[ChadNauseam]

> On the one hand you can look at these companies investing and take it as a signal that there is something there (in OpenAI) that's worth investing in. On the other hand all these companies that are investing are basically getting that investment back through spending commitments and such and are just using OpenAI as a proxy for what is essentially buying more revenue for themselves.

I don't understand how this is some kind of cheat code. Let's say I give you $100 on the condition that you buy $100 worth of product from me. And let's say that product cost me $80 to produce. Isn't that basically the same as me giving you $80? I don't see at all how that's me "basically getting that investment back".

[bradfa]

I give you $100 cash and you give me $100 worth of stock in return. Now you give me $100 cash to buy something from me that cost me $80 to produce. I end up with $100 worth of stock in your company which cost me only $80. No?

NVIDIA gross margins lately are like 75%, so it's more like you give me $100 to buy something from me that cost me $25 to produce, hence I end up with $100 worth of stock in your company and it only cost me $25.

[ethbr1]

> hence I end up with $100 worth of stock in your company and it only cost me $25.

You also lost out on $75 worth of cash revenue (opportunity cost from selling the same thing to a different customer), so really you just took stock in lieu of cash.

It'd be different if Nvidia (TSMC) had excess production capacity, but afaik they're capped out.

So it's really just whether they'd be selling them to OpenAI and getting equity in return or selling to customers and getting cash in return.

If OpenAI thinks their own stock is valued above fundamentals, it's a no brainer to try and buy Nvidia hardware with stock.

[Rury]

In that case, you spent $80 to produce an item and exchanged it for $100 worth of their stock.

Now if you check, these companies selling their stock like this tend to have large amounts of debt. If their stock becomes worthless, you just wasted $80 producing an item that their creditors have first dibs on. And liquidating your shares immediately to ensure your gain, would weigh on their stock's value, potentially to the point where their stock would be only $80 worth, and you wouldn't be gaining anything anymore. Your earnings would then tank, alongside them.

[ben_w]

> I give you $100 cash and you give me $100 worth of stock in return. Now you give me $100 cash to buy something from me that cost me $80 to produce. I end up with $100 worth of stock in your company which cost me only $80. No?

Sure, but how's that a cheat code? If you normally sell something for $100 that costs $80 to make, and then use that $100 revenue to buy $100 of stock, this is an identical outcome for you.

[Sleaker]

Aaaannd get to claim the 100 as revenue to show investors that the company is performing better than if I had not made the deal, which also means that demand for the product stays inflated which also means I can keep my margins higher by not needing to discount my product.

[overfeed]

> Isn't that basically the same as me giving you $80?

In your accounting, you can claim that you have an investment worth $100 and book $100 worth of revenue. You're juicing your sales numbers to impress shareholders - presumably, without your $100, the investee wouldn't have bought $100 worth of your product. The last thing your shareholders want to see are your sales numbers stop growing, or heaven forbid, start shrinking.

Nvidia is not the first company to "buy" sales of its own product via simple or convoluted incentive schemes. The scheme will work for a while until it doesn't.

[tsimionescu]

The problem is here:

> Let's say I give you $100 on the condition that you buy $100 worth of product from me. And let's say that product cost me $80 to produce. Isn't that basically the same as me giving you $80?

Why limit myself to $100 for a product that costs $80? I could just as well give you $1 000 000 to buy this same product from me. That way, I have a $1 000 000 share of your company, and I have $1 000 000 in revenue, and it only cost me $80.

This distorts the market for the product we're trading, and distorts the share price for both my company and yours.

[ibeckermayer]

> Isn't that basically the same as me giving you $80? I don't see at all how that's me "basically getting that investment back".

It's a good question, what I think you're missing is that if the market is valuing me (NVIDIA) at 25x revenue then it's more like I traded you (OpenAI) a GPU it cost me $80 to make for $100 worth of OpenAI stock, and I got a bonus $2500 in market cap of my own stock (which existing shareholders like).

IOW for every incremental "$100" in revenue (circular or otherwise), existing shareholders get paid "$2500" in equity (NVIDIA appreciation + OpenAI shares).

This "works" for NVIDIA and its shareholders as long as they/the market keeps thinking $100 of OpenAI stock is a good price for a GPU. If OpenAI tangibly fails to deliver on this valuation then NVIDIA may wind up in the red on these deals.

Caveat: it's a bit more complicated than that as OpenAI doesn't typically buy/operate GPUs directly afaict, rather they team up with the big cloud providers like AMZN (also part of the deal). But it's an useful way to wrap your head around the economics, I think (open to correction, not a domain of professional expertise).

I don't see anything _inherently_ unethical about this as some comments seem to imply. It's definitely riskier than accepting cash, in which case you're free not to play, but it's a calculated risk based on future expectations of growth by OpenAI. Granted there are some sketchy incentives qua existing shareholders that could materialize in pump and dump dynamics.

[hirako2000]

That's like giving them* $20.

And inflate your revenue by $80.

Laws on competition make this kind of arrangements illegal, so you would have to exerce influence and have the invested in company pretends you happen to have been picked among competitors.

In any case the SEC will be focused on whether the filings aren't made up to fraud investors, so they could reject the IPO, of the invested in company. Your own entity also is at risk.

We all know MS gets away with it, they have good legal goons who find way to make all of it appears fair with regards to the law.

[GolfPopper]

>they have good legal goons who find way to make all of it appears fair with regards to the law

I thought it was more that the legal goons delay the final judgement until Microsoft can eventually find someone they can (technically legally) bribe to drop the case?

[skydhash]

I'm not a finance expert, but it may be because investment and purchase are are taxed differently (I don't know). You gave $100 away as investments, got $100 back as revenue. Meanwhile you establish that your product are worth $100 (while costing $80) and you have $100 worth of shares. Without considering side effects, you gave away $80 worth of product for $100 (supposed) worth of shares. But shares are subject to side effects and those side effects can be quite nice (making the news, establishing price,...).

The issue is that there's no organic force behind those changes and it makes everything hollow. You could create a market inside a deserted area and make it appear like a metropolis.

[SecretDreams]

> I don't understand how this is some kind of cheat code. Let's say I give you $100 on the condition that you buy $100 worth of product from me. And let's say that product cost me $80 to produce. Isn't that basically the same as me giving you $80? I don't see at all how that's me "basically getting that investment back".

What if the product only costs you $20 to produce?

[a_victorp]

Or if the stock is not actually worth $100

[rafaelmn]

In exchange for 100$ of your stock AND making your revenue numbers look insane for the next cycle ?

Also Nvidia margins are waaay higher than 20%

[_fat_santa]

How I see it is the companies want to jack their revenue and in turn jack the price of their stock and please shareholders. Those are the two main goals which this accomplishes, regardless of the underlying fundamentals.

[coliveira]

The reason this doesn't make sense is that this is the math of monopoly creation! The government should be making sure companies don't go around throwing money at circular deals that will make them and their friends a fortune while cornering the market, but it seems that capitalism rules don't exist anymore in the US.

[Alex3917]

For both Amazon and Nvidia, their marginal costs are probably much lower than their fixed costs.