[hackernews_7364]

There's many questions about the overall economics of AI, its value, is it overvalued, is it not, etc. but this is a very poor article I suspect made by someone with little to no financial or accounting knowledge with a strong "uh big tech bad" bias.

> When companies buy expensive stuff, for accounting purposes they pretend they haven’t spent the money; instead they “depreciate” it over a few years.

There's no pretending. It's accounting. When you buy an asset, you own it, it is now part of your balance sheet. You incur a cost when the value of the asset falls, i.e. it depreciates. If you spend 20k on a car you are not pretending to not having spent 20k by considering it an asset, you spent money but now you have something of similar value as an asset. Your cost is the depreciation as years go by and the car becomes less valuable. That's a very misleading way to put it.

> Management gets to pick your depreciation period, (...)

They don't. GAAP, IFRS, or whatever other accounting rules that apply to the company do. There's some degree of freedom in certain situations but it's not "management wants". And it's funny that the author thinks that companies in general are interested in defining longer useful lives when in most cases (this depends on other tax considerations) it's the opposite because while depreciation is a non-cash expense you can get real cash by reducing your taxable income and the sooner you get that money the better. There's some more nuance to this, tax vs accounting, how much freedom management has vs what is industry practice and auditors will allow you to do... my point is, again, "management gets to pick" is not an accurate representation of what goes on.

> It’s like this. The Big-Tech giants are insanely profitable but they don’t have enough money lying around to build the hundreds of billions of dollars worth of data centers the AI prophets say we’re going to need.

Actually they do, Meta is the one that has the least but it could still easily raise that money. Meta in this case just thinks it's a better deal to share risk with investors that at the moment have a very strong appetite to own these assets. Meta is actually paying a higher rate through these SPVs compared to funding them outright. Now, personally I don't know how I would feel about that deal in particular if I was an investor just because you need to dig a little deeper in their balance sheet to have a good snapshot of what is going on but it's not any trick, arguably it can make economic sense.

[evanelias]

> I suspect made by someone with little to no financial or accounting knowledge with a strong "uh big tech bad" bias.

Actually the author has worked for Google, Amazon (VP-level), Sun, and DEC; and was a co-creator of XML.

[keeda]

1. Being a VP in these companies does not imply they have an understanding of financing, accounting or data-center economics unless their purview covered or was very close to the teams procuring and running the infrastructure.

2. That level of seniority does, on the other hand, expose them to a lot of the shenanigans going on in those companies, which could credibly lead them to develop a "big tech bad" mindset.

[hackernews_7364]

There are many legitimate concerns about the financial implications of these huge investments in AI. In fact the podcast that he references is great at providing _informed_ and _nuanced_ observations about all of this - Paul Kedrosky is great.

BUT (my point)

Is that the article is terrible at reflecting all of that and makes wrong and misleading comments about it.

The idea that companies depreciating assets is them "pretending they haven't spent the money" or that "management gets to pick your depreciation period" is simply wrong.

Do you think any of those two statements are accurate?

P.S. Maybe you make a good point, I said that I suspected based on those statements that he had little financial knowledge. tbh I didn't know the author, hence the "suspect". But now that you say that it might be that he is so biased in this particular topic that he can't make a fair representation of his point. Irrespective of that, I will say it again: statements like the ones I've commented are absurd.