Connect with us

Business

Oracle’s collapsing stock shows the AI boom is running into two hard limits: physics and debt

Published

on



Oracle’s rapid descent from market darling to market warning sign is revealing something deeper about the AI boom, experts say: no matter how euphoric investors became over the last two years, the industry can’t outrun the laws of physics—or the realities of debt financing.

Shares of Oracle have plunged 45% from their September high and lost 14% this week after a messy earnings report revealed it spent $12 billion in quarterly capital expenditures, higher than the $8.25 billion expected by analysts.

Earnings guidance was also weak, and the company raised its forecast for fiscal 2026 capex by another $15 billion. The bulk of that is going into data centers dedicated to OpenAI, Oracle’s $300 billion partner in the AI cycle. 

“We have ambitious achievable goals for capacity delivery worldwide,” Oracle co-CEO Clay Magouyrk said on an earnings call this week.

Investors worry how Oracle will pay for these massive outlays as its underlying revenue streams, cloud revenue and cloud-infrastructure sales, also fell short of Wall Street’s expectations. Analysts have described its AI buildout as debt-fueled, even though the company does not explicitly link specific debt to specific capital projects in its filings.

And by Friday, even the crown jewel of Oracle’s AI strategy—its OpenAI data centers—was showing cracks. Bloomberg disclosed that Oracle has pushed back completion of some U.S. data centers for OpenAI from 2027 to 2028 because of “labor and material shortages.” 

“It’s perfectly plausible that they’re seeing labor and materials shortages,” said data-center researcher Jonathan Koomey, who has advised utilities and hyperscalers including IBM and AMD. In his view, the AI boom is running directly into the difference between digital speed and physical speed. “The world of bits moves fast. The world of atoms doesn’t. And data centers are where those two worlds collide.”

Although Bloomberg didn’t identify which specific facilities were being delayed, Koomer said one likely candidate is Project Jupiter, Oracle’s gargantuan data-center complex proposed for a remote stretch of New Mexico. Local reporting has described Jupiter as a $160 billion-plus mega-campus, one of the most ambitious AI infrastructure projects ever attempted and a core piece of Oracle’s commitment to provide compute to OpenAI. 

Koomey describes an industry where capital can be deployed instantly, but the equipment that capital must buy cannot. The timelines for turbines, transformers, specialized cooling systems, and high-voltage gear have stretched into years, he explained. Large transformers can take four to five years to arrive. Industrial gas turbines, which companies increasingly rely on for building microgrids, can take six or seven. 

Even if a company is willing to pay a premium, the factories that produce these components cannot magically expand overnight, and the manufacturing industry trained to install them is already stretched thin. AI companies may want to move at the pace of model releases, but the construction and utility sectors operate on a fundamentally different timeline.

Koomey made it clear that the physical constraints he describes apply to all hyperscalers, but Oracle worries investors in particular because it’s getting into the AI infrastructure game late and tying much of its capex to one customer, OpenAI.  

“This happens every time there’s a massive shift in investment,” he said. “Eventually manufacturers catch up, but not right away. Reality intervenes.”

That friction becomes ever clearer once the financial limit enters the picture. While Oracle’s stock slide is dramatic, the bond-market reaction may be more important. Oracle’s bond yields blew out, with some newer notes that were once investment grade now trading like junk, as its credit-risk gauge hit the highest level since 2009. It signals that investors who lend to companies, historically the most sober observers of tech cycles, are beginning to reassess the risk of lending into the AI buildout. 

For the past few decades, the norm for tech companies was to pay for growth with earnings. Now many of them, including Oracle, are turning to credit markets to fund their sprawling expansions. According to a Bank of Americaanalysis, the five biggest AI hyperscalers—Google, Meta, Amazon, Microsoft and Oracle—have collectively issued roughly $121 billion in bonds this year to fund AI data-center buildouts, a level of issuance far above historical averages and one that signals a major shift toward debt financing for infrastructure.

Oracle, however, has made some of the biggest deals out of the five, like its $18 billion September bond sale. Its total stack of debt is roughly $100 billion. The other four are also in stronger cash positions and have higher credit ratings (AA/A vs Oracle in BBB area), and are able to generate large positive free cash flow. So while Oracle isn’t the only tech giant tapping the debt markets for its AI outlays, its size, cash generation, and credit ratings make it one of the most leveraged.

Debt investors do not necessarily need blowout returns; they just need certainty that they will get their money back, with interest. If confidence wavers even a little, yields rise. 

“This feels like the 1998 moment,” Anuj Kapur, CEO of CloudBees and a former tech executive during the dot-com era, told Axios. There’s enormous promise, but also enormous uncertainty about how quickly the returns show up. 

Koomer saw a simple throughline. 

“You have a disconnect between the tech people who have lots of money and are used to moving super fast, and the people who make the equipment and build the facilities, who need years to scale up their manufacturing,” he said.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Female libido pill gets expanded approval for menopause by FDA

Published

on



U.S. health officials have expanded approval of a much-debated drug aimed at boosting female libido, saying the once-a-day pill can now be taken by postmenopausal women up to 65 years old.

The announcement Monday from the Food and Drug Administration broadens the drug’s use to older women who have gone through menopause. The pill, Addyi, was first approved 10 years ago for premenopausal women who report emotional stress due to low sex drive.

Addyi, marketed by Sprout Pharmaceuticals, was initially expected to become a blockbuster drug, filling an important niche in women’s health. But the drug came with unpleasant side effects including dizziness and nausea, and it carries a safety warning about the dangers of combining it with alcohol.

The boxed warning cautions that drinking while consuming the pill can cause dangerously low blood pressure and fainting. If patients have several drinks, the label recommends waiting a few hours before taking the drug, or skipping one dose.

Sales of Addyi, which acts on brain chemicals that affect mood and appetite, fell short of Wall Street’s initial expectations. In 2019, the FDA approved a second drug for low female libido, an on-demand injection that acts on a different set of neurological chemicals.

Sprout CEO Cindy Eckert said in a statement the approval “reflects a decade of persistent work with the FDA to fundamentally change how women’s sexual health is understood and prioritized.” The company, based in Raleigh, North Carolina, announced the FDA update in a press release Monday.

The medical condition for a troublingly low sexual appetite, called hypoactive sexual desire disorder, has been recognized since the 1990s and is thought to affect a significant portion of American women, according to surveys. After the blockbuster success of Viagra for men in the 1990s, drugmakers began pouring money into research and potential therapies for sexual dysfunction in women.

But diagnosing the condition is complicated because of how many factors can affect libido, especially after menopause, when falling hormone levels trigger a number of biological changes and medical symptoms. Doctors are supposed to rule out a number of other issues, including relationship problems, medical conditions, depression and other mental disorders, before prescribing medication.

The diagnosis is not universally accepted, and some psychologists argue that low sex drive should not be considered a medical problem.

The FDA rejected Addyi twice prior to its 2015 approval, citing the drug’s modest effectiveness and worrisome side effects. The approval came after a lobbying campaign by the company and its supporters, Even the Score, which framed the lack of options for female libido as a women’s rights issue.

___

This story has been updated to correct the age range of the FDA approval update. The agency approved the drug for postmenopausal women up to age 65, not older than 65.

___

The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Gavin Newsom hires former CDC officials to work as public health consultants for state of California

Published

on



Two former senior officials from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, including one fired by the Trump administration, will join California as public health consultants, Gov. Gavin Newsom announced Monday.

California joined Washington and Oregon — two other states with Democratic governors — to launch an alliance in September to establish their own public health guidance and vaccine recommendations, as the Trump administration makes sweeping changes to vaccine and health policy.

Susan Monarez was fired as the CDC’s director and Dr. Debra Houry resigned as the agency’s chief medical officer and deputy director over disputes about changes at the agency. The two will work with California’s public health department to help build trust in “science-driven decision-making,” Newsom’s office said.

“By bringing on expert scientific leaders to partner in this launch,” Newsom said in a statement, “we’re strengthening collaboration and laying the groundwork for a modern public health infrastructure that will offer trust and stability in scientific data not just across California, but nationally and globally.”

California has increasingly positioned itself as a counterweight to federal health policy, and Newsom has amped up his criticisms of President Donald Trump and challenged the Republican’s policies in court. The governor’s final term ends in just over a year and he’s gearing up for a possible presidential run in 2028.

California state Sen. Tony Strickland, a Republican, said the new initiative is an example of Newsom prioritizing his national political ambitions over the state.

“California has serious problems, and we need serious solutions from a serious leader,” Strickland said in a statement.

The White House and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services did not respond to emails seeking comment on the hirings.

Trump and Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have repeated falsehoods about vaccines, and the administration has given health recommendations this year that experts say were not backed by science.

Trump in September urged pregnant women not to take Tylenol, saying it could pose a risk of autism to their babies, remarks medical experts said were irresponsible. The CDC website was changed last month to contradict the longtime scientific conclusion that vaccines do not cause autism. A federal vaccine advisory panel voted earlier this month to reverse decades-old guidance recommending that all U.S. babies get immunized against the liver infection hepatitis B on the day they’re born. The vaccine is credited with preventing thousands of illnesses.

Monarez, a former director of a federal biomedical research agency, was named acting director of the CDC in January. Trump later nominated her to to serve as director. She was confirmed by the Senate in July, making her the first nonphysician to serve in the role. But she was fired by the Trump administration in August after less than a month in the post.

Kennedy has said Monarez was fired after she told him she was untrustworthy. But Monarez said that was false in congressional testimony and that she was fired after refusing to endorse new vaccine recommendations that weren’t backed by science.

Houry, who spent more than a decade at the CDC, was among a handful of top officials at the agency who resigned around the time Monarez was fired. Houry said in August she was concerned about the rise of vaccine misinformation during the Trump administration, as well as planned budget cuts, reorganization and firings at the CDC.

She said she’s excited to join California’s new initiative.

“California will advance practical, scalable solutions that strengthen public health within the state and across states —showing how states can modernize data, share capacity, and work together more efficiently, while remaining focused on protecting people and communities,” Houry said in a statement.

___

Associated Press writer Trân Nguyễn contributed.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Down Arrow Button Icon

Published

on



Dealmakers are heading into the final weeks of 2025 on a $100 billion cliffhanger.

Paramount Skydance Corp.’s hostile bid to snatch Warner Bros. Discovery Inc. from under the nose of Netflix Inc. encapsulates the themes that have shaped a banner year for mergers and acquisitions: renewed desire for transformative tie-ups, massive checks from Wall Street, the flow of Middle East money and US President Donald Trump’s role as both disruptor and dealmaker.

Global transaction values have risen around 40% to about $4.5 trillion this year, data compiled by Bloomberg show, as companies chase ultra-ambitious combinations, emboldened by friendlier regulators. That’s the second-highest tally on record and includes the biggest haul of deals valued at $30 billion or more.

“There’s a sentiment in boardrooms and among CEOs that this is a potential multi-year window where it’s possible to dream big,” said Ben Wallace, co-head of Americas M&A at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. “We’re at the beginning of a rate-cutting cycle so there’s anticipation that there will be more liquidity.”

Beyond Netflix’s purchase of Warner Bros., this year’s blockbusters include Union Pacific Corp.’s acquisition of rival railroad operator Norfolk Southern Corp. for more than $80 billion including debt, the record leveraged buyout of video game maker Electronic Arts Inc., and Anglo American Plc’s takeover of Teck Resources Ltd. to reshape global mining. 

“When you look around and you see your peers doing these big deals and taking advantage of the tailwinds, you don’t want to be left out,” said Maggie Flores, partner at law firm Kirkland & Ellis LLP in New York. “The regulatory environment is in a position that is very conducive to dealmaking and people are taking advantage of it.”

The tally also shows a level of exuberance in certain pockets that some advisers and analysts worry is unsustainable. Global trade tensions are ongoing, and market observers are increasingly warning of a selloff in the white-hot equity markets that have underpinned the M&A resurgence.

Top executives at Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Morgan Stanley have all flagged the risk of a correction in the months ahead, in part tied to concerns about an overheated artificial intelligence ecosystem, where huge amounts of investment have juiced technology stocks.

“These equity returns are really coming out of AI, and AI spend is not sustainable,” said Charlie Dupree, global chair of investment banking at JPMorgan. “If that pulls back, then you are going to see a broader market that isn’t really advancing.”

The AI buzz led to some the year’s standout transactions. Sam Altman’s OpenAI took in major investments from the likes of SoftBank Group Corp., Nvidia Corp. and Walt Disney Co., and a consortium led by BlackRock Inc.’s Global Infrastructure Partners agreed to pay $40 billion for Aligned Data Centers. In March, Google parent Alphabet Inc. framed its $32 billion acquisition of cybersecurity startup Wiz Inc. as a way to provide customers with new safeguards in the AI era.

“Everyone needs to be an AI banker now,” said Wally Cheng, head of global technology M&A at Morgan Stanley. “Just as software began eating the world 15years ago, AI is now eating software. You have to be conversant in AI and understand how it will affect every company.”

The technology sector more broadly has already notched a record year for deals, thanks to a series of big-ticket takeovers across public and private markets. The trend extended to the White House over the summer, when the US government took a roughly 10% stake in Intel Corp. in an unconventional move aimed at reinvigorating the company and boosting domestic chip manufacturing.

It was one of the clearest indications of Trump’s willingness to blur the lines between state and industry and insert himself into M&A situations during his second term, particularly in sectors deemed mission critical. His administration also acquired a stake in rare-earth producer MP Materials Corp. and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has hinted at similar deals in the defense sector.

Trump has separately been positioning himself as kingmaker on high-profile transactions. The government secured a so-called golden share in United States Steel Corp. as a condition for approving its takeover by Japan’s Nippon Steel Corp., and the president recently signaled he’ll oppose any acquisition of Warner Bros. that doesn’t include new ownership of CNN.

“The Trump administration’s approach to merger regulation today is markedly different compared to the first time around,” said Brian Quinn, a professor at Boston College Law School. Quinn said he couldn’t think of a member of the Republican Party from 15 to 20 years ago who would now believe the US government “is involved in the business of picking winners.”

To be sure, bankers will be wondering if they could have achieved more in 2025 had it not been for the chaotic period earlier in the year, when deals were put on hold after Trump’s trade war hobbled markets. And in a sign that persistent economic challenges are still impacting some parts of M&A, the number of deals being announced globally remains flat.

Many small and mid-cap companies have lagged the broader stock market and are opting to pursue their own strategic plans instead of weighing inorganic options, according to Jake Henry, global co-leader of the M&A practice at consultancy McKinsey & Co.

“They’re thinking ‘I’m better off just operating my business and getting there.’ It has to be an explosive offer for them to come to the table,” he said.

Meanwhile, private equity firms, whose buying and selling is a key barometer for M&A, are still having a harder time offloading certain assets because of valuation gaps with buyers. This has had a knock-on effect on their ability to raise funds and spend on new acquisitions. But bankers are starting to see a recovery here too as interest rates come down and bring more potential acquirers to the table.

“What’s motivating sponsors more than anything is their need to return cash to investors,” said Saba Nazar, chair of global financial sponsors at Bank of America Corp. “We have been in bake-off frenzy for the last couple of months.”

Road to Record

Dealmakers began the year whispering of M&A records under Trump’s pro-business administration. While they will just miss out on the milestone in 2025, there is a strong sense on Wall Street that those early bumps only delayed the inevitable. 

Brian Link, co-head of North America M&A at Citigroup Inc., said that after ‘Liberation Day’ in April, he expected to spend more time figuring out the impact of tariffs on different business and how to adjust around that. 

“That has not been the case,” he said. “Unless fear creeps back into the market, there doesn’t seem to be anything in the near term that’s going to change the dynamic here.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.