Nvidia and Micron Make Up 34% of America's Earnings Boom
j / k
|
Down or up a comment |
h / l
|
Previous or next link |
?
|
This help |
(Yes of course the GPU cost something to make, but the margins on these things are very high. The point is that revenue is immediate while capital expenses are amortized. And capital expenditure has gone way up lately.)
Nvidia would log $64 of profit against a $100 sale [1]. (The R&D cost to develop the chip have already been booked.)
> for each GPU bought, SP500 logs $80 of profit, even though no money entered or left the SP500
In your example the S&P would log ~$40 of earnings. (About because taxes.)
[1] https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NVDA/nvidia/profit...
I suppose the uncertainty here would be the reason for financial market volatility.
Correct. If Microsoft fails to earn more profit from a capital asset, over said asset's useful life, than was paid for it, Microsoft's earnings would be reduced. Put simply, it would have made a bad investment. Presumably, that would affect whether Nvidia gets another order.
If you've ever wondered why subscription mania took hold over the last decade, you've backed into the answer.
(Note that Microsoft depreciates "servers and network equipment" on a straight-line basis over "two to six years" [1].)
[1] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/789019/0001193125263... page 61
I don't see business to business subscriptions as a bad thing. It it a way of sharing risks. The horrifying thing is that they do that to consumers.
Consumers don't have the legal teams to analize such contracts. Consumers do not have people dedicated to evaluate prices and change providers (Even for companies is costly, so individuals get stuck in products they do not use anymore). Subscriptions change prices and conditions at will, what makes it impossible for a normal consumer to follow up on everything that changes over time.
The fact that even when you theoretically buy, like a phone or even a TV, also becomes a subscription because the software it runs needs updates.
Subscription models that may make sense for corporations are killing the working class ability to own things or even choose which business they want to buy from. It is just about capturing customers and not letting them leave as prices are pushed up.
Probably worth noting that Azure has had GPU resources for a while, I think it was already a profitable line for them, and since people have been chasing GPU compute on cloud platforms it can be difficult in some regions getting a reservation. Microsoft is probably looking at AI as Another profitable use case for our assets, let's expand it rather than a greenfields GPU buildout from zero. And where capacity doesn't get used by AI their customers can use it for other stuff across most not all SKUs
Different people/orgs get a different slice of that value.
The accounting trick pulls forward the point of value creation, and relies on faith, if you assume "value" is supposed to be measured by "earnings".
Ultimately, investors can look at these earnings and decide to pay whatever they are willing to pay for equity in the companies. No one is forcing you to buy SP500 (except if you're part of a defined benefits pension plan). My point is that casual observers should not take earnings growth as proof that the economy is heading in the right direction. There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. And accounting. Msft seems to be pretty good at gaming the accounting fwiw! Financial engineering.
The term Value is pretty vague here. Its more of a perceived value so its hard to put a number against it, there is no direct way to translate it to something more concrete.
May be bit orthogonal, one way I can think of it is to map to physical needs like clothing, housing, food and medicine?
If it costs more to produce (and sell) the asset than you can sell it for, you're losing money and assets go down. If it costs the same, then in this example the net change in S&P assets would be zero.
There's an incredibly easy way to do that, sell it.
If Nvidia takes $20 of parts and sells it for $100, they created $80 of value. If we had VAT, that's what would be taxed (minus things like r and d but, for simplicity...).
Yes.
I don't want to pick on you but this is a major pet peeve of mine. A lot of people view the economy as a fixed size of value. As a result, when someone is a millionaire, they consider that million dollars to be something extracted from others. That's a very Feudal view of economics. What's usually the case is that millionaire add a million dollars of value by creating a more valuable product from raw materials.
This example is an easy example. Before Nvidia, there was just a pile of silicon and copper worth $20. It doesn't take $80 to turn that thing into something that is worth $100. The value within the economy increased.
Most of economic activity is growth. There is economic activity that isn't growth, which is what rent-seeking is.
See the earlier discussion about DeepSeek's revenue: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50163494
Meanwhile, you amortise it over years.
For some reason, nobody argues that this isn’t a real sale of a real car.
If it’s all just circular financing, then tax day will be the reveal, as there will simply be no money to pay the corporation tax on the profits.
https://itep.org/what-corporations-have-to-gain-from-the-gut...
Is there actual growth in new manufacturing starts? Wasn't that the metric that they claimed to be intending to optimize for?
Be sure to still dismiss any legitimate complaints or concerns as envy or fomo though.
A bubble that is obscuring that most of the economy is pretty weak.
It increasingly looks like everything is getting K-shaped. Not just the income of labor, but the earnings of corporations.
1. students go into new lucrative thing
2. supply of doctors goes down
3. doctor wages go up
4. hospital margins go down
5. Hospitals raise their prices to stay in business
6. Wealthy engineers are able to afford higher prices
7. Services that are transitively consumed by the high-productivity sector stabilize at a higher price. Services not transitively consumed by the high-productivity sector go out of business.
- I remember visiting a developing country about 15 years ago and seeing people getting paid to stand there and hold a rope, because I guess their time was cheaper than cones, which I think is the inverse of this.
- I also think that, in the limit, society consists of a handful of economically viable occupations and infinite cheap stuff. Nothing else is worth the prices that a seller would have to charge to afford employees.
- I also think that we’re entering a stabilization phase.
This is a clear and accurate description, but your explanation of the underlying reasons isn't really as clear.
>1. students go into new lucrative thing
Part of the Baumol effect is that the share of total employment in the sectors with high productivity growth decreases, while that of low productivity sector increases. This is sort of the opposite of what you are saying.
>2. supply of doctors goes down
The Baumol effect by itself has no effect on the number of Doctors. There are always more qualified people who want to be Doctors than are allowed to be Doctors for a great number of reasons. It isn't because not enough people want to be Doctors.
3, 4, 5
Yes those look like the Baumol effect.
6, 7
Not really what the Baumol effect is talking about.
Baumol illustrated his point in a simple manner. In the 1700's a string quartet required four musicians, and today a string quartet still requires four musicians (no productivity gain). However, those musicians today expect 21st-century salaries to match the rest of the economy, making the cost of hiring a quartet vastly more expensive relative to goods like mass-produced items.
The wikipedia entry looks pretty well done:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol_effect#cite_note-:11-4
That said, some of what’s in the article only makes sense to me in the context of a system that’s at least somewhat like what I tried to describe. Maybe you can enlighten me?
> This effect is an example of cross elasticity of demand.
Is the cross-elasticity of demand here not referring specifically to the cross-elasticity of different forms of labor, which exists due to the many common inputs of different forms of labor? Eg land, healthcare, unskilled labor (as an input, in the case of skilled labor as the output—doctors and engineers in my comment)?
In the case of a quartet, if musicians charged what they did in 1700, they would quickly become homeless, and then quickly get other jobs.
So people are either leaving the profession or raising their prices, and either firms pay, high-wage-earners pay, or they get no customers and again get other jobs (like the rope-holders). Is that not the effect?
This isn't necessary to explain Baumol cost disease. Different kinds of workers may also be substitutes for one another, or complements. However, the quartet doesn't need to share a particular set of inputs with car manufacturing for Baumol's mechanism to operate.
>...In the case of a quartet, if musicians charged what they did in 1700, they would quickly become homeless, and then quickly get other jobs.
Yes. Baumol cost disease is a way to explain the upward pressure on the cost of lower productivity labor-intensive services. It isn't an economic law, it is a tendency. It doesn't guarantee that every business will be able to pass those costs on to customers, or that every business will survive or that every worker will receive the same wage increase, etc.
Basically, people and firms are little black holes of unmet demand for all sorts of things. When the productivity shock happens, demand for stuff in the now-high-productivity sector(s) is now (mostly) met, freeing up money (that people and firms in the high-productivity sectors have more money to meet their own latent demand is also true, but somewhat incidental). That money goes to meeting other latent demand, some of which is for stuff in low-productivity sectors (housing, childcare, education, healthcare, construction), and that’s what drives up prices until/as people eventually move into those sectors. Even if housing specifically isn’t constrained, it still happens.
And I guess…as wages go up, some forms of automation also become economically sensible, which is what changes the balance of low/high productivity sectors. Latent demand for rope-holding is met with cones, latent demand for maids is (mostly) met with washing machines and dishwashers, latent demand for secretaries is (mostly) met with personal computers, etc.
So with AI, it sounds like people will move out of software into construction, healthcare, etc (only specialized work where the automation isn’t “good enough” stays). All the “teaching kids to code” that schools are doing now, eventually turns into people dealing with their own AI output as adults, where previously they would’ve hired a developer (like how managers who used to have a secretary now get a computer and type for themselves). Wages go up, education, healthcare, and housing get more expensive.
> The rise of wages in jobs without productivity gains results from the need to compete for workers with jobs that have experienced productivity gains and so can naturally pay higher wages.
Supply of doctors doesn't go down only because hospital raise wages to compete with the new lucrative thing. There are plenty of people that want to become doctors, but only so many of them are people that you want to be doctors, and if you don't pay enough they'll do the lucrative thing.
Which means the productive economy gets a greater share of the wealth, by taking it from the rent-seeking part, whatever that may be.
Of course, billionnaires hate this, since their wealth is pretty much some percentage of that debt.
But pensions go down as well, because that's how the system was redesigned by large banks after the last time governments really did this. This was done so it would be as unpopular as possible. Of course, the whole "so what do we do instead" was left unanswered ...
And instead banks decided to lend the government money (QE, covid, ...) which is why governments are now in trouble. In the US, despite what you may have heard, just lending more to the government is quite possible in the US (because the government would still get substantial income for a substantial amount of time by lending more). However for a number of EU countries (reporting focuses on France but if you allow me to be 5% inaccurate let's just summarize that all EU countries except Germany cannot lend more as it would "snowball" in 2029 or 2030, which is within the next government mandate for those countries)
Why do you think that? Everything you wrote prior to that seemed to indicate further destabilization.
It also preferentially benefits as a function of margin. If Nvidia's prices double, it logs two thirds of that as earnings. For Kroger it turns into like a penny of extra profit for every dollar of price rises.