Connect with us

Business

Nvidia’s $100 billion investment in OpenAI has analysts asking about “circular financing” inflating an AI bubble

Published

on



Nvidia’s announcement earlier this week that it is investing $100 billion into OpenAI to help fund its massive data center build out has added to a growing sense of unease among investors that there is a dangerous financial bubble around AI, and that the revenues and earnings math underpinning the valuations of both public and private companies in the sector just doesn’t add up.

While Nvidia’s latest announcement is by far the largest example, the AI chipmaker has engaged in a series of “circular” deals in which it invests in, or lends money to, its own customers. Vendor financing exists to some degree in many industries, but in this case, circular transactions may give investors an inflated perception of the true demand for AI.

In past technology bubbles, revenue “roundtripping” and tech companies financing their own customers have exacerbated the damage when those bubbles eventually popped. While the share of Nvidia’s revenues that are currently being driven by such financing appears to be relatively small, the company’s dominance as the world’s most valuable publicly-traded company means that its stock is “priced for perfection” and that even minor missteps could have outsized impact on its valuation—and on financial markets and perhaps even the wider economy.

The extent to which the entire AI boom is backstopped by Nvidia’s cash isn’t easy to answer precisely, which is also one of the unsettling things about it. The company has struck a number of investment and financing deals, many of which are too small individually for the company to consider “material” and report in its financial filings, even though collectively they may be significant.

In addition, there are so many interlocking rings of circularity—where Nvidia has invested in a company, such as OpenAI, that in turn purchases services from a cloud service provider that Nvidia has also invested in, which then also buys or leases GPUs from Nvidia—that disentangling what money is flowing where is far from easy.

Tangled webs of investment

Two of the most prominent examples of Nvidia’s web of circuitous investments are OpenAI and Coreweave. In addition to the latest investment in OpenAI, Nvidia had previously participated in a $6.6 billion investment round in the fast-growing AI company in October 2024. Nvidia also has invested in CoreWeave, which supplies data center capacity to OpenAI and is also an Nvidia customer. As of the end of June, Nvidia owned about 7% of Coreweave, a stake worth about $3 billion currently.

The benefits that companies get from a Nvidia investment extend beyond the cash itself. Nvidia’s equity stakes in companies such as OpenAI and Coreweave enable these companies to access debt financing for data center projects at potentially significantly lower interest rates than they would be able to access without such backing. Jay Goldberg, an analyst with Seaport Global Securities, compares such deals to someone asking their parents to be a co-signer on their mortgage. It gives lenders some assurance that they may actually get their money back. 

Startups financing data centers have often had to borrow money at rates as high as 15%, compared to 6% to 9% that a large, established corporation such as Microsoft might have to pay. With Nvidia’s backing, OpenAI and Coreweave have been able to borrow at rates closer to what Microsoft or Google might pay.

Nvidia has also signed a $6.3 billion deal to purchase any cloud capacity that CoreWeave can’t sell to others. The chipmaker had previously agreed to spend $1.3 billion over four years on cloud computing with CoreWeave. Coreweave, meanwhile, has purchased at least 250,000 Nvidia GPUs so far—the majority of which it says are H100 Hopper models, which cost about $30,000 each—which means Coreweave has spent about $7.5 billion buying these chips from Nvidia. So in essence, all of the money Nvidia has invested in Coreweave has come back to it in the form of revenue.

Nvidia has struck similar cloud computing deals with other so-called “neo-cloud” companies. According to a story in The Information, Nvidia agreed this summer to spend $1.3 billion over four years renting some 10,000 of its own AI chips from Lambda, which like Coreweave runs data centers, as well as a separate $200 million deal to rent some 8,000 more over an unspecified time period.

For those who believe there’s an AI bubble, the Lambda deal is clear evidence of froth. Those Nvidia chips Lambda is renting time on back to Nvidia? It bought them with borrowed money collateralized by the value of the GPUs themselves.

Besides its large investments in OpenAI and Coreweave, AI chipmaker also holds multi-million dollar stakes in several other publicly-traded companies that either purchase its GPUs or work on related chip technology. These include chip design firm Arm, high-performance computing company Applied Digital, cloud services company Nebius Group, and biotech company Recursion Pharmaceuticals. (Nvidia also recently purchased a 4% stake in Intel for $5 billion. Like Arm, Intel makes chips that in some cases are alternatives to Nvidia’s GPUs, but which for the most part are complementary to them.)

Earlier this month, Nvidia also pledged to invest £2 billion ($2.7 billion) in U.K. AI startups, including at least £500 million in Nscale, a U.K.-based data center operator that will, presumably, be using some of that money to purchase Nvidia GPUs to provision the data centers it is building. Nvidia also said it would invest in a number of British startups, both directly and through local venture capital firms, and some of that money too, will likely come back to OpenAI in the form of computing purchases, either directly, or through cloud service providers, who in turn will need to buy Nvidia GPUs.

In 2024, Nvidia invested about $1 billion in AI startups globally either directly or through its corporate venture capital arm NVentures, according to data from Dealroom and The Financial Times. This amount was up significantly from what Nvidia invested in 2022, the year the generative AI boom kicked off with OpenAI’s debut of ChatGPT.

How much of this money winds up coming right back to Nvidia in the form of sales is again, difficult to determine. Wall Street research firm NewStreet Research has estimated that for every $10 billion Nvidia invests in OpenAI, it will see $35 billion worth of GPU purchases or GPU lease payments, an amount equal to about 27% of its annual revenues last fiscal year.

Echoes of the dotcom era

That kind of return would certainly make this sort of customer financing worthwhile. But it does raise concerns among analysts about a bubble in AI valuations. These kinds of circular deals have been a hallmark of previous technology bubbles and have often come back to haunt investors.

In this case, the lease arrangements that Nvidia is entering into with OpenAI as part of its latest investment could prove problematic. By leasing GPUs to OpenAI, rather than requiring them to buy the chips outright, Nvidia is sparing OpenAI from having to take an accounting charge for the high depreciation rates on the chips, which will ultimately help OpenAI’s bottom line. But it means that instead Nvidia will have to bear this depreciation costs. What’s more, Nvidia will also take on the risk of being stuck with an inventory of GPUs no one wants if demand for AI workloads don’t match Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang’s rosy predictions.

To some market watchers, Nvidia’s latest deals feel all-too-similar to the excesses of past technology booms. During the dot com bubble at the turn of the 21st Century, telecom equipment makers such as Nortel, Lucent, and Cisco lent money to startups and telecom companies to purchase their equipment. Just before the bubble burst in 2001, the amount of financing Cisco and Nortel had extended to their customers exceeded 10% of annual revenues, and the amount of financing the top five telecom equipment makers had provided to customers exceeded 123% of their combined earnings.

Ultimately, the amount of fiber-optic cabling and switching equipment installed far exceeded demand, and when the bubble burst and many of those customers went bust, the telecom equipment makers were left holding the bad debt on their balance sheets. This contributed to a greater loss of value when the bubble burst than would have otherwise been the case, with networking equipment businesses losing more than 90% of their value over the ensuing decade.

Worse yet were companies such as fiber-optic giant Global Crossing that engaged in direct “revenue roundtripping.” These companies cut deals—often at the end of a quarter in order to hit topline forecasts—in which they paid money to another company for services, and then that company agreed to purchase equipment of exactly equal value. When the bubble burst, Global Crossing went bankrupt, and its executives ultimately paid large legal settlements related to revenue roundtripping.

It is memories of these kinds of transactions that have caused analysts to at least raise an eyebrow at some of Nvidia’s circular investments. Goldberg, the Seaport Global analyst, said the deals had a whiff of circular financing and were emblematic of “bubble-like behavior.” 

“The action will clearly fuel ‘circular’ concerns,” Stacy Rasgon, an analyst with Bernstein Research, wrote in an investor note following Nvidia’s announcement of its blockbuster investment in OpenAI. It’s a long way from a concern to a crisis, of course, but as AI company valuations get higher, that distance is starting to close.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

On Netflix’s earnings call, co-CEOs can’t quell fears about the Warner Bros. bid

Published

on



When it comes to creating irresistible storylines, Netflix, the home of Stranger Things and The Crown, is second to none. And as the streaming video giant delivered its quarterly earnings report on Tuesday, executives were in top storytelling form, pitching what they promise will be a smash hit: the acquisition of Warner Brothers Discovery.

The company’s co-CEOs, Ted Sarandos and Greg Peters, said the deal, which values Warner Brothers Discovery at $83 billion, will accelerate its own core streaming business while helping it expand into TV and the theatrical film business. 

“This is an exciting time in the business. Lots of innovation, lots of competition,” Sarandos enthused on Tuesday’s earnings conference call. Netflix has a history of successful transformation and of pivoting opportunistically, he reminded the audience: Once upon a time, its main business entailed mailing DVDs in red envelopes to customers’ homes. 

Despite Sarandos’ confident delivery, however, the pitch didn’t land with investors. The company’s stock, which was already down 15% since Netflix announced the deal in early December, sank another 4.9% in after-hours trading on Tuesday. 

Netflix’s financial results for the final quarter of 2025 were fine. The company beat EPS expectations by a penny, and said it now has 325 million paid subscribers and a worldwide total audience nearing 1 billion. Its 2026 revenue outlook, of between $50.7 billion and $51.7 billion, was right on target.  

Still, investors are worried that the Warner Bros. deal will force Netflix to compete outside its lane, causing management to lose focus. The fact that Netflix will temporarily halt its share buybacks in order to accumulate cash to help finance the deal, as it disclosed towards the bottom of Tuesday’s shareholder letter, probably didn’t help matters. 

And given that there’s a rival offer for Warner Bros from Paramount Skydance, it’s not unreasonable for investors to worry that Netflix may be forced into an expensive bidding war. (Even though Warner Brothers Discovery has accepted the Netflix offer over Paramount’s, no one believes the story is over—not even Netflix, which updated its $27.75 per share offer to all-cash, instead of stock and cash, hours earlier on Tuesday in order to provide WBD shareholders with “greater value certainty.”) 

Investors are wary; will regulators balk?

Warner Brothers investors are not the only audience that Netflix needs to win over. The deal must be blessed by antitrust regulators—a prospect whose outcome is harder to predict than ever in the Trump administration.

Sarandos and Peters laid out the case Tuesday for why they believe the deal will get through the regulatory process, framing the deal as a boon for American jobs.

“This is going to allow us to significantly expand our production capacity in the U.S. and to keep investing in original content in the long term, which means more opportunities for creative talent and more jobs,” Sarandos said.

Referring to Warner Brothers’ television and film businesses, he added that “these folks have extensive experience and expertise. We want them to stay on and run those businesses. We’re expanding content creation not collapsing it.”

It’s a compelling story. But the co-CEOs may have neglected to study the most important script of all when it comes to getting government approval in the current administration; they forgot to recite the Trump lines. 

The example has been set over the past 12 months by peers such as Nvidia’s Jensen Huang and Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg. The latter, with his company facing various federal regulatory threats, began publicly praising the Trump administration on an earnings call last January. 

And Nvidia’s Huang has already seen real dividends from a similar strategy. The chip company CEO has praised Trump repeatedly on earnings calls, in media interviews, and in conference keynote speeches, calling him “America’s unique advantage” in AI. Since then, the U.S. ban on selling Nvidia’s H200 AI chips to China has been rescinded. The praise may have been coincidental to the outcome, but it certainly didn’t hurt.

In contrast, the president went unmentioned on Tuesday’s call. How significant Netflix’s omission of a Trump call-out turns out to be remains to be seen; maybe it won’t matter at all. But it’s worth noting that its competitor for Warner Bros., Paramount Skydance, is helmed by David Ellison, an outspoken Trump supporter. 

It’s a storyline that Netflix should have seen coming, and itmay still send the company back to rewrite.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Americans are paying nearly all of the tariff burden as international exports die down, study finds

Published

on



After nearly a year of promises tariffs would boost the U.S. economy while other countries footed the bill, a new study shows almost all of the tariff burden is falling on American consumers. 

Americans are paying 96% of the costs of tariffs as prices for goods rise, according to research published Monday by the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, a German think tank. 

In April 2025 when President Donald Trump announced his “Liberation Day” tariffs, he claimed: “For decades, our country has been looted, pillaged, raped, and plundered by nations near and far, both friend and foe alike.” But the report suggests tariffs have actually cost Americans more money.

Trump has long used tariffs as leverage in non-trade political disputes. Over the weekend, Trump renewed his trade war in Europe after Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Finland sent troops for training exercises in Greenland. The countries will be hit with a 10% tariff starting on Feb. 1 that is set to rise to 25% on June 1, if a deal for the U.S. to buy Greenland is not reached. 

On Monday, Trump threatened a 200% tariff on French wine, after French President Emmanuel Macron refused to join Trump’s “Board of Peace” for Gaza, which has a $1 billion buy-in for permanent membership. 

“The claim that foreign countries pay these tariffs is a myth,” wrote Julian Hinz, research director at the Kiel Institute and an author of the study. “The data show the opposite: Americans are footing the bill.” 

The research shows export prices stayed the same, but the volume has collapsed. After imposing a 50% tariff on India in August, exports to the U.S. dropped 18% to 24%, compared to the European Union, Canada, and Australia. Exporters are redirecting sales to other markets, so they don’t need to cut sales or prices, according to the study.

“There is no such thing as foreigners transferring wealth to the U.S. in the form of tariffs,” Hinz told The Wall Street Journal

For the study, Hinz and his team analyzed more than 25 million shipment records between January 2024 through November 2025 that were worth nearly $4 trillion.They found exporters absorbed just 4% of the tariff burden and American importers are largely passing on the costs to consumers. 

Tariffs have increased customs revenue by $200 billion, but nearly all of that comes from American consumers. The study’s authors likened this to a consumption tax as wealth transfers from consumers and businesses to the U.S. Treasury.   

Trump has also repeatedly claimed tariffs would boost American manufacturing, butthe economy has shown declines in manufacturing jobs every month since April 2025, losing 60,000 manufacturing jobs between Liberation Day and November. 

The Supreme Court was expected to rule as soon as today on whether Trump’s use of emergency powers to levy tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act was legal. The court initially announced they planned to rule last week and gave no explanation for the delay. 

Although justices appeared skeptical of the administration’s authority during oral arguments in November, economists predict the Trump administration will find alternative ways to keep the tariffs.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Selling America is a ‘dangerous bet,’ UBS CEO warns as markets panic

Published

on



Investors are “selling America” in spades Tuesday: The 10-year Treasury yield is at its highest point since August; the U.S. dollar slid; and the traditional safe-haven metal investments—gold and silver—surged once again to record highs.

The CEO of UBS Group, the world’s largest private bank, thinks this market is making a “dangerous bet.”

“Diversifying away from America is impossible,” UBS Group CEO Sergio Ermotti told Bloomberg in a television interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on Tuesday. “Things can change rapidly, and the U.S. is the strongest economy in the world, the one who has the highest level of innovation right now.” 

The catalyst for the selloff was fresh escalation from U.S. President Donald Trump, who has threatened a 10% tariff on eight European allies—including Germany, France, and the U.K.—unless they cede to his demands to acquire Greenland.

Trump also threatened a 200% tariff on French wine and Champagne to pressure French President Emmanuel Macron to join his Board of Peace. Trump’s favorite “Mr. Tariff” is back, and bond investors are unhappy with the volatility.

But if investors keep getting caught up in the volatility of day-to-day politics and shun the U.S., they’ll miss the forest for the trees, Ermotti argued. While admitting the current environment is “bumpy,” he pointed to a statistic: Last year alone, the U.S. created 25 million new millionaires. For a wealth manager like UBS, that is 1,000 new millionaires a day. To shun that level of innovation in U.S. equities for gold would be a reactionary move that ignores the long-term innovation of the U.S. economy. 

“We see two big levers: First of all, wealth creation, GDP growth, innovation, and also more idiosyncratic to UBS is that we see potential for us to become more present, increase our market share,” Ermotti said. 

But if something doesn’t give in the standoff between the European Union and Trump, there could be potential further de-dollarization, this time, from Europe selling its U.S. bonds, George Saravelos, head of FX research at Deutsche Bank, wrote in a note Sunday. Indeed, on Tuesday, Danish pension funds sold $100 million in U.S. Treasuries, allegedly owing to “poor” U.S. finances, though the pension fund’s chief said of the debacle over Greenland: “Of course, that didn’t make it more difficult to take the decision.” 

Europe owns twice as many U.S. bonds and equities as the rest of the world combined. If the rest of Europe follows Denmark’s lead, that could be an $8 trillion market at risk, Saravelos argued. 

“In an environment where the geo-economic stability of the Western alliance is being disrupted existentially, it is not clear why Europeans would be as willing to play this part,” he wrote. 

Back in the U.S., the markets also sold off as the Nasdaq and S&P both fell 2% Tuesday, already shedding the entirety of Greenland’s value on Trump’s threats, University of Michigan economist Justin Wolfers noted. Analysts and investors are uneasy, given the history of Trump declaring a stark tariff before negotiating with the country to take it down, also known as the “TACO”—Trump always chickens out—effect. Investors have been “burnt before by overreacting to tariff threats,” Jim Reid of Deutsche Bank noted. That’s a similar stance to the UBS bank chief: If you react too much to headlines, you’ll miss the great innovation that’s pushed the stock market to record highs for the past three years.

“I wouldn’t really bet against the U.S.,” he said.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.