Some tech companies have doubled the depreciable life of their AI hardware (e.g., from 3 to 6 years) for accounting purposes. This inflates reported earnings, but it contradicts the economic reality that rapid innovation is shortening the chips' actual useful life, creating a significant red flag for earnings quality.
Related Insights
Michael Burry's thesis is that aggressive stock-based compensation (SBC) at companies like Nvidia significantly distorts their valuations. By treating SBC as a true owner's cost, a stock appearing to trade at 30 times earnings might actually be closer to 60 times, mirroring dot-com era accounting concerns.
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.
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.
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 This mismatch leads to accusations of financial manipulation where firms are simply following outdated rules.
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.
AI companies operate under the assumption that LLM prices will trend towards zero. This strategic bet means they intentionally de-prioritize heavy investment in cost optimization today, focusing instead on capturing the market and building features, confident that future, cheaper models will solve their margin problems for them.
Traditional valuation multiples are increasingly misleading because GAAP rules expense intangible investments (R&D, brand building) rather than capitalizing them. For a company like Microsoft, properly capitalizing these investments can drop its P/E ratio from 35 to 30, revealing a more attractive valuation.
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.
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.
