Vetch101
LightNews LightNews
banner
vetch101.bsky.social
Vetch101
@vetch101.bsky.social
120 followers 320 following 47 posts
Interested in business, society, technology and economics
Posts Replies Media Videos
vetch101.bsky.social
The EU won't care, but another Labour leader will need to come in with a new prospectus; one that recognises that Starmerism has been a catastrophic failure for Labour. Under a new leader, I very much expect a CU/SM pitch to Labour members.
December 30, 2025 at 9:18 AM
Reposted by Vetch101
samfr.bsky.social
I'm hoping we don't remember 2025 as the year it just became completely normalised for mainstream politicians to be openly racist and instead it's a blip. I'm not hugely optimistic.
December 29, 2025 at 10:50 AM
Reposted by Vetch101
edzitron.com
Yet beneath the surface, NVIDIA has a growing customer concentration problem that spells doom. Its diversified revenue - cash from customers that don't represent 10% of revenue - has collapsed from $25.89bn in Q1FY26 to $22.23bn in Q3FY26. This is very bad.
www.wheresyoured.at/premium-how-...
NVIDIA's Customer Base Is Quietly Collapsing, Papered Over By Large Sales, With Four Customers Accounting For 61% of Revenue In Its Latest (Q3 FY2026) Quarter, Up From 30% In Q1 FY2026 According to a report from last week from Axios, there are just over 2,700 data centers either under construction or being planned in America, but, of course, the report neglects to say their potential IT load. CNBC claims that $60 billion was sunk into data center deals in 2025, but doesn't break down whether that includes GPUs, because if it does, that doesn't remotely explain how NVIDIA, who makes 69% of its revenue from America. Yet I've done a little guesswork here. I assumed that 50% of the purchases were made by and for hyperscalers spooging their $400 billion in capex, when I can actually dig into NVIDIA's earnings and start looking at real customer concentration! ...and things get weirder when you read NVIDIA's earnings. To be clear, when it says "compute and networking," NVIDIA is referring to its data center revenue. Q3 FY26 - Direct Customers – For the third quarter of fiscal year 2026, four direct customers with sales greater than 10% of total revenue included: Customer A at 22%, Customer B at 15%, Customer C at 13%, and Customer D at 11%, which were attributable to the Compute & Networking segment. Okay, so that's 61% of NVIDIA's total quarterly revenue — so $34.77 billion (as in 61% of $57.006) billion) — that went to four companies? That's 67.8% of data center revenue, NVIDIA's largest revenue source! Q2 FY26 - For the second quarter of fiscal year 2026, sales to one direct customer, Customer A, represented 23% of total revenue; and sales to a second direct customer, Customer B, represented 16% of total revenue, respectively, both of which were attributable to the Compute & Networking segment. Oh, so things were better a quarter ago — that's $18.229 billion (39% of $46.743 billion), or 44.3% of data center revenue. Q1 FY2026 - Sales to one direct customer, Customer A, represented 16% of total revenue and sales to a second direct customer, Customer B, represented 14% of total revenue for the first quarter of fiscal year 2026, both of which were attributable to the Compute & Networking segment. So, now we see the pattern. In Q1 FY2026, two customers accounted for 30% of total revenue — or around $13.2 billion, or around 33.7% of data center revenue. NVIDIA has a massive customer concentration problem. Q1 FY2026: Total Revenue: $44.06 billion Data Center Revenue: $39.112 billion Data Center Revenue With Two Customers ($13.2 billion) Removed: $25.893 billion Total Revenue With Two Customers Removed: $30.84 billion Approximate MW of leftover customers: 968MW Q2 FY2026: Total Revenue: $46.74 billion Data Center Revenue: $41.096 billion Data Center Revenue With Two Customers ($18.22 billion) Removed: $22.86 billion Total Revenue With Two Customers Removed: $28.51 billion Approximate MW of leftover customers: 827MW Q3 FY2026: Total Revenue: $57.006 billion Data center Revenue: $41.096 billion Data Center Revenue With Four Customers Removed: $16.441 billion Total Revenue With Four Customers Removed: $22.23 billion Approximate MW of leftover customers: 595MW Over time, NVIDIA's customer concentration has begun to lean heavily on hyperscalers or very large GPU purchasers. Let's break down Q3 FY2026: Customer A - 22% - $12.54 billion - around 453MW Customer B - 15% - $8.55 billion - around 309MW Customer C - 13% - $7.41 billion - around 268MW Customer D - 11% - $6.27 billion - around 229MW These are load-bearing clients, and the loads only seem to increase with every quarter.
December 22, 2025 at 6:14 PM
Reposted by Vetch101
edzitron.com
Blue Owl's role in data centers is to pull together the money from big banks and private equity firms to get these projects greenlit. This is not a scenario where other partners can easily "step in," and Stargate Michigan could be completely dead.
www.wheresyoured.at/premium-how-...
What Does Blue Owl "Pulling Out" Actually Mean? So, to be clear, Blue Owl "pulling out" is not a situation where somebody else can just "step in" like borrowing money regularly works. Blue Owl's position within any debt deal is, as I described earlier, a fixer-like position, pulling together a company that it invests in (likely with billions of its own money) and a bunch of lenders that then invest in that company. It's far more appropriate to see this as a breakdown in funding. Blue Owl more than likely tried to pull together a group of lenders and was told to pound sand due to Oracle's deteriorating credit position and concerns over the AI bubble. The Coastal Journal notes that the credit markets are "repricing the AI Buildout": When lenders look at these companies, they are asking a brutally simple question: Can this business reliably generate enough cash to pay us back — even if conditions worsen? If the answer depends on everything going right, the risk price goes up. And when the risk price goes up, stock valuations come down. Changing lenders or BDCs or private equity firms doesn't deal with the underlying problem: Oracle has too much debt and too many leases, and people are genuinely concerned that it might not be able to pay them. Blackstone could, theoretically, prop up Stargate Michigan, but what happens if Oracle's $38 billion debt package falls through, and what happens when any number of different Stargate projects go over budget and need more funding? Construction stops, and companies are left with whatever's been built. Yet all of this has proven one thing: that we're reaching (or have reached) the limits of private equity's willingness to continue propping up large data center projects, which leads us to an inevitable problem: How the fuck does NVIDIA keep selling GPUs?
December 22, 2025 at 6:14 PM
Reposted by Vetch101
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
Again, from Michael Grynbaum, here is Sharyn Alfonsi's full email.

It must be read:
News Team, Thank you for the notes and texts. I apologize for not reaching out earlier. I learned on Saturday that Bari Weiss spiked our story, INSIDE CECOT, which was supposed to air tonight. We (Ori and I) asked for a call to discuss her decision. She did not afford us that courtesy/opportunity. Our story was screened five times and cleared by both CBS attorneys and Standards and Practices. It is factually correct. In my view, pulling it now-after every rigorous internal check has been met is not an editorial decision, it is a political one. We requested responses to questions and/or interviews with DHS, the White House, and the State Department. Government silence is a statement, not a VETO. Their refusal to be interviewed is a tactical maneuver designed to kill the story. If the administration's refusal to participate becomes a valid reason to spike a story, we have effectively handed them a "kill switch" for any reporting they find inconvenient. If the standard for airing a story becomes "the government must agree to be interviewed," then the government effectively gains control over the 60 Minutes broadcast. We go from an investigative powerhouse to a stenographer for the state. These men risked their lives to speak with us. We have a moral and professional obligation to the sources who entrusted us with their stories. Abandoning them now is a betrayal of the most basic tenet of journalism: giving voice to the voiceless. CBS spiked the Jeffrey Wigand interview due to legal concerns, nearly destroying the credibility of this broadcast. It took years to recover from that "low point." By pulling this story to shield an administration, we are repeating that history, but for political optics rather than legal ones. We have been promoting this story on social media for days. Our viewers are expecting it. When it fails to air without a credible explanation, the public will correctly identify this as corporate censorship. We are trading 50 years of "Gold Standard" reputation for a single week of political quiet. I care too much about this broadcast to watch it be dismantled without a fight. Sharyn
December 22, 2025 at 4:00 AM