. Shares are up 187% on the year. About 1% of the float is short.

Shares are about 2% lower in premarket trading.

Meanwhile, insiders have been dumping shares…

All eyes will be on Nvidia ER on Wednesday.