Chip giant ASML smashes expectations on second-quarter net bookings
Here's how ASML did versus LSEG consensus estimates for the second quarter:
In its own previous forecast issued in April, ASML had said it expected second-quarter net sales of between 7.2 billion euros and 7.7 billion euros.
Analysts anticipated net bookings — a key indicator of order demand — would come in at 4.19 billion euros over the April-June stretch. ASML reported net bookings of 5.5 billion euros.
ASML is one of the most important semiconductor supply chain companies in the world. It makes extreme ultraviolet lithography (EUV) machines, which are required to manufacture the most advanced chips in the world, such as those designed by Apple and Nvidia.
Companies like Intel and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. are customers of ASML.
The Veldhoven, Netherlands-headquartered company has released its next generation EUV tools known as High NA, which stands for high numerical aperture. These machines, which are larger than a double-decker bus and can cost more than $400 million each, are key to ASML's future growth plans.
Like many companies in the semiconductor industry, ASML has been grappling with uncertainty created by U.S. tariff policy.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Tesla, Inc. (TSLA)'s 'A Cult Stock,' Says Jim Cramer
We recently published . Tesla, Inc. (NASDAQ:TSLA) is one of the stocks Jim Cramer recently discussed. Tesla, Inc. (NASDAQ:TSLA) continues to face a horrible time on the stock market in 2025. The firm's shares have lost 16.7% year-to-date and fell by 8.2% after its latest earnings report, which missed analyst revenue and earnings estimates. The results were so bad that even Cramer, who believes that Tesla, Inc. (NASDAQ:TSLA)'s potential is in emerging technologies such as robotics, was forced to do somewhat of a turnaround: '[on revenue, vehicle sold, carbon credit all down] Okay, so you listen to the conference call, and they made it so that those don't matter. All that matters is self drive, autonomous. I'm not kidding. Robotaxi, uh, Austin, California. And then there's some lines, which says, where he's saying, and David you'll get a kick out of this I'm sure, he's talking about like in a few years like everyone's gonna be in this. The robotaxi's like going great. I mean, it's not doing anything. This was a call that was a fatuous call. David, I left out Turkey, number one. Netherlands and Austria. I knew that Austrian market, that was it. 'It's a cult stock. . . This was not the kind of conference call that I expected. I did not expect an immediate pivot to robots and the self driving and the robotaxi. While we acknowledge the potential of TSLA as an investment, our conviction lies in the belief that some AI stocks hold greater promise for delivering higher returns and have limited downside risk. If you are looking for an extremely cheap AI stock that is also a major beneficiary of Trump tariffs and onshoring, see our free report on the . READ NEXT: 30 Stocks That Should Double in 3 Years and 11 Hidden AI Stocks to Buy Right Now. Disclosure: None. This article is originally published at Insider Monkey. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
12 hours ago
- Yahoo
ASML: Limited China Risk, Leading-Edge Exposure Could Drive Outperformance
ASML Holding N.V. (NASDAQ:ASML) is one of the . On July 24, New Street Research upgraded the stock to 'Buy' with a €790 price target driven by ASML's strong positioning for 2026 and the potential to outpace peers in the semiconductor capital equipment space. According to New Street, consensus estimates of 2% growth for next year are 'conservative.' They believe that there is 'room for ASML to outperform, driven by high leading-edge exposure.' The company stands to benefit from 'higher growth in leading-edge WFE spending and limited risk of share loss in China,' the firm noted, which would eventually result in growth in the 'upper end of its peer group.' The firm further cited that normal order intake in quarter 3 would allow ASML to ease concerns around growth for 2026. The stock is currently below both its historical averages and peers, but there is limited risk of further de-rating. A technician operating a robotic arm on a production line of semiconductor chips. Moreover, while it remains unclear how much spending will be done on wafer fab equipment, a broader pullback can be expected next year. ASML Holding N.V. (NASDAQ:ASML) develops and sells advanced semiconductor equipment, including lithography, metrology, and inspection systems for chip manufacturing. While we acknowledge the potential of ASML as an investment, we believe certain AI stocks offer greater upside potential and carry less downside risk. If you're looking for an extremely undervalued AI stock that also stands to benefit significantly from Trump-era tariffs and the onshoring trend, see our free report on the best short-term AI stock. READ NEXT: and . Disclosure: None.
Forbes
16 hours ago
- Forbes
Can AI Give Tax Advice? Legal Limits And Regulatory Risks Explained
AI chatbot usage and concepts People turn to AI for just about everything these days—from workout routines to business strategy. So it's no surprise they ask about taxes too. Some questions are straightforward, like 'How does VAT apply to low-value imports?' or 'What is ViDA?' Others are more complex, involving detailed financial scenarios and asking how to handle them from a tax perspective. When you ask a large language model (LLM) for tax advice, it usually gives an answer. It may include a disclaimer encouraging you to consult a real expert, but it rarely refuses the request. That's where things start to get complicated. In many countries, applying tax law to someone's specific situation is legally considered tax advice and that's often a regulated activity. The rules vary depending on where you are. In the Netherlands, anyone can offer tax advice. In Germany, only licensed tax advisors can. Legal advice is also restricted to licensed lawyers. So what happens when the advice comes from a machine and not from a person? What the Courts Say About Software A German court ruling has already addressed this issue, offering a useful starting point for understanding where automation ends and regulated advice begins. While the case didn't involve LLMs, it still provides valuable insights. Germany's Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) reviewed a contract-generating platform that allowed users to create legal documents by answering a guided questionnaire. The service was advertised as producing 'legal documents with lawyer-level quality'—faster and cheaper than a real lawyer. The question was whether this kind of software crossed into regulated territory by offering legal advice without a license. The court ruled that it didn't. It held that the platform was lawful because it didn't analyze legal issues on a case-by-case basis. Instead, it used fixed logic, relied on factual input from users, and followed a set decision tree. There was no legal interpretation, no discretion, and no human oversight. The court compared it to a sophisticated form book—prewritten templates, not personalized legal counsel. The court also emphasized the user's role. It found that users were not misled into expecting full legal services. They understood that the output was a standardized document generated without professional legal review. Users knew they were responsible for the accuracy of the information they provided. Because of this, the court concluded that the service didn't qualify as unauthorized legal practice. However, the court did draw a firm line on how the tool was marketed. While the platform itself was allowed, promotional language that claimed to deliver 'lawyer-quality' results or positioned the service as equivalent to legal representation was ruled misleading. The takeaway: the automation may be legal, but how it's presented to users must be honest. So What About AI? The German court drew a clear distinction—automated tools are permitted as long as they offer general guidance, not case-specific legal advice. If a tool behaves like a structured manual with templates and logic paths, it's usually safe. But if it interprets tax rules based on someone's personal data, it may cross into regulated territory. Most tax software keeps it simple. It follows a fixed path and provides logic-based results. But LLMs can go further. They respond to user input in a conversational, personalized way. If the output applies tax law to individual facts, even unintentionally, it could qualify as tax advice under strict regulatory standards. Still, a strong case can be made that LLMs aren't giving tax advice—at least not in the legal sense. For one, LLMs are not legal entities. They can't be licensed, held accountable, or sanctioned. They don't act with legal intent. Like calculators or tax calculation engines, they're tools—not advisors. Second, the user is in control. They ask the questions, guide the interaction, and decide how to use the output. LLMs don't request documentation, question the facts, or assess risks like a licensed advisor would. Third, the answers are probabilistic. LLMs don't reason through the law; they predict what might be a helpful reply based on past patterns in training data. They don't understand legal rules, evaluate ethics, or grasp the nuance of financial and personal context. From the user's point of view, expectations are low. Most people know LLMs hallucinate. They understand that these systems occasionally produce false or misleading information. As a result, many use them as low-cost assistants but not as replacements for professional help. And most LLMs aren't marketed as legal advisors, which helps keep them out of regulatory trouble. It's a different story for tools that claim to offer legal certainty or 'lawyer-quality' advice—that kind of positioning can trigger legal obligations. The Bottom Line LLMs generate text based on patterns in the data they were trained on. They don't apply laws but predict what sounds like a useful response. That's not tax advice. That's automated text. And it's up to humans to treat it that way. As both knowledge and reasoning become automated, tax advisors must redefine their role — not as knowledge holders, but as interpreters, strategists, and ethical decision-makers. Their value no longer lies in simply knowing the rules, but in interpreting them, applying judgment, and asking the hard questions that AI can't. The goal isn't to compete with AI but to work with it. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of any organizations with which the author is affiliated.
