가입 후 초대 링크를 공유하면 동영상 재생 및 초대 보상을 받을 수 있습니다.

kerman kohli
@kermankohli
founder @routemesh | researching & investing in ai/semis @siliconfrontr | a few rtx 6000 max-qs, too many dgx sparks and some b300s (soon)
가입 May 2010
1.1K 팔로잉 중    10.6K 팬
it’s super interesting how finance people want to so desperately map what they know to gpus but it just doesn’t hold. it all makes rough sense but you forget that: - making new airlines is very hard (gpus) - flights are going to be in a massive shortage (compute) - airlines are worth more over time or depreciate v slowly (hbm inside gpus) - seats can be rehypothecated to fit multiple people per seat (monetizing interruptible compute on an existing lease) as you can see it’s loose at best but you need a new set of eyes to view all of this stuff.
더 보기
A lot of ink has been spilled on GPU financing lately. I spent over a decade trading ABS on Wall St, and structured over $2B+ of debt financings as an operator (including at @tryramp). Figured I'd try to make sense of this market, so I went back to a framework I knew well: aircraft ABS and aircraft engine ABS. My take: a GPU neocloud runs on airline economics, and the debt behind it looks a lot like aircraft engine ABS. The parallels: • Perishable inventory. An empty seat after the door closes is gone forever. So is an idle hour on an energized H100 rack. • 85%+ of cost is fixed (servers, 10-year rack leases, 10-14% debt service). One more hour of compute costs pennies of power. • Utilization is everything. Airlines break even around 80% load factor, a levered GPU cluster around 65-75%. The returns live in those last 25 percentage points. • NVIDIA is Boeing and Airbus rolled into one. Powered shells and grid interconnects are the new airport slots. • Wall St copied the aircraft financing playbook: take-or-pay contract plus servers in a bankruptcy-remote SPV, 70-80% LTV. Part 1 of my blog post goes into a lot more detail:
더 보기