These days Nvidia has more money than it knows what to do with. They could certainly push $5b+ into each company annually and never miss it. They're tracking toward an astounding $200b in operating income (maybe over the next four quarters if the music doesn't suddenly stop).

▲

glimshe 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

They could buy back stock or, God forbid, pay good old dividends to investors instead of throwing money away.

	▲	SkyMarshal 15 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Why would paying dividends not be like throwing money away for Nvidia, considering the alternative is to reinvest it into Nvidia's R&D, hiring & training, etc. Investors are already happily making money on NVDA stock appreciation, so what more would they gain from paying dividends?

▲

locusofself 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

5 billion doesn't look like much when OpenAI just raised $110b though. And how sustainable is NVDA's immense profits if this bubble actually bursts?

▲

Kina 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It did not raise $110 billion. According to their own SEC filings $35 billion of Amazon’s funding is contingent on “(i) OpenAI meeting specified milestones, and (ii) OpenAI directly or indirectly consummating an initial public offering or direct listing of equity securities in the United States”

▲

lelanthran 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> 5 billion doesn't look like much when OpenAI just raised $110b though.

Just about all of the AI providers "raises" are a fraction of the reported "raise", like this one.

They didn't "raise" $100b. They got commitments for $35b, with said commitments being dependent on meeting certain criteria.

Every "raise of $FOO" I've seen in the past year or two has not resulted in them getting their hands on $FOO in cash to spend.

▲

peyton an hour ago | parent [-]

You might be surprised to learn that there isn’t even $100b of cash [1]. Some sort of commitment structure necessarily substitutes.

[1]: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/USDIVCA

▲

deafpolygon 36 minutes ago | parent [-]

I can hardly believe that this is legal. They’re basically committing money that doesn’t exist just yet.

▲

lelanthran 19 minutes ago | parent [-]

> I can hardly believe that this is legal. They’re basically committing money that doesn’t exist just yet.

What do you mean "just yet" :-)

I don't really know how likely it is that the money being committed will actually exist when the time comes (Softbank's commitment didn't exist, they had to sell off assets and rope in other investors to meet their commitments).

Maybe it is very likely to exist, but, really, who knows?

IOW, your statement would be equally true by ending the sentence at the word "exist".

	▲	deafpolygon 7 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		would the correct read of this situation that they’re betting on the AI bubble popping?