The AI world got heated this weekend: Musk made a splash, and companies slapped back with contracts.
Musk claimed SoftBank had defaulted on orders for gas turbines. Morgan Stanley put GE Vernova’s CEO on the spot, asking whether any customers had canceled orders or were struggling to get financing. His answer was two words: “No.” No defaults, no withdrawals, no slowdown.
Micron went a step further and laid out the contracts: its supply agreements with major customers have take-or-pay clauses, can’t be canceled unilaterally, and require payment even if the goods aren’t taken. The new agreements are full of real, binding obligations. It also twisted the knife: earlier long-term contracts really weren’t very binding—but that’s ancient history now.
In plain English: the old contracts were handshake deals; the new ones are in black and white, signed and sealed.
Meanwhile, the U.S. TMT momentum indicator has plunged 66.6% from its June high, and some are shouting, “The Nasdaq is back in 2003.” The numbers look scary, but the fact that bluster and denials are appearing side by side shows that bulls and bears have moved on to checking the evidence line by line. Is AI infrastructure a conviction trade or a bubble? Both sides are making their case with evidence.
My take: no matter how ironclad the terms are, they can’t beat a customer’s cash flow drying up. If that day comes, take-or-pay will be worth little more than a lawsuit. But there still isn’t enough evidence to declare AI infrastructure dead. First, let’s see how SoftBank responds.
Weekend liquidity is thin, BTC is still below 80,000, and none of the Middle East risks have been defused (an 8-week strike window, the November 9 new-moon night, a 78% chance of a rate hike in December). Positioning is worth more than opinions.
$BTC $MU $GEV
#AI #软银 #比特币 #马斯克 #Cryptocurrency
NFA DYOR
Musk claimed SoftBank had defaulted on orders for gas turbines. Morgan Stanley put GE Vernova’s CEO on the spot, asking whether any customers had canceled orders or were struggling to get financing. His answer was two words: “No.” No defaults, no withdrawals, no slowdown.
Micron went a step further and laid out the contracts: its supply agreements with major customers have take-or-pay clauses, can’t be canceled unilaterally, and require payment even if the goods aren’t taken. The new agreements are full of real, binding obligations. It also twisted the knife: earlier long-term contracts really weren’t very binding—but that’s ancient history now.
In plain English: the old contracts were handshake deals; the new ones are in black and white, signed and sealed.
Meanwhile, the U.S. TMT momentum indicator has plunged 66.6% from its June high, and some are shouting, “The Nasdaq is back in 2003.” The numbers look scary, but the fact that bluster and denials are appearing side by side shows that bulls and bears have moved on to checking the evidence line by line. Is AI infrastructure a conviction trade or a bubble? Both sides are making their case with evidence.
My take: no matter how ironclad the terms are, they can’t beat a customer’s cash flow drying up. If that day comes, take-or-pay will be worth little more than a lawsuit. But there still isn’t enough evidence to declare AI infrastructure dead. First, let’s see how SoftBank responds.
Weekend liquidity is thin, BTC is still below 80,000, and none of the Middle East risks have been defused (an 8-week strike window, the November 9 new-moon night, a 78% chance of a rate hike in December). Positioning is worth more than opinions.
$BTC $MU $GEV
#AI #软银 #比特币 #马斯克 #Cryptocurrency
NFA DYOR