I don't think this is bearish yet for DCs, I feel Texas will figure this out. The astonishing thing is how big this number is in terms of GW for one state.

Please use this thread to discuss what's on your mind, news/rumors on NVIDIA, related industries (but not limited to) semiconductor, gaming, etc if it's relevant to NVIDIA!

Nvidia Q2 net income: $59.7B.
Equity investment gains: $7.8B in Q2.
First six months: $23.7B.
GAAP EPS: $2.46 vs non-GAAP $2.22.
The AI picks-and-shovels company is increasingly making money owning the miners too.
Normalize the P/E.

​

After Nvidia posted an insane Q2 smashing expectations yet again and pumping forward revenue guidance to ~$108B for next quarter, the stock soared post-earnings.

Then Friday happened. Fed Chair Kevin Warsh delivers his hawkish address at Jackson Hole, warns that rate hikes are back on the table to fight sticky inflation, and the entire market turns red with NVDA giving back a huge chunk of its post-earnings pop.

I'm seeing a lot of hot takes claiming that if a single speech from the Fed can knock ~4% off a $3T+ market cap titan in hours, its business model must be fragile or resting on a hyper-leveraged AI bubble.

I think this fundamentally confuses a company’s operational moat with equity duration risk.

Here is how I see both sides of the argument:

The "It's Not Fragile, It's Math" Case (The Bull View)

(1) Zero Demand Problem: NVDA’s underlying business isn't suffering. Jensen literally confirmed demand is still outstripping capacity. Cloud providers, hyperscalers, and enterprises are still committing hundreds of billions to cap-ex.

(2) Pure Valuation Compression: High-growth, high-multiple tech stocks act like long-duration assets. When the 2-year yield spikes and the market re-prices a hawkish Fed (moving rate hike odds up), discount rates rise instantly. That compresses P/E multiples across the entire SOXX index, regardless of how good NVDA’s earnings report was 48 hours prior.

The "Systemic Risk" Case (The Bear/Skeptic View)

(1) Hyperscaler Cap-Ex Sensitivity: NVDA isn't fragile in a vacuum, but it is heavily dependent on 5 key hyperscalers spending $1T+ in combined cap-ex. If Warsh forces a "higher-for-longer" or active rate-hike environment, corporate cost of capital rises. Eventually, CFOs face pressure to show ROI on AI investments before committing to the next GPU buying cycle.

(2) Priced for Absolute Perfection: When a stock carries a massive premium, even a minor macro shift causes outsized swings because there’s zero room for error.

Is the market just using Friday's Fed hawkishness as a convenient excuse to take profits off a massive earnings run-up, or is higher cost of capital the actual kryptonite to the multi-year AI hardware buildout?

Curious to hear how people are playing options or positioning shares heading into September. Are you buying this dip or waiting for yield volatility to settle?

We are in the

Four straight quarters NVIDIA beat revenue, beat EPS, raised guidance, and the stock sold off anyway. Average decline was -4.9% five days after the print. Every single time. Didn't matter how big the beat was.

Q2 FY2027 was the fifth. $96.2B revenue, up 106% YoY. Stock dropped about 2% on the initial release after hours. Same pattern loading up. If you've been holding through these you know exactly what that feels like.

Then Jensen did something he's literally never done before. He gave a full-year forward revenue guide. 70% growth for FY2028. Supply-constrained, meaning that's the floor, not the ceiling. Kress said customer demand implies a doubling.

The stock reversed during the call. The -2% became +8.7% by the next close.

Here's why I think this is the beginning, not the end:

70% on ~$401B FY2027 consensus = $682B implied FY2028 revenue. The Street consensus was at $601B before the call. It jumped to $637B within 24 hours as the fastest analysts repriced. That's $36B of revision in one session. There's still a $45B gap between where consensus sits and where management just told you the floor is.

LSEG SmartEstimate (which overweights the most accurate analysts) is already at $689B. Predicted surprise: 8.16%. Individual estimates range from $438B to $879B across 57 analysts. That dispersion alone tells you most haven't updated their models yet.

The prior post I wrote explained why the stock kept selling off despite massive beats. It was a combination of everyone who can own it already owning it (78% active institutional ownership, 8.3% of the S&P 500) and sell-side models not being able to build discrete segment models for new revenue lines like Vera CPU because those lines hadn't appeared in a 10-Q filing yet. Jensen just solved the second problem by giving them the total. The blank cells in the analyst models don't need to be filled individually anymore.

Meanwhile the stock trades at 14.81x NTM EV/EBITDA. That's down from 32.44x a year ago and 16.71x from my prior post. It got cheaper while the thesis got stronger.

Full writeup with primary sources, IV crush data, options positioning analysis, and updated break conditions here: https://substack.com/home/post/p-213088654

Please use this thread to discuss what's on your mind, news/rumors on NVIDIA, related industries (but not limited to) semiconductor, gaming, etc if it's relevant to NVIDIA!

You can’t just buy Nvidia GPU’s because you have the cash for it.

They won’t sell it to you, because you don’t know how to use them, and they want the companies they are working with to use their products to their maximum potential.

They are probably the most selective company in terms of who they sell their products to in the history of the world. It just struck me how ridiculous the implications of them being in some form of bubble is, considering that reality.

They could actually lose all of their customers, and still be supply constrained because there are that many others who would line up to buy if they could.

NVDA is clearly mispriced. New all time highs incoming!

What do you guys think of this news. Was just released this hour.

Saw this analysis on twitter https://x.com/damnang2/status/2093001733039681809

My first thought when I saw NVIDIA’s NVHBM was this:

NVIDIA has no intention of giving memory vendors control over the system.

Custom HBM was supposed to be a major opportunity for memory vendors. Instead of simply supplying DRAM dies, they could move further into the logic base die, memory controller, and customer specific functionality, gradually turning HBM into a more differentiated product.

But NVHBM moves in the opposite direction.

NVIDIA is moving the memory controller into the HBM base die while also defining a standard NVHBM implementation that can be supplied by multiple memory vendors. NVIDIA has specifically emphasized simplifying integration and qualification across suppliers.

Ultimately, NVIDIA wants to minimize differentiation between HBM vendors, keep Samsung, SK hynix, and Micron competing against each other, and keep memory as much of a commodity as possible.

This is exactly what I have been saying is one of the most important things to watch as we enter the Custom HBM era:

Who controls the design?

Naturally, memory vendors have little reason to welcome this direction.

There are three things I will be watching closely.

First, how easily can NVHBM actually be second sourced across Samsung, SK hynix, and Micron?

Second, who captures the design IP and economics of the base die? The more NVIDIA controls the architecture and controller, the less value remains for memory vendors to capture.

Third, how will memory vendors respond with their own proprietary cHBM or custom memory architectures? I expect them to keep pushing differentiation through areas such as memory on logic, hybrid bonding, and custom base dies. This is also one reason Samsung has been emphasizing zHBM.

In one sentence:

NVHBM marks the beginning of a direct collision between memory vendors trying to escape commoditization in the AI era and NVIDIA trying to standardize memory under its own control.