A single year of Nvidia's revenue is greater than the last 25 years of R&D and capex from the top five semiconductor equipment companies combined. This suggests a massive 'capex overhang,' meaning the primary bottleneck for AI compute isn't the ability to build fabs, but the financial arrangements to de-risk their construction.
Related Insights
While high capex is often seen as a negative, for giants like Alphabet and Microsoft, it functions as a powerful moat in the AI race. The sheer scale of spending—tens of billions annually—is something most companies cannot afford, effectively limiting the field of viable competitors.
Major AI labs plan and purchase GPUs on multi-year timelines. This means NVIDIA's current stellar earnings reports reflect long-term capital commitments, not necessarily current consumer usage, potentially masking a slowdown in services like ChatGPT.
NVIDIA's financing of customers who buy its GPUs is a strategic move to accelerate the creation of AGI, their ultimate market. It also serves a defensive purpose: ensuring the massive capital expenditure cycle doesn't halt, as a market downturn could derail the entire AI infrastructure buildout that their business relies on.
The world's most profitable companies view AI as the most critical technology of the next decade. This strategic belief fuels their willingness to sustain massive investments and stick with them, even when the ultimate return on that spending is highly uncertain. This conviction provides a durable floor for the AI capital expenditure cycle.
OpenAI's aggressive partnerships for compute are designed to achieve "escape velocity." By locking up supply and talent, they are creating a capital barrier so high (~$150B in CapEx by 2030) that it becomes nearly impossible for any entity besides the largest hyperscalers to compete at scale.
The AI boom's sustainability is questionable due to the disparity between capital spent on computing and actual AI-generated revenue. OpenAI's plan to spend $1.4 trillion while earning ~$20 billion annually highlights a model dependent on future payoffs, making it vulnerable to shifts in investor sentiment.
The debate on whether AI can reach $1T in revenue is misguided; it's already reality. Core services from hyperscalers like TikTok, Meta, and Google have recently shifted from CPUs to AI on GPUs. Their entire revenue base is now AI-driven, meaning future growth is purely incremental.
Critics like Michael Burry argue current AI investment far outpaces 'true end demand.' However, the bull case, supported by NVIDIA's earnings, is that this isn't a speculative bubble but the foundational stage of the largest infrastructure buildout in decades, with capital expenditures already contractually locked in.
The AI infrastructure boom is a potential house of cards. A single dollar of end-user revenue paid to a company like OpenAI can become $8 of "seeming revenue" as it cascades through the value chain to Microsoft, CoreWeave, and NVIDIA, supporting an unsustainable $100 of equity market value.
Companies like CoreWeave collateralize massive loans with NVIDIA GPUs to fund their build-out. This creates a critical timeline problem: the industry must generate highly profitable AI workloads before the GPUs, which have a limited lifespan and depreciate quickly, wear out. The business model fails if valuable applications don't scale fast enough.
