657
Nvidia insists it isn’t Enron, but its AI deals are testing investor faith
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Dec 2025
657 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
86962 readers
2862 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.
I don't think that those are faking profit. Well, I don't have some comprehensive list, and maybe somewhere someone is, but not for the majority of purchases. It's possible that they won't wind up being long-term profitable, but there isn't fraud involved in that.
I don't think that the Enron analogy is very applicable in general. Like, what people who are critical of the extent of AI investment are worried about is analogous to the dot-com bubble, where the returns to investors from companies didn't warrant the level of investment and stock prices for many companies shot way up and then fell back down.
EDIT: It's fair to say that Nvidia is driving demand for its products. But..that may be quite sensible, since if you have a killer app or two explode, it can drive massive demand for the hardware that runs it. If you have capital available and control the best hardware out there, it may well make more sense to use that capital on building more demand for your product than to go and try and improve the product more. There's only so many chip engineers available that Nvidia can hire, and unless they want to get into the "writing AI software" game themselves, which would have them compete with their customers, I'd think that that's potentially a reasonable place to put their capital if they're trying to improve their business potential.
Nvidia sold a lot of hardware when cryptocurrency became popular. I think that it's probably fairly safe to say that AI applications have considerably more potential to provide utility than does cryptocurrency.
OPENAI is probably the one that will be set to lose the most, and then oracle? i dont know if palintir fits into this, but THEIls company have been desperately trying to peddle his services to multiple countries already.