Because boards lack deep expertise in AI's seismic impact, they are pursuing scale-driven M&A. The goal is to accumulate diverse assets ('cards in a deck') to maintain flexibility and strategic options in an unpredictable, AI-driven future, rather than making specific bets on the technology itself.
Related Insights
Large enterprises navigate a critical paradox with new technology like AI. Moving too slowly cedes the market and leads to irrelevance. However, moving too quickly without clear direction or a focus on feasibility results in wasting millions of dollars on failed initiatives.
Instead of selling software to traditional industries, a more defensible approach is to build vertically integrated companies. This involves acquiring or starting a business in a non-sexy industry (e.g., a law firm, hospital) and rebuilding its entire operational stack with AI at its core, something a pure software vendor cannot do.
Top AI labs like Anthropic are simultaneously taking massive investments from direct competitors like Microsoft, NVIDIA, Google, and Amazon. This creates a confusing web of reciprocal deals for capital and cloud compute, blurring traditional competitive lines and creating complex interdependencies.
Current M&A activity related to AI isn't targeting AI model creators. Instead, capital is flowing into consolidating the 'picks and shovels' of the AI ecosystem. This includes derivative plays like data centers, semiconductors, software, and even power suppliers, which are seen as more tangible long-term assets.
In AI M&A, recency is key. Companies pre-ChatGPT often had to rewrite their entire stack and relearn skills, making their experience less relevant. Acquiring a company with post-ChatGPT experience ensures their tech and knowledge are current, not already obsolete.
Major tech companies view the AI race as a life-or-death struggle. This 'existential crisis' mindset explains their willingness to spend astronomical sums on infrastructure, prioritizing survival over short-term profitability. Their spending is a defensive moat-building exercise, not just a rational pursuit of new revenue.
Despite geopolitical risk and economic uncertainty, M&A is surging because companies are executing on long-term (20-30 year) strategic repositioning plans conceived post-COVID. When capital markets open, even briefly, companies are quick to act on these dormant, high-conviction plans, ignoring near-term volatility.
Massive AI capital expenditures by firms like Google and Meta are driven by a game-theoretic need to not fall behind. While rational for any single company to protect its turf, this dynamic forces all to invest, eroding collective profitability for shareholders across the sector.
For legacy companies in declining industries, a massive, 'bet the ranch' acquisition is not an offensive growth strategy but a defensive, existential one. The primary motivation is to gain scale and avoid becoming the smallest, most vulnerable player in a consolidating market, even if it requires stretching financially.
Conventional venture capital wisdom of 'winner-take-all' may not apply to AI applications. The market is expanding so rapidly that it can sustain multiple, fast-growing, highly valuable companies, each capturing a significant niche. For VCs, this means huge returns don't necessarily require backing a monopoly.