The debate over AI chip depreciation highlights a flaw in traditional accounting. GAAP was designed for physical assets with predictable lifecycles, not for digital infrastructure like GPUs whose value creation is dynamic. This mismatch leads to accusations of financial manipulation where firms are simply following outdated rules.
Related Insights
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.
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.
History shows that transformative innovations like airlines, vaccines, and PCs, while beneficial to society, often fail to create sustained, concentrated shareholder value as they become commoditized. This suggests the massive valuations in AI may be misplaced, with the technology's benefits accruing more to users than investors in the long run.
Hyperscalers are extending depreciation schedules for AI hardware. While this may look like "cooking the books" to inflate earnings, it's justified by the reality that even 7-8 year old TPUs and GPUs are still running at 100% utilization for less complex AI tasks, making them valuable for longer and validating the accounting change.
NVIDIA’s business model relies on planned obsolescence. Its AI chips become obsolete every 2-3 years as new versions are released, forcing Big Tech customers into a constant, multi-billion dollar upgrade cycle for what are effectively "perishable" assets.
The massive OpenAI-Oracle compute deal illustrates a novel form of financial engineering. The deal inflates Oracle's stock, enriching its chairman, who can then reinvest in OpenAI's next funding round. This creates a self-reinforcing loop that essentially manufactures capital to fund the immense infrastructure required for AGI development.
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.
Traditional SaaS metrics like 80%+ gross margins are misleading for AI companies. High inference costs lower margins, but if the absolute gross profit per customer is multiples higher than a SaaS equivalent, it's a superior business. The focus should shift from margin percentages to absolute gross profit dollars and multiples.
Accusations that hyperscalers "cook the books" by extending GPU depreciation misunderstand hardware lifecycles. Older chips remain at full utilization for less demanding tasks. High operational costs (power, cooling) provide a natural economic incentive to retire genuinely unprofitable hardware, invalidating claims of artificial earnings boosts.
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.
