• Sirdubdee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Big tech is just trading the same $100b between each other to generate infinite shareholder value.

    • AdolfSchmitler@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Man that reminds me of an old comic where two guys give each other the same $50,000 back and forth to eat horse shit and in the end their like, “we just created two jobs and grew GDP by $100,000!” Lol

    • CandleTiger@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      9 hours ago

      If you want to get advantage from a speculative fund making a bet on a popped bubble, then you need to be already invested now, before the bubble bursts. (And also, you/your fund need to be right that it’s really about to pop now, and not later)

      Once the race is over it’s too late to bet on the ponies.

  • zebidiah@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    12 hours ago

    If a company says they are not like Enron, it means they 1000% are exactly like Enron

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Yeah. Enron’s scheme was trading money back and forth with itself to inflate its value until it all came crashing down, tanking Enron.

      Nvidia is at the center of a scheme involving the entire economy trading money back and forth between a few companies to inflate value, so when the scheme tanks it’ll crush everybody.

  • booly@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    8 hours ago

    My “We’re totally different from Enron” accounting report has a lot of investors asking questions answered by the report.

  • weew@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    18 hours ago

    Nvidia definitely isn’t Enron. It’s all of Nvidia’s customers that are mini-Enrons.

    Enron crashed because they were cooking their books and faking income, declaring potential profit where none existed.

    That’s not Nvidia. Nvidia is selling actual product as fast as they can make it at whatever price they want to charge.

    Nvidia’s customers, on the other hand, are the ones who have to justify buying billions of dollars of product from Nvidia and explaining how they plan to make a profit from that.

    • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      43
      ·
      17 hours ago

      Enron crashed because they were cooking their books and faking income, declaring potential profit where none existed

      • Sell chips to X

      • Receive stock in X

      • Value of stocks = discounted sum of future (fake) income

      • Booked as an asset on the balance sheet

      This is exactly like Enron but the underlying commodity isn’t energy, it’s compute.

      • enumerator4829@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        14 hours ago

        Nvidia sells plenty of GPUs for actual money, they are good for it.

        No, the real issue is the depreciation for the people owning GPUs. Your GPU will be usable for 4-6 years, and 2-4 of those years will be spent as ”the cheap old GPU. After that time, you need new GPUs. (And as the models are larger by then, you need moahr GPU)

        How the actual fuck do these people expect to get any ROI on that scale with those timeframes? With training, maybe the trained model can be an asset (lol), but for inference there are basically no residual benefits.

        • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 minutes ago

          That’s Michael Burrys thesis. Higher depreciation for GPU owners is a positive for Nvidia because they end up buying more GPUs.

          I’m highlighting the the future revenue of those customers that Nvidia has booked in terms of equity. That is equivalent to Enron. Here the SPVs are named companies like OpenAI and other model developers.

        • PolarKraken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 hours ago

          I feel like what sounds personally insane to us (and is, don’t get the wrong idea), to the people making such decisions the situation is more like -

          “Emerging market with unknown upside thanks to new and evolving capabilities, exploration and competitive advantage shaped and constrained, globally, by hardware capability. Not my money I’m betting, ‘risk’ is extreme opportunity for me, negative consequences borne by others. Let’s go”

          • enumerator4829@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            13 hours ago

            Do this:

            • Calculate the total power cost of running it at 100% load since 2014
            • Calculate Flops/Watt and compare with modern hardware
            • Calculate MTTF when running at 100% load. Remember that commercial support agreements are 4-5 years for a GPU, and if it dies after that, it stays dead.
            • In AI, consider the full failure domain (1 broken GPU = 7+ GPUs out of commission) for the above calculation.

            You’ll probably end up with 4-6 years as the usable lifetime of your billion dollar investment. This entire industry is insane. (GTX 1080 here. Was considering an upgrade until the RAM prices hit.)

    • trolololol@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      15 hours ago

      NVIDIA is producing and delivering GPUs. However this does NOT translate into income, and that’s what’s making it shady. These companies are paying in shares that will be worth nothing when it pops.

    • Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      14 hours ago

      It depends on the customer. Microsoft, Google, Amazon all have the revenue to carry the debts they are taking on. Oracle, Chat GPT, Musk and others are waay more sketchy.

      The build out is going to take billions of dollars and these companies aren’t going to see a return for at least 5 years or more. The majors can carry that kind of debt load long term even if AI doesn’t pan out. Other businesses will struggle or go under if AI doesn’t bring the returns.

      The next major movers will be companies that do a lot of IT business consulting like IBM. They are going to be busy helping non IT focused firms incorporate AI into their business model.

      Finally if all these data centers pan out and the US keeps oscillating between shunning Renewables or Fossil fuels every time a new party comes to office we are going to have major problems with our energy infrastructure. Think energy bills as high as your mortgage within the next 5 years. Invest in utilities or energy companies and try to put solar and some kind of storage on your home.

  • panda_abyss@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    60
    ·
    21 hours ago

    You can do everything right and still have the curse of investor overconfidence placed on you.

    Huang has been complaining for some time that doing well doesn’t result in stock gains, but the actual problem is the stock price is way too high so doing well does nothing for investor expectations.

    This is when you sell shares because they no longer have any upside potential.

    It sucks for companies though, but the fact is nvidia is overvalued at a 4.5T market cap.

    • Tyrq@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      21 hours ago

      In some ways the victim of their own success, that’s just the way this system is built, for better or worse (mostly worse). The incentives drive the behaviour, but the architecture is hostile in nature, so it’s hard to have different outcomes at a certain level. Infinite growth is literal cancer.

  • Buffalox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    edit-2
    21 hours ago

    Enron was cooking the books hiding huge deficits, and spending the money from the workers pension funds, so no Nvidia isn’t Enron, but that doesn’t mean it’s all good.
    Enron was the absolute worst, only matched by the Bernie Madoff pyramid scheme and the Bankman Fried crypto fraud.

    Saying you are better than that is a very bad look.

  • tja@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    17 hours ago

    If you have to protest the insinuation as the CEO of a company in a public forum…Then I think the accusation has already found enough root to at least contain more than a grain of truth. The phrase “He doth protest too much” comes to mind.