Initially viewed as a growth driver, Generative AI is now seen by investors as a major disruption risk. This sentiment shift is driven by the visible, massive investments in AI infrastructure without corresponding revenue growth appearing in established enterprise sectors, causing a focus on potential downside instead of upside.
Related Insights
Contrary to the popular belief that failing to adopt AI is the biggest risk, some companies may be harming their value by developing AI practices too quickly. The market and client needs may not be ready for advanced AI integration, leading to a misallocation of resources and slower-than-expected returns.
Companies feel immense pressure to integrate AI to stay competitive, leading to massive spending. However, this rush means they lack the infrastructure to measure ROI, creating a paradox of anxious investment without clear proof of value.
Unlike prior tech revolutions funded mainly by equity, the AI infrastructure build-out is increasingly reliant on debt. This blurs the line between speculative growth capital (equity) and financing for predictable cash flows (debt), magnifying potential losses and increasing systemic failure risk if the AI boom falters.
Current AI investment patterns mirror the "round-tripping" seen in the late '90s tech bubble. For example, NVIDIA invests billions in a startup like OpenAI, which then uses that capital to purchase NVIDIA chips. This creates an illusion of demand and inflated valuations, masking the lack of real, external customer revenue.
Current AI spending appears bubble-like, but it's not propping up unprofitable operations. Inference is already profitable. The immense cash burn is a deliberate, forward-looking investment in developing future, more powerful models, not a sign of a failing business model. This re-frames the financial risk.
While AI investment has exploded, US productivity has barely risen. Valuations are priced as if a societal transformation is complete, yet 95% of GenAI pilots fail to positively impact company P&Ls. This gap between market expectation and real-world economic benefit creates systemic risk.
History shows a significant delay between tech investment and productivity gains—10 years for PCs, 5-6 for the internet. The current AI CapEx boom faces a similar risk. An 'AI wobble' may occur when impatient investors begin questioning the long-delayed returns.
Despite widespread AI adoption, an IBM study of 1,000 businesses reveals a massive execution gap. The vast majority are not seeing tangible returns, with 73% reporting no functional benefits and 77% reporting no financial benefits from their investment.
While spending on AI infrastructure has exceeded expectations, the development and adoption of enterprise-level AI applications have significantly lagged. Progress is visible, but it's far behind where analysts predicted it would be, creating a disconnect between the foundational layer and end-user value.
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.
