A new AI investment model involves tech giants like Microsoft funding labs like Anthropic, which then spend more on the investors' cloud platforms. This self-referential 'circularity' is now viewed with suspicion by public markets, causing share prices to drop—a stark reversal from the initial hype that surrounded OpenAI's partnerships.

Related Insights

The AI boom is fueled by 'club deals' where large companies invest in startups with the expectation that the funds will be spent on the investor's own products. This creates a circular, self-reinforcing valuation bubble that is highly vulnerable to collapse, as the failure of one company can trigger a cascading failure across the entire interconnected system.

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.

The AI ecosystem appears to have circular cash flows. For example, Microsoft invests billions in OpenAI, which then uses that money to pay Microsoft for compute services. This creates revenue for Microsoft while funding OpenAI, but it raises investor concerns about how much organic, external demand truly exists for these costly services.

Hedge fund manager David Einhorn highlights the unstable economics of the AI supply chain, where money flows circularly with diminishing returns. For every $1 a consumer pays OpenAI, OpenAI spends $2 on Microsoft, which spends $0.60 on CoreWeave, which then spends $2.40 on NVIDIA. This questions the long-term profitability and sustainability of the entire ecosystem as currently structured.

Companies like NVIDIA invest billions in AI startups (e.g., OpenAI) with the understanding the money will be spent on their chips. This "round tripping" creates massive, artificial market cap growth but is incredibly fragile and reminiscent of the dot-com bubble's accounting tricks.

The memo flags deals where money is "round-tripped" between AI players—for example, a chipmaker investing in a startup that then uses the funds to buy its chips. This practice, reminiscent of the 1990s telecom bust, can create illusory profits and exaggerate progress, signaling that the market is overheating.

The current trend of AI infrastructure providers investing in their largest customers, who then use that capital to buy their products, mirrors the risky vendor financing seen in the dot-com bubble. This creates circular capital flows and potential systemic risk.

A circular economy is forming in AI, where capital flows between major players. NVIDIA invests $100B in OpenAI, which uses the funds to buy compute from Oracle, who in turn buys GPUs from NVIDIA. This self-reinforcing loop concentrates capital and drives up valuations across the ecosystem.

Large tech firms invest in AI startups who then agree to spend that money on the investor's services. This creates a "circular" flow of cash that boosts the startup's perceived revenue and the tech giant's AI-related sales, creating questionable accounting.

When capital flows in a circle—a chipmaker invests in an AI firm which then buys the investor's chips—it artificially inflates revenues and valuations. This self-dealing behavior is a key warning sign that the AI funding frenzy is a speculative bubble, not purely market-driven.