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.
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.
The massive capital rush into AI infrastructure mirrors past tech cycles where excess capacity was built, leading to unprofitable projects. While large tech firms can absorb losses, the standalone projects and their supplier ecosystems (power, materials) are at risk if anticipated demand doesn't materialize.
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.
Despite its massive user base, OpenAI's position is precarious. It lacks true network effects, strong feature lock-in, and control over its cost base since it relies on Microsoft's infrastructure. Its long-term defensibility depends on rapidly building product ecosystems and its own infrastructure advantages.
Leaders from NVIDIA, OpenAI, and Microsoft are mutually dependent as customers, suppliers, and investors. This creates a powerful, self-reinforcing growth loop that props up the entire AI sector, making it look like a "white elephant gift-giving party" where everyone is invested in each other's success.
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.
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.