contentSlug

type

ContentSlug_ContentQuery

slug

ContentPageContentQuery

content

trendingContent

query ContentSlug_ContentQuery(
  $contentSlug: String!
  $type: [ContentType!]
) {
  ...ContentPageContentQuery_13QmVO
}

fragment CompanyDetails_Content on Content {
  __isContent: __typename
  companies {
    name
    description
    pageUrl
    id
  }
}

fragment ContentBasicInfo on Content {
  __isContent: __typename
  id
  type
  title
  lang
  companies {
    viewerIsFollowing
    id
    name
    pageUrl
  }
  tags {
    viewerIsFollowing
    id
    name
    pageUrl
  }
  ...PublishingDetails
  ...Reactions
}

fragment ContentMetadata on Content {
  __isContent: __typename
  type
  title
  lang
  pageUrl
  alternatePageUrls: translations {
    __typename
    pageUrl
    lang
  }
  imgUrl
  description
  ... on Video {
    liveTime
    videoUrl
  }
  ... on Webcast {
    liveTime
    videoUrl
  }
}

fragment ContentPageContentQuery_13QmVO on Query {
  content(slug: $contentSlug, type: $type) {
    __typename
    id
    type
    title
    isPremium
    lang
    htmlBody
    summary
    companies {
      forum {
        latestPosts {
          ...ForumPosts
        }
      }
      name
      id
      viewerIsFollowing
      pageUrl
      defaultInstrument {
        isin
        id
        marketOpen
        marketClose
        marketplace {
          region
        }
        returns {
          total
        }
      }
    }
    tags {
      viewerIsFollowing
      id
      name
      pageUrl
    }
    createdAt
    ... on Video {
      liveTime
    }
    ... on Webcast {
      liveTime
    }
    slug
    ... on CompanyReport {
      reportUrl
    }
    ... on ThirdPartyCompanyReport {
      reportUrl
    }
    ... on StockExchangeRelease {
      reportUrl
    }
    ...ContentBasicInfo
    ...ContentMetadata
    ...PriceAndRecommendation_Content
    ...CompanyDetails_Content
    ...ReportLink_Content
    ...KeyFigures_Content
  }
  ...TrendingContent_1jQ2Cn
}

fragment ForumPosts on ForumPost {
  text
  likesCount
  url
  author
  postedAt
  authorImgUrl
}

fragment KeyFigures_Content on Content {
  __isContent: __typename
  companies {
    defaultInstrument {
      estimateData {
        modelType
        reportingCurrency
      }
      snapshot {
        transaction {
          date
          actualized {
            year
            quarter
            revenue
            revenueGrowth
            ebitAdjusted
            ebitReported
            ebitda
            enterpriseValue
            epsAdjusted
            dividend
            dividendYield
            sharePrice
            nav
            navPerShare
            opexOfNav
            quarterlySharePrice
          }
          estimates {
            year
            quarter
            revenue
            revenueGrowth
            ebitAdjusted
            ebitReported
            ebitda
            enterpriseValue
            epsAdjusted
            dividend
            dividendYield
            sharePrice
            nav
            navPerShare
            opexOfNav
            quarterlySharePrice
          }
        }
      }
      id
    }
    id
  }
}

fragment PriceAndRecommendation_Content on Content {
  __isContent: __typename
  createdAt
  companies {
    name
    pageUrl
    defaultInstrument {
      priceData {
        tradeCurrency
      }
      snapshot {
        priceData {
          date
          lastPrice
          tradeCurrency
        }
        transaction {
          date
          recommendation
          targetPrice
        }
        prevTransaction {
          recommendation
        }
      }
      id
    }
    id
  }
}

fragment PublishingDetails on Content {
  __isContent: __typename
  createdAt
  publishers {
    name
    imgUrl
  }
  authors {
    __typename
    id
    name
    slug
    imgUrl
    jobTitle
  }
  ... on Video {
    liveTime
  }
  ... on Webcast {
    liveTime
  }
}

fragment Reactions on Content {
  __isContent: __typename
  id
  reactionGroups {
    reactionType
    reactionsCount
    viewerReacted
  }
}

fragment ReportLink_Content on Content {
  __isContent: __typename
  type
  isPremium
  ... on CompanyReport {
    reportUrl
  }
  ... on ThirdPartyCompanyReport {
    reportUrl
  }
  ... on StockExchangeRelease {
    reportUrl
  }
}

fragment TrendingContent_1jQ2Cn on Query {
  trendingContent(type: ARTICLE) {
    __typename
    id
    title
    lang
    pageUrl
    createdAt
    type
    imgUrl
    companies {
      squareLogoUrl
      name
      id
    }
    authors {
      __typename
      imgUrl
      id
    }
    publishers {
      imgUrl
    }
  }
}


nokia-market-situation-forces-defensive-positions

__typename

title

isPremium

lang

htmlBody

summary

companies

createdAt

publishers

authors

reactionGroups

pageUrl

translations

imgUrl

description

Analyst

Atte Riikola

Nokia is a global telecommunications company. The company offers solutions in IP, broadband, digital health, and cloud-based systems. The customers are found in a broad base of markets and consist of large corporate customers, authorities, and private consumers. The business is established on a global level in all regions. Nokia was founded in 1865 and the head office is located in Esbo, Finland.

The Motley Fool – 24 Mar 26              Stock Market Today, March 24: Nokia Rises on 5G Momentum and North American...    Nokia rose after earlier weakness in Helsinki trading, with improving sentiment across telecom equipment peers reflecting ongoing support from 5G spending and carrier demand.

Just as radio heads (antennas) need to be made for various frequencies and capacities, BB (Baseband) must similarly be available in several different models. From there, customers can choose what they want to put at the edge, depending on the thickness of their wallet. AI will certainly come to all, whether ASIC or GPU. One pays more for the latter and gets extra computing power and more comprehensive future upgradeability. One should not overthink it. There are many customers and opinions on how the network will be built in the future; it’s better not to push, for example, a purely GPU-AI future. Especially from Nokia’s perspective, so as not to repeat the mistakes of Intel.

ASIC vs. GPU might not be an entirely “either-or” question. Some computing (especially the L1 layer of radio) will likely remain specialized for a long time and still require ASIC development, as has been pointed out here. At the same time, centralization (C-RAN) and hub-based GPU computing can shift part of the development and features to the software side, meaning that not all improvements will need to be rolled out to every mast as separate hardware upgrades. This does not necessarily mean that product development costs will directly decrease, but rather that they will be distributed differently (e.g., more to software and centralized computing). At the same time, the drivers for update cycles may partly change: fewer feature-based updates, but still investments driven by capacity, energy efficiency, and new frequencies, especially in urban areas. The key question ultimately is what C-RAN does to the entire structure. If baseband is moved away from masts towards centralized hubs, then:  the same computing can be used between multiple cells capacity can be shared and utilized better but it still needs to be dimensioned according to peak loads  This development seems to be underway in any case, regardless of AI. AI-RAN should not necessarily be seen only as a new feature or a replacement for ASICs, but rather as a way to utilize this centralized computing more efficiently. If GPU computing is present in hubs, it can be used:  sometimes for radio network needs sometimes for AI computing  Since these loads are not perfectly simultaneous, the same capacity can be used more flexibly. This does not eliminate the need for peak capacity but can improve utilization. Therefore, the hub model seems logical, at least in the initial phase: it makes no sense to put expensive GPU capacity in every mast, but when centralized in hubs, along with baseband computing, it can be shared and updated more easily. At the same time, this makes the overall system more complex (control, prioritization, etc.), so it’s not a “free lunch.” The question may not just be whether product development costs decrease with GPUs, but whether the entire economic logic changes: moving from fixed capacity towards more shared and flexible use. And perhaps most importantly: this centralization (C-RAN) is likely to proceed in any case, because it is economically sensible for operators. AI-RAN can then “jump on board” and reinforce this development or proceed more slowly depending on how quickly genuine demand for low-latency AI applications emerges. If the hub model progresses this way, it could be a significant commercial opportunity for optical networks, driven by both C-RAN and AI-RAN needs.

Marvell charges its R&D costs differently depending on the volume. The smaller the volume, the larger the guarantee Nokia has to pay Marvell for R&D. Nokia’s previously over-optimistic volumes have made Marvell cautious, which dilutes the economies of scale. I don’t believe that R&D costs will decrease significantly even in the long term (5-10 years) even if the baseband switches to GPU. L1low is still at the radio end of the SoC. Existing radio frequencies will gradually be transferred to 6G, so reprogramming on old platforms will continue for a long time even if Nvidia develops radio-SoC (System-on-Chip) replacement technology for Nokia. Finally, I don’t know if Nokia can learn anything from 5G FPGA (Field-Programmable Gate Array) other than that if things accelerate unexpectedly, it’s foolish to go to commercial markets with a lab proto, no matter how urgent the need. Only a collapse in market share will follow. So, if AI in RAN (Radio Access Network) materializes already in the 5GA era, led by TMO US, then Nokia is in a strong position.

The thing is, as I understand it, the SoC/ASIC cost for development is mainly fixed, so the economies of scale are significant. In other words, it doesn’t really matter for product development costs whether the SoC is replicated 10,000 or 10 million times. Thus, it can’t be done half-heartedly – you either participate in that development or you don’t. The idea for Nokia is that in the longer term, the GPU connection should allow for significantly lower product development costs. This also removes barriers to entry, meaning competition could, in principle, increase. On the other hand, I believe that if things are done well, Nokia can do extremely well in this. Everything now depends on how and how quickly AI-RAN succeeds. Indeed, I find it somewhat difficult to see a situation where Nokia would continue full-scale SoC development for long, having decided to join an alternative path. Nokia will probably gain some know-how from its early 5G FPGA adventures.

@Lexus @Dibadoo Good points from both. Nokia may be moving to a kind of hybrid model where GPU and ASIC development coexist. AI-RAN would then serve not only as a potential new revenue stream but also as a development platform, while ReefShark remains an energy-efficient basic solution. The sustainability of this model ultimately depends on two things: either AI-RAN scales commercially, or the GPU-based approach genuinely alleviates cost pressure on ASIC development. Otherwise, maintaining two parallel paths could be burdensome in the long run. One possible underlying factor here could also be the cost structure. It may be that scaling Nokia’s own high-level ASIC development for the AI era would be extremely capital-intensive for Nokia, and with already weak profitability and a smaller market share than Ericsson, the equation would have been challenging. The Nvidia collaboration is both a risk and an opportunity, but it can also be interpreted as a way to avoid the heaviest R&D arms race. At the same time, the focus may shift to basic SoC (System on Chip) solutions and, in demanding situations, to applying Nokia’s own expertise to Nvidia’s technology and the CUDA software platform.

That SoC development is just very expensive. Do they have the resources to continue this in parallel for very long? Of course, one could also try to investigate this from Marvell’s and Broadcom’s direction. They do have other telecom customers, like Samsung. So perhaps not very far-reaching conclusions can be drawn. Nokia is now in a situation with a reasonably large risk. If AI-RAN gains momentum and GPU development allows for clearly lower power consumption than before.. and then on the other hand new use cases and direct demands emerge, that would be truly great and Nokia would also be a winner on the MI side. Then, if operator investments remain modest here, Nokia will be in trouble in this respect. In my view, they cannot run on two tracks for very long. But as has been said before, Nokia’s share price valuation will not collapse because of this for a few years yet. And conversely, the potential will also be seen at a later stage. I’ve heard a little from inside the company that people are quite divided regarding AI-RAN. There’s a bit of the traditional crowd, like here on the forum, and then on the other hand, there’s reportedly also a new generation.

Nokia

Nokia's market situation has continued to deteriorate, and the company will have to make significant cost savings in the coming years to defend its profitability. With a declining earnings trend, it is difficult to see any material upside to the share's low valuation multiples and future restructuring costs will erode free cash flow in the coming years.

<p>Nokia's market situation has continued to deteriorate, and the company will have to make significant cost savings in the coming years to defend its profitability. With a declining earnings trend, it is difficult to see any material upside to the share's low valuation multiples and future restructuring costs will erode free cash flow in the coming years. The company should still be able to generate a reasonably good cash flow in the coming years, which will be returned to shareholders. However, relying on this alone does not provide a sufficiently attractive expected return. </p> 

	2022	23e	24e
Revenue	24,911.0	23,214.5	22,403.5
growth-%	12.2 %	-6.8 %	-3.5 %
EBIT (adj.)	3,109.0	2,723.8	2,522.7
EBIT-% (adj.)	12.5 %	11.7 %	11.3 %
EPS (adj.)	0.44	0.35	0.33
Dividend	0.12	0.16	0.18
Dividend %	2.8 %	2.2 %	2.5 %
P/E (adj.)	9.9	20.9	21.9
EV/EBITDA	6.2	11.7	13.7

Nokia: Market situation forces to defensive positions

Login required

Key Estimate Figures19.10.2023

Forum discussions