The narrative of a broad AI investment boom is misleading. 60% of the incremental CapEx dollars in the first half of 2025 came from just four firms: Amazon, Meta, Alphabet, and Microsoft. Owning or being underweight these four stocks is a highly specific bet on the capital cycle of AI.

Related Insights

Contrary to the post-COVID trend of tech decentralization, the intense talent and capital requirements of AI have caused a rapid re-centralization. Silicon Valley has 'snapped back' into a hyper-concentrated hub, with nearly all significant Western AI companies originating within a small geographic radius.

While high capex is often seen as a negative, for giants like Alphabet and Microsoft, it functions as a powerful moat in the AI race. The sheer scale of spending—tens of billions annually—is something most companies cannot afford, effectively limiting the field of viable competitors.

Top AI labs like Anthropic are simultaneously taking massive investments from direct competitors like Microsoft, NVIDIA, Google, and Amazon. This creates a confusing web of reciprocal deals for capital and cloud compute, blurring traditional competitive lines and creating complex interdependencies.

The current AI spending spree by tech giants is historically reminiscent of the railroad and fiber-optic bubbles. These eras saw massive, redundant capital investment based on technological promise, which ultimately led to a crash when it became clear customers weren't willing to pay for the resulting products.

During the dot-com crash, application-layer companies like Pets.com went to zero, while infrastructure providers like Intel and Cisco survived. The lesson for AI investors is to focus on the underlying "picks and shovels"—compute, chips, and data centers—rather than consumer-facing apps that may become obsolete.

Major tech companies view the AI race as a life-or-death struggle. This 'existential crisis' mindset explains their willingness to spend astronomical sums on infrastructure, prioritizing survival over short-term profitability. Their spending is a defensive moat-building exercise, not just a rational pursuit of new revenue.

Instead of betting on which AI models or applications will win, Karmel Capital focuses on the infrastructure layer (neocloud companies). This "pick and shovel" strategy provides exposure to the entire ecosystem's growth with lower valuations and less risk, as infrastructure is essential regardless of who wins at the top layers.

Merco's explosive growth and $10B valuation are less about its standalone business and more a direct proxy for the AI CapEx boom. With massive customer concentration among foundation models, its success is a high-leverage bet that AI giants will continue their massive spending on training for the next 3-5 years.

The AI investment case might be inverted. While tech firms spend trillions on infrastructure with uncertain returns, traditional sector companies (industrials, healthcare) can leverage powerful AI services for a fraction of the cost. They capture a massive 'value gap,' gaining productivity without the huge capital outlay.

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.