The world's most profitable companies view AI as the most critical technology of the next decade. This strategic belief fuels their willingness to sustain massive investments and stick with them, even when the ultimate return on that spending is highly uncertain. This conviction provides a durable floor for the AI capital expenditure cycle.

Despite a massive contract with OpenAI, Oracle is pushing back data center completion dates due to labor and material shortages. This shows that the AI infrastructure boom is constrained by physical-world limitations, making hyper-aggressive timelines from tech giants challenging to execute in practice.

The stock market has previously rewarded large tech companies for aggressive AI CapEx guidance. A shift in this reaction, where higher spending is no longer seen as a positive, would signal a significant change in investor sentiment and could alter how these companies discuss their growth plans.

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.

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.

The enormous capital needed for AI data centers is forcing a shift in tech financing. The appearance of credit default swaps on Oracle debt signals the re-emergence of large-scale debt and leverage, a departure from the equity and free-cash-flow models that have characterized the industry for two decades.

Contrary to claims of an AI bubble, the market is demonstrating rationality by punishing companies like Oracle and Broadcom for failing to meet AI-related expectations. This selective valuation indicates a discerning market that rewards performance over hype, not an indiscriminate bubble where any 'AI' stock soars.

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.

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.