Prof G Markets - $100B Nvidia-OpenAI Deal: Growth or Financial Engineering? & Oura Ring’s $11B Valuation

Episode Date: September 24, 2025

Ed is joined by Gil Luria, Head of Technology Research at DA Davidson, to break down Nvidia’s investment in OpenAI and what it illustrates about a new, potentially dangerous investment strategy emerging in AI. Then Ed explores the latest funding round for the company that makes the Oura Ring and dives into why it has become a standout player in the wearable tech industry.  Check out our latest Prof G Markets newsletter Order "The Algebra of Wealth" out now Subscribe to No Mercy / No Malice Follow Prof G Markets on Instagram Follow Ed on Instagram and X Follow Scott on Instagram Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Rinse takes your laundry and hand delivers it to your door, expertly cleaned and folded. So you could take the time once spent folding and sorting and waiting to finally pursue a whole new version of you. Like T-time U. Or this T-time U. Or even this T-time U. Said you hear about Dave? Or even T-time, T-time, T-time, T-time U. So update on Dave.

It's up to you. We'll take the laundry. Rinse. It's time to be great. When you're with Amex Platinum, you get access to exclusive dining experiences and an annual travel credit. So the best tapas in town might be in a new town altogether. That's the powerful backing of Amex. Terms and conditions apply. Learn more at Amex.ca. Did you lock the front door?

Check. Close the garage door? Yep. Installed window sensors, smoke sensors, and HD cameras with night vision? No. And you set up credit card transaction alerts, a secure VPN for a private connection, and continuous monitoring for our personal info on the dark web. Uh, I'm looking into it.

Stress less about security. Choose security solutions from TELUS for peace of mind at home and online. Visit tellus.com slash total security to learn more. Conditions apply. Today's number 47,000. That's how many gun deaths occurred in America last year, roughly seven times more than all of Europe put together. The more important number, however, is five.

That's how many trans people participated in women's sports. Money markets met. If money is evil, then that building is hell. The show goes up! Welcome to Profi Markets. I'm Ed Elson. It is September 24th. Let's check in on yesterday's market vitals. The major indices fell after Jerome Powell gave his speech that offered no hints at a rate cut in October. The NASDAQ dropped 1% with tech leading the declines. More on that in a minute. Gold hit its 36th record high of the year. And finally, Paramount shares climbed as much as

8% to a 52-week high. The rally followed reports that a top antitrust official from Trump's first term is in talks to join the company. The market appears to be taking this news as a bullish signal for David Ellison's pursuit of Warner Bros. Discovery. Okay, what else is happening? Invidia is making a massive $100 billion investment in OpenAI. It is the largest AI infrastructure project in history. The money will be used to build data centers with more than 10 gigawatts of capacity, all equipped with Nvidia chips. Invita will receive equity in OpenAI. As part of the transaction, it also stands to make between $350 and $500 billion in revenue over the lifetime of this deal. Meanwhile, OpenAI will gain the platform and compute needed

to train its next generation models. The news pushed Nvidia shares to a record high on Monday and sparked a broader AI rally, but the stock slipped three percent yesterday, dragging the rest of tech down with it as investors gave the deal a second look. So to help us break down this deal and what it means for the AI ecosystem and why the markets are reacting to this deal the way they are, we have Gil Luria, head of technology research at D.A. Davidson. Gil, thank you very much for joining us again on Prof. G. Thanks for having. So, Nvidia is investing $100 billion into Open AI.

What do we know about this deal and what were your initial reactions to the deal? Well, what we know is that Open AI is making very large commitments all over the place, and it doesn't really have the capital to back those up. And it got to a point where Nvidia needed to step in so at least Open AI can move forward. That's how I see the fact pattern right now. Now, from an Nvidia perspective, of course, if they can stimulate demand in the market, they have the capital, why wouldn't they? From an open AI perspective, I think we need to start being cautious about promises open AI is making all over the place without being able to really have the capital to fulfill those promises. So just to start, right?

Microsoft has a right of first refusal on open AI compute. So if Microsoft wanted to, they can do all of it. On top of that, Open AI just committed $300 billion, at least $300 billion to Oracle. And then Open AI had a release a couple of weeks ago, but then another $100 billion for backup. And then on top of that, they have $25 billion commitment to CoreWeave. And then they're trying to develop their own hardware with Johnny Ibe. And then they're trying to develop their own chips. And oh, by the way, they're going to lose more than $10 billion on $12 billion worth of revenue this year.

So those are a lot of commitments they're making. They don't have the capital to fulfill those commitments. They ask for capital, and what's a little concerning is that the only investor that raised their hand was NVIDIA, the one selling all the chips into the ecosystem. One of the strange things about this deal, though, at the same time is you've got Nvidia, yes, saying they're going to invest $100 billion into Open AI, but then we also learn that Open AI is going to buy, I think, 10 gigawatts of AI capacity. And according to Jensen Huang, a gigawatt of AI capacities cost around about $50 billion. So the next question

that I'm asking is like, does that mean Open AI is about to pay NVIDIA $500 billion to get their chips? I mean, does Open AI even have that? And is that actually what is going to happen here? Well, I think we could start saying that none of this is going to actually happen. The assumption behind this is that Open AI can take the $100 billion from Nvidia and borrow another $400 billion from the capital markets. And that's where this really starts getting fantastical, because that's their plan, that's Oracle's plan, that's Corweaves plan. In fact, META's talked about borrowing to build data centers. Elon's talked about borrowing to build data centers. At some point, they're going to be tapping the entire below-investment-grade debt market in order to build out data centers.

Some of them may get some capital to do that. Not everybody's going to get all the capital they want, and that's how this is going to start playing out. And again, Nvidia's fine. They're going to, they've made it into chunks. They'll give Open AI 10 billion at a time. Open AI may or may not get leverage. Either way, they're going to turn around and either they'll buy chips or Oracle will buy. chips to serve them or some other combination, but to get to those big numbers, we never will

just because they're fantastical. And again, there's double, triple, quadruple booking from Open AI being done. Not all that's going to transpire. That doesn't mean Open AI is going to fail. As long as we're using Chad GPT, as long as companies are using their API, they'll be fine. There's going to be someone who wants to pay for them to exist and to grow. Just not at this magnitude. this magnitude doesn't make sense. What about the investment by Nvidia itself? One thing that was notable, to me at least, is that the announcement from Nvidia was a plan to invest $100 billion.

It wasn't, to my knowledge, there's no signed deal terms here. Do we know if anything has actually been signed, or is this, again, more of a promise about the future? Yeah, the reporting is that this just happened over the last couple of days. So I doubt there's a comprehensive contract side for $100 billion. That's unlikely. But again, Jensen wants to make sure everybody knows he's behind Open AI. He's going to be supportive of their growth because there have been some doubts.

Again, their commitment of $300 billion to Oracle got everybody all excited until everybody stepped back and said, well, they clearly don't have the $300 billion. That got people worried. Jensen doesn't want that. So he backstopped it with this commitment. That's what's happening. and he doesn't need to do it. He has organic customers in Microsoft and Amazon

and Google and meta and XAI. He could just sell to them. He wants to expand the market. He doesn't want to be beholden to a small number of customers. So he's seeding demand that way. And again, Open AI is a critical player for progress here. So he wants to make sure there's at least a sense that there's some backstop there.

But I doubt there's a sign contract. What does this mean for the rest of the AI economy? If the largest player in the consumer AI economy, Open AI, ChatGBT, GBT, if that entity is, as you say, going around and making most likely false promises, I mean, I don't think it's that out there of you to say that this stuff isn't going to happen. I think a lot of people would probably agree with you. I agree with you. If the largest player in AI is doing this, what does this mean for? for the rest of the AI economy? What does it mean for all of the AI stocks in which many Americans have basically invested their 401Ks? I mean, we're all invested in AI at this point. What does this mean for us?

Well, it's very important to isolate the real participants that are making money, will continue to make money from all the expanded AI trade stocks, right? So the companies that will make money one way or another, Nvidia, they're Microsoft, Meta's making money because it makes their ads better. Amazon and Google are providing access.

And then let's not forget that other AI winners, the best models are from Google. They're from XAI. They're from Anthropic, which is funded by Amazon in a much more responsible way. They're not going away. Open-A. Maybe trying to crowd them out. That's not going to work.

AI will move forward with or without Open AI. Again, I'm not saying that opening I won't move forward. It's just the types of steps they're making right now are really detracting from their credibility and, again, are causing this speculative interest in these marginal AI players, your oracles, your coreweaves, ion Q is going up every day. This is the stuff we need to be weary of.

These are companies that are value destroying. Again, we've talked about in the past that CoreWeave borrows a 10% and gets a 5% return. That's like buying treasuries on margin. That's value destructive. And yet the stock goes up every day. We need to stay away from those marginal players and focus on the companies that are great companies

that are building AI, that we will use, that are already making money there. And in fact, as we sit here today, are the least expensive stocks in the AI trade. And Vividia and Microsoft are trading at a lower multiple than Oracle. They're certainly trading at a lower multiple than Corweed because infinity is a very high multiple because they'll never make money. And so I would focus investors on those companies that are already making money on AI. I will continue to do so.

You mentioned the Amazon Anthropic relationship there, which you say is a more responsible agreement funding contract. I mean, when we look at, at what else is happening in AI, you've got, yes, you've got NVIDIA and they have this, almost this vendor financing deal with Open AI, where they invest in Open AI, and then Open AI goes back and spends that investment on the chips. But it's not just a, in VINI, we see it again, we do see it with Amazon Anthropic, Amazon invest in Anthropic, Anthropic rents the compute, we see it with Microsoft and Open AI. I mean, we're seeing this a lot, Nvidia and Corweave, this almost circular deal theory where you invest in a company and the company

turns around and spends money on your product. That, to me, has financial engineering-esque traits. Some would call it pyramid scheme-esque. We're getting maybe a little bit duma, but at the very least, it is circular. I wonder if that concerns you at all, again, from the perspective of AI at large? Very much so, very much so, because you'd much rather investors be investors, customers be customers, and not to mix all this up and not create artificial demand, which is what that is. When you're doing financial engineer, you're creating artificial demand. What I would argue is we don't need to make artificial demand. AI is incredibly helpful. We're using it every day. Everybody's using it. The model keeps getting better and better.

And every time the malls get better, that unlocks a whole set of applications that are being done. The growth, the organic growth that we need for compute is real. All that's real. The financial engineering that's happening isn't helpful. It's increasing demand, but artificially so. If we just focused on the real increase in demand, and again, there are companies that we can invest in for that. I'll go back to the Microsoft, Amazon, the Google. As long as we focus on those, we'll be fine if we start believing the financial engineering

and believing that Oracle's value needs to go up by $400 billion, because Open AI promised them $300 billion, that doesn't make any sense. The margins on those $300 billion would be low anyway, and by the way, again, it's not going to materialize. So that's where we need to be careful. The places where the financial engineering are happening are not going. real demand. It's really critical insights that you have here on open AI. And if, as you say, that none of this goes through, none of this materializes, I wonder what this will do to

Open AI as a company and as a brand. Do you have any predictions for us on how this will affect open AI moving forward? What does this mean for Open AI? And perhaps why is the CFO or maybe Sam outman pursuing the strategy of making all of these promises. Because they're fundraising because they're out there trying to raise capital and that's why they need to make the big promises and make it seem like open AI is the only game in town. There's a couple of scenarios. One is that OpenAI scaled down its ambitions at some point. Chad GPT is growing fantastically. If it just continues to focus on that, focus on just getting the computer

needs to ramp up chat GPT it will be fine and it may even still be the leader but if they over extend themselves and make a lot of promises they can't keep borrow money to do it have other people borrow money to do it it will end badly

now AI will still move forward because Google and meta and XAI and Anthropic will move it forward and by the way the Chinese companies will move it forward But Open AI itself, if it doesn't scale down its ambitions to a reasonable way that won't make it come to a head, it may be like MySpace, like Yahoo, and maybe the first, but not the one that ends up being successful. Fascinating. Gill Luria, head of technology research at D.A. Davidson.

We really appreciate your time. Thank you. That was Gil Luria, head of technology research at D.A. Davidson. So, a precarious investment strategy is emerging in the world of AI, something we are calling the circular deal theory. And we've just seen it here with this Open AI investment. Invidia invests in Open AI, and then Open AI turns around and spends that investment on Nvidia chips. The cash goes out the door as investment, and it comes right back in as sales. It is a perfect circle.

You fund your customer, and you also guarantee your demand. Now, the fact that it has happened here is already a little bit concerning. But what is more concerning is the fact that this is becoming actually commonplace in AI. It's not just Nvidia. Everyone is doing this. Take Microsoft, for example, which invests $13 billion in Open AI, and then Open AI turns around and buys $10 billion in compute from Microsoft. Or Amazon, as we mentioned, which invests $8 billion in Anthropic and then

Anthropic turns around and they buy Amazon's compute. Or Google, which invests in Anthropic, Anthropic turns around, buys Google's compute, or Nvidia, investing in Corweave or Oracle investing in Open AI Stargate, on and on and on. The list goes on. They're pitched as investments. But then you do a little bit of digging and you realize, hold on, all of this money is going in the same direction, it's all going in a circle. And meanwhile, the circle is also rotating around the same small handful of players, Google, Open AI, Microsoft, invidia, et cetera. You deploy the capital, you collect the revenue, you watch the stock go up, but ultimately, the money never actually leaves the circle. Now, what will this mean for AI?

what will it mean for the AI economy? Well, we're not exactly sure. We can't predict the future, but we have seen this movie before. We saw it in the dot-com era. We've seen it many times before. Everything is fine. Everything's great when the music is playing,

and right now it's clear the music is playing. But as soon as it stops, as soon as the narrative runs out, what we know is that things can very quickly get very ugly. After the break, a look at the most valuable, wearable tech company in the world. If you're enjoying the show, give Profitji Markets a follow. Support for the show comes from Groon's.

An apple a day keeps the doctor away, yada, yada, yada. The truth is that even if you enjoy fruits and vegetables, it can still be tedious to get all the nutrients your body needs. So here's a tip. to the mix. Grunz isn't a multivotamin, a greens gummy, or a prebiotic. It's all of those things and then some at a fraction of the price. And bonus, it tastes great. All Grun's daily gummy snack packs are vegan, nut, gluten, dairy-free with no artificial flavors or colors. And they're packed with more than 20 vitamins and minerals with more than 60 nutrient-dense ingredients

and whole foods. And for a limited time, you can try their groony Smith apple flavor just in time for fall. It's got the same snackable, packable, full-body benefits you've come to expect, but this time, these tastes like you're walking through an apple orchard in a cable knit sweater, warm apple cider in hand. Grab your limited edition, Grooney, Smith Apple Gruns available only through October. Stock up because they will sell out. Get up to 52% off when you go to g-r-un-s.co and use the code markets. The twisted tale of Amanda Knox is an eight-episode Hulu original limited series that blends gripping pacing with emotional complexity, offering a dramatized look as it revisits

the wrongful conviction of Amanda Knox for the tragic murder of Meredith Kircher and the relentless media storm that followed. The twisted tale of Amanda Knox is now streaming only on Disney Plus. During the Volvo Fall Experience event, discover exceptional offers and thoughtful design that leaves plenty of room for autumn adventures. And see for yourself how Volvo's Legendary safety brings peace of mind to every crisp morning commute. This September, leased a 2026 XE90 plug-in hybrid from $599 biweekly at 3.99% during the Volvo Fall Experience event. Condition supply, visit your local Volvo retailer or go to explorevolvo.com. We're back with Profi Markets.

The maker of the Oro Ring, a health wearable that tracks your sleep. health and fitness data is raising $875 million in a new round that values the company at $11 billion. That is double its valuation from last November. It also makes ORA the world's most valuable standalone wearables company, and it is a standout player in the ever-growing $2 trillion wellness industry. Now, why do we care about this? Well, we've discussed the wearables industry on the show many times before. we've specifically discussed what a bad business it is.

I mean, we've seen the Google Glass, which crashed and burned. We've seen jawbone, the fitness tracker that raised billions before it went bankrupt. We've seen the humane AI pin, which sold only about 10,000 units, and then it shut down. We've seen Magic Leap. We've seen the MetaQuest. We've seen the Apple Vision Pro, all of the wearable headsets that flopped over the years and that Scott used to call the world's greatest prophylact. in some wearables is an incredibly difficult business.

It usually doesn't work. However, ORA and the ORA ring has cracked it. They've sold 5.5 million rings. Three million of those were sold in the past 15 months. They're on track for a billion dollars in revenue up 100% from last year. A fifth of that number is coming from subscription revenue. Aura has created an extremely solid business in wearables. So we just wanted to take a moment here to discuss how.

What did ORA do differently? How did they succeed in this notoriously difficult industry? Well, here are a few observations that we had. Number one is design. Simply put, the ORA ring looks good. And this was years in the making. In fact, ORA actually teamed up with Gucci to design something that people actually want to wear. They also partnered with aspirational brands like Equinox and Lulu Lemon.

They formed partnerships with health and fitness influences. Eventually, celebrities were wearing it, Kim Kardashian, Ronaldo, even Prince Harry. And this is the first and the most important rule of wearables, and that is no one will wear something on their body that looks lame. it has to look, at the very least, a little bit cool. And Aura solved for that. Through smart design and sophisticated intentional branding, they built a product, they built a wearable that wasn't embarrassing to wear.

Now, the second thing that they got right is focus. If you're going to put a product on your body, if you're going to wear it, which is a very personal thing, well, then you have to have a reason for wearing it. And the reason needs to be specific. You look at the Google Glass, the Vision Pro, the humane AI pin. All of these wearables might have had some very interesting and sophisticated technology, but none of them answered the question of what is the point?

Why am I wearing this? Is it for entertainment? Is it for work? What is the purpose of this? Well, Aura answered that question. It tracks your health and it tracks your sleep. that's the point of wearing it. And they emphasized this from the very beginning,

and they invested heavily in becoming the best-in-class wearable for biometric health. In fact, shortly after launching, the Stanford Research Institute released a study without informing aura that praised the ring as the most accurate wearable for measuring sleep quality. They've been featured in more than 100 peer-reviewed studies.

They've secured integrations with over 600 health brands, One of the most successful pairings was with natural cycles, which is a birth control app, and now women are one of ORA's fastest-growing customer bases. Biometric health is at the center of everything they do. The product is focused, and the value proposition of wearing this thing is a lot more clear than most of the other wearables that we've seen in the past. Now, the third and final reason that we think ORA has been so successful is pricing. The aura ring costs $300, and that's not nothing, but in the world of biohacking, a market that is really built for the ultra-wealthy aura is one of the most affordable ways to participate.

You look at cold plungers, which are all the rage right now. A home cold plunge will cost you around $5,000. An infrared sauna will cost you around $9,000. The king of biohacking, Brian Johnson, his routine, costs him two million dollars per year. So this practice of longevity, of biohacking, this has become a routine of the very wealthy and the ultra wealthy. However, ORA has opened it up to the wealthy, the regular wealthy. And this is a crucial aspect of the product and its success. Unlike most longevity products and most wearables for that matter, the pricing actually makes sense. So those are our observations on the aura ring and why it didn't flop, like most of these other wearables, design, focus, pricing. We should also give a shout out to whoop. That is the other wearable

that is actually working. And we believe that whoop checks all of those boxes too. Now, one final note before we wrap up here, you might be thinking, this company is kind of interesting. I would like to invest in this company. And that would be a fair instinct. The company just raised its series E round, it's valued at $11 billion, it's about time to go public. However, we again return to that same problem we keep running into, and that is you might not be able to invest. When asked about a potential IPO, the CEO Tom Hale said, ORA isn't going public. Why? Well, because he said there are, quote, real advantages to being a private company. So yet again, we are seeing how the private markets and the public markets are converging, the private markets are

flushed with cash, the public markets are less and less attractive, and the result is yet another great company with great technology that regular investors cannot buy. Okay, that's it for today. This episode was produced by Claire Miller, edited by Joel Patterson and engineered by Benjamin Spencer. Our associate producer is Alison Weiss. Our research team is Dan Shalon, Isabella Kinsel, Kristen O'Donoghue and Mia Silverio, and our technical director is Drew Burroughs. Thank you for listening to Profitue Markets from Proffty Media.

If you liked what you heard, give us a follow. I'm Ed Elson. I'll see you tomorrow.