A big Chinese company that makes computer chips, called SMIC, is not making as much money as before because of some rules from the United States. These rules are trying to stop China from getting better at making technology. So, even though SMIC is selling more things, it is spending a lot of money on new machines and tools to make even more chips. This means they have less money left over after paying for everything. Read from source...

1. The headline is misleading and sensationalized. It implies that SMIC's profit margin decline is solely due to US export controls, when in reality there are multiple factors at play, such as expanding capacity, increasing depreciation of equipment, and market demand fluctuations.
2. The article focuses too much on the negative aspects of SMIC's performance, while ignoring the positive signs of revenue growth and inventory build-up. This creates a one-sided and unfair representation of the company's situation.
3. The author uses terms like "growing demand" from Huawei and other clients without providing any evidence or data to support this claim. It seems like an assumption based on SMIC's expansion plans, rather than actual market trends.
4. The article repeatedly mentions the US export controls as a major threat to China's semiconductor industry, but fails to acknowledge the role of other countries and competitors in influencing the global chip market. For example, Japan's trade restrictions on some materials used in chip production could also have an impact on SMIC's performance.
5. The article ends with a vague statement about SMIC's primary focus being "on aiding China in supplying essential semiconductors amid escalating U.S. export controls". This suggests that the company is actively working against the US interests, rather than simply trying to meet the domestic demand and compete in the global market.
6. The overall tone of the article is negative and pessimistic, which could influence the readers' perception of SMIC's prospects and discourage potential investors from considering the company as a viable option. A more balanced and objective approach would be more informative and persuasive for the audience.