Market is making a MASSIVE mistake selling $NBIS right now. According to their estimates, Nebius is expected to go from just $1.25 billion in annualized revenue run rate in 2025 to nearly $8 billion in 2026, $16.8 billion in 2027, $30 billion in 2028, and an absolutely INSANE $71.7 billion by 2030. We're talking about a company that could potentially grow its annualized revenue run rate by more than 57 TIMES in just FIVE years. And even after reaching nearly $30 billion in 2028, William Blair still expects the business to grow another 69.6% in 2029 and 41% in 2030. Now, I know what everyone is thinking. What about the recent selloff? What about the debt? What about the enormous capital expenditures required to build all this infrastructure? These are legitimate concerns, and I'm not going to pretend otherwise. The market is clearly becoming increasingly concerned about how neocloud companies will finance their expansion, particularly as investors begin questioning whether the returns on all this spending will justify the investment. But here's where I think investors are making a HUGE mistake. They're treating every neocloud company as if they're operating the exact same business with the exact same economics. They're NOT. Nebius is building a full stack AI cloud platform, and what makes the company particularly interesting is how it's expanding across multiple layers of the AI ecosystem. They own and operate massive GPU clusters, data centers, networking infrastructure and the cloud software needed to train and run AI models at scale. But beyond that, they've also acquired Tavily, which provides real time web search capabilities for AI agents, and developed Nebius Token Factory, an inference platform that allows developers and enterprises to deploy AI models at scale. They've also strengthened their inference capabilities through Eigen AI and Clarifai's technology. And that's just the beginning. Nebius Group also owns Avride, which is developing autonomous vehicles and delivery robots in partnership with Uber, and TripleTen, an education technology business. The company also holds significant stakes in ClickHouse, one of the leading real time analytics database companies, and Toloka, which provides data and evaluation services for AI development. Now, not all of these businesses directly contribute to Nebius's core AI cloud revenue, but what excites me is the amount of OPTIONALITY the company has across the entire AI ecosystem. We're talking about exposure to AI infrastructure, model training, inference, AI agents, data analytics, and autonomous systems, all while the company continues securing major contracts with customers like Microsoft and Meta and expanding its global infrastructure footprint. And what's particularly interesting to me is HOW the company is financing this growth. Nebius has already demonstrated that it can secure financing backed by deployed GPUs and contracted customer cash flows, including its $775 MILLION secured debt facility. That's an important distinction because there is a MASSIVE difference between borrowing billions to speculate on future demand and financing infrastructure supported by contracted demand. Now, does that eliminate the risks? Absolutely NOT. Nebius still needs to execute, deploy enormous amounts of capital, manage its debt, and ensure that the economics of providing compute remain attractive as the industry scales. But I think investors are focusing so heavily on the risks that they're completely overlooking the potential scale of the business. And here's my biggest question. Has the long term demand for AI compute suddenly disappeared? Have enterprises stopped adopting AI? Have frontier labs stopped needing more infrastructure? Have hyperscalers suddenly decided they don't need additional capacity? NO, If anything, the underlying demand for AI compute continues to grow as models become more capable, inference workloads expand, and AI adoption accelerates across the economy. The industry still needs enormous amounts of infrastructure, and companies capable of delivering that capacity efficiently are positioned to capture a meaningful portion of that spending. What HAS changed is market sentiment. Investors have become increasingly concerned about AI infrastructure debt, capital expenditures, and whether the current pace of investment is sustainable. And those concerns have triggered a brutal selloff across the sector, including Nebius and CoreWeave. But from my perspective, the fundamental reason I invested in Nebius hasn't changed. The company is still pursuing an enormous opportunity, demand for AI compute remains strong, and its long term growth potential is still very much intact.

$SPCX just reported ABSOLUTELY INSANE earnings, and I don't think people realize how quickly Elon Musk is scaling this company. SpaceX generated a staggering $14.6 BILLION in quarterly revenue, representing 161% year over year growth, while earnings per share surged 197% to $0.35. That's a 12% revenue beat and a 119% EPS beat against the estimates shown. And the numbers get even CRAZIER. SpaceX reportedly generated $4.4B in net income and $8.8B in adjusted EBITDA, with EBITDA growing an incredible 306% year over year. We're talking about a company that's not only more than doubling its revenue but potentially expanding its profitability at an even faster pace.

$SPCX just reported ABSOLUTELY INSANE earnings, and I don't think people realize how quickly Elon Musk is scaling this company. SpaceX generated a staggering $14.6 BILLION in quarterly revenue, representing 161% year over year growth, while earnings per share surged 197% to $0.35. That's a 12% revenue beat and a 119% EPS beat against the estimates shown. And the numbers get even CRAZIER. SpaceX reportedly generated $4.4B in net income and $8.8B in adjusted EBITDA, with EBITDA growing an incredible 306% year over year. We're talking about a company that's not only more than doubling its revenue but potentially expanding its profitability at an even faster pace.

One of the big issues with Muse? Retention. The bearish side of these agents is that consumers don't have much incentive to stick to them. What is the switching cost? None. I believe Muse will do great, but a major work in progress still. Retention matters. $META

There's a lot of speculation around an incoming SpaceX and Tesla merger Here's 8 ways both companies BENEFIT IF it happens: 1. Investment-grade debt instead of private credit $TSLA has $43.5B of cash and did $4.7B of operating cash flow last quarter. $SPCX is seeking $40B of debt just for NVIDIA chips and Morgan Stanley estimates it needs ~$84B of outside capital per YEAR through 2034 A combined company funds this with cash flow and investment-grade debt instead of private credit. Saving even 2-3 points of interest on $40B is $1B+ a year, and that compounds across the entire buildout 2. Starlink replaces cellular in every Tesla Today, carriers collect an estimated $10/month per connected car, a large % of the total Tesla charges. Moving this in-house to Starlink not only means 100% of revenues moves in-house, but also a better product with (eventually) no dead zones 3. Starlink for Robotaxi and Humanoid Robots Cybercabs are already getting built with Starlink inside them, a merger would mean this can come with no additional cost/sale required between the companies 4. Compute at cost and better optionality Tesla has its own training compute today, which doubled in the first half of 2026, but FSD, Robotaxi and Optimus are only just getting started and they will need a LOT more compute SpaceX is already building this out at size with 10GW expected by EOY 2027. Rather than leasing this to Tesla at market prices ($30M/MW ish right now), Tesla's extra demand can simply run on SpaceX compute at cost SpaceX also now has more optionally with their compute. To move between leasing, using for Grok or now using for Tesla products 4. Energy at cost Tesla deployed 13.7 GWh of energy storage last quarter and xAI/SpaceX is one of Tesla's biggest customers ($430M of mostly Megapack revenue in 2025). Merged, the data centers get Megapacks at cost with guaranteed supply, and yes, that intercompany revenue disappears in consolidation, but it's a wash since it's saved as an expense on the other side 5. Terafab gets built FASTER Terafab today is a joint venture between two separately owned companies, so every major decision crosses two boards, two capital committees, and negotiated cost-sharing agreements. Merged, one owner makes the call and capital moves the same day. Construction starts in December, and that speed advantage compounds through every phase after the first $16.8B. Elon's whole edge is iteration speed, and a JV structure is the opposite of that 6. Killing the duplicate overhead Two public companies means two of everything: two legal departments, two HR orgs, two finance and audit functions, two IR teams, two procurement groups buying from the same suppliers. Combined SG&A is about $11.2B. Cutting 15-25% of the ~$3.4B corporate slice of that is about $0.5-0.9B a year (est). Not the headline reason to merge, but still useful 7. A potential tax arbitrage SpaceX's AI buildout generated $3.7B of losses in the first half alone Merged, those losses offset Tesla's taxable profit at the 21% corporate rate, worth roughly $0.3-1.0B a year Though looks like SpaceX is soon going to generate a profit, so this may be irrelevant after next earnings 8. Combined Data for Training Tesla's fleet generates real-world data, X and Grok have additional data and SpaceX has its own data. Currently Tesla and SpaceX data are separate and have corporate boundaries and conflict disclosure issues Once merged, this can all be combined for more data, all in one place, trained across the same GPU clusters And of course big picture, there is plenty of overlap across all of SpaceX and Tesla products, so having it under one roof means they can build for a more seamless future (see my post below for more details on this) What else am I missing? Also, I remain bullish on both of these companies and both have a spot in my Milk Road PRO portfolio. You can see my entire portoflio here: link.milkroad.com/t5837z

We're about to witness the BIGGEST infrastructure spending boom in human history. According to Morgan Stanley, hyperscalers and neoclouds are projected to spend a staggering $1.58 TRILLION in 2027 and $1.81 TRILLION in 2028 when operating leases are included. Think about how INSANE that is. We're talking about nearly $3.4 TRILLION in infrastructure spending over just TWO YEARS and what's even more interesting is how quickly these numbers are accelerating. In 2026, Morgan Stanley estimates total spending at $978 billion, but by 2027, that number is expected to SURGE nearly 62% to $1.58 trillion before climbing another 14% to $1.81 trillion in 2028. When most people look at hyperscaler CapEx, they're only looking at the cash being spent on GPUs, servers, networking equipment, and data centers. But that doesn't tell the ENTIRE story because hyperscalers are also increasingly relying on operating leases to secure additional computing capacity and infrastructure. Once you include those leases, the actual scale of this buildout becomes significantly larger. Just look at what Morgan Stanley is projecting for 2028. Google could spend $434 billion, Amazon $314 billion, Microsoft $310 billion, and Meta $303 billion when operating leases are included. And this is EXACTLY why I continue to be so bullish on the companies supplying the infrastructure behind this AI revolution. We're talking about an unprecedented amount of demand for GPUs, HBM and DRAM, advanced packaging, networking equipment, optical connectivity, power generation, cooling systems, and data center capacity. Companies like $NVDA, $AVGO, $MU, and $VRT are positioned to benefit from different layers of this buildout, while neoclouds like $NBIS and $CRWV are racing to deploy the computing infrastructure needed to support the next generation of AI workloads. We're still in the early stages of AI inference scaling, autonomous agents, robotics, and physical AI. As these technologies become more widely adopted, the amount of computing infrastructure required could grow substantially beyond what we're seeing today. And this is why I think investors need to stop looking at the AI infrastructure boom as some short term spending cycle. Now, does that mean every AI infrastructure company will succeed? Absolutely NOT. Capital requirements are becoming enormous, and companies without strong balance sheets, reliable customers, and sustainable financing could struggle to survive but the BIGGER picture hasn't changed. We're watching the largest technology companies in the WORLD make multi year infrastructure commitments on a scale we've never seen before, and if these projections materialize, the amount of capital flowing into the AI ecosystem over the next several years will be absolutely extraordinary. If you want to see how I’m investing across the companies positioned to benefit from this massive AI infrastructure spending boom, check out my full Milk Road Pro portfolio below. link.milkroad.com/tx5qip

Wall Street is getting $CRWV COMPLETELY WRONG. I went on Making Money with @cvpayne today to explain why I think this selloff is being blown WAY out of proportion. CoreWeave closed down 15.5% today at $65.78 and a lot of that panic is coming from its bonds. The company's 2032 bonds are now trading below 80 cents on the dollar, pushing yields close to 15%. For context, CoreWeave issued those same bonds just four months ago at 9.625%. Now, I think a LOT of people are misunderstanding what this actually means. First, CoreWeave is NOT suddenly paying 15% interest on those bonds. The interest rate is locked in at 9.625%. The 15% yield reflects what investors are willing to pay for that debt today and it gives us an idea of how expensive similar unsecured borrowing could be going forward. And there's a much bigger issue here that people are overlooking. Inflation came in hotter than expected this morning, and the 10 year Treasury yield is sitting around 5.2%. Think about it. If investors can earn over 5% lending money to the US government, why would they take on substantially more risk lending to a company like CoreWeave without demanding a MUCH higher return? That's what we're seeing across the bond market right now, and it's not just a CoreWeave problem. But here's where I think the market is getting this wrong. CoreWeave just raised $4.2 BILLION at 2.875% three weeks ago. Its Q2 revenue came in at $2.58 billion, more than doubling from a year ago, and its backlog is sitting at $104 BILLION, with another $25 billion in commitments added during early Q3. We're talking about a company with customers like $MSFT, OpenAI, and $META. The demand is there and the contracts are there. The biggest question is how cheaply CoreWeave can finance the infrastructure needed to fulfill those contracts. And this brings me to $NVDA. I genuinely believe people are underestimating just how important these neocloud companies are to Jensen Huang. Nvidia invested $2 billion into CoreWeave earlier this year and has a $6.3 billion agreement to purchase unused capacity through 2032. Why does that matter? Because Nvidia NEEDS these neoclouds to succeed. The hyperscalers are already developing their own custom AI chips to reduce their dependence on Nvidia. Neoclouds help Nvidia expand its customer base and create another massive distribution channel for its GPUs. Now imagine what happens if these companies suddenly struggle to finance their expansion. That's a massive problem for Nvidia, and I find it very hard to believe Jensen would simply sit back and watch one of his most important customers struggle without exploring ways to support it. Now, that doesn't mean there aren't risks. My biggest concern with the neocloud trade has always been dilution. If these companies can't borrow at attractive rates, they may have to issue more shares to fund their expansion. And that's something existing shareholders absolutely need to pay attention to. It's also why I think investors need to be selective. Not every neocloud has the same balance sheet, customer commitments, or access to financing. but I don't think the AI infrastructure thesis has suddenly changed because CoreWeave's bonds sold off. The demand for compute is still enormous, and these companies are playing an increasingly important role in meeting it. Short term, interest rates are driving the trade but long term, I still believe the AI infrastructure buildout is one of the biggest investment opportunities of our lifetime.

Microsoft just walked away from one of the biggest AI data center projects in the United Kingdom. According to the Telegraph, $MSFT terminated its deal for Nscale's planned site in Loughton, Essex, which ministers had called the country's largest AI data center. The problem is POWER. Grid officials reportedly told Nscale they do not expect enough electricity for the site until the 2030s. Nscale says its relationship with Microsoft remains strong and the grid issue has no impact on its other contracts. The timing is rough. Nscale filed for a United States IPO last month, with Microsoft and Anthropic expected to be its biggest customers. Demand for compute is not the problem but getting it plugged in is.

Michael Dell just told the Wall Street Journal that the memory crunch is going to get WORSE. On CNBC this week he said supply and demand get worse next year, and when asked about memory he called it "maybe a four year problem because there's just not enough supply." His reasoning is that a new chip fab takes about four years to build, so the capacity being planned today may not produce anything until 2029 or 2030. That is a STRUCTURAL shortage, and it is exactly what Samsung, SK Hynix and $MU want to hear after the brutal selloff in memory stocks this week. The more interesting part is how $DELL plans to survive if the AI boom ever busts. Dell builds just in time, so it isn't sitting on a mountain of inventory or debt like a lot of AI infrastructure players, and the WSJ says that gives it a CUSHION if demand collapses. One of the biggest buyers of memory in the world is telling you the shortage isn't close to over.

South Korea's stock market is in FREE FALL and the panic surrounding the memory trade is getting completely out of control. The KOSPI just plunged another 7%, bringing its decline to roughly 40% from its June highs. Samsung and SK Hynix are getting absolutely destroyed, and the selling pressure is spreading across the entire AI infrastructure trade. I went on Making Money with @cvpayne today to talk about the memory selloff and why I believe investors are losing sight of what's actually happening in this industry. And now we're getting ANOTHER warning out of South Korea. A new column published by Maeil Business Newspaper is raising concerns that the global memory industry could face oversupply beginning in 2029 as new manufacturing capacity starts coming online. The argument is that South Korea has become increasingly dependent on Samsung and SK Hynix, and that the country has roughly two to three years to develop other growth industries before the memory cycle potentially reverses. Now, I think this is something investors should absolutely pay attention to but here's where I disagree with the panic. We're talking about a potential oversupply problem in 2029 while the industry is still struggling to meet demand TODAY. Memory manufacturers are already dealing with capacity constraints, AI customers are securing long term supply agreements, and demand for HBM continues to grow as Nvidia $NVDA and other AI chipmakers push toward increasingly memory intensive systems. And people need to understand that building additional manufacturing capacity doesn't automatically mean we're going to have an oversupply problem. These fabs take years to construct, equipment needs to be installed, production yields need to improve, and manufacturers still have to qualify their products with customers. Not to mention, HBM manufacturing is substantially more complicated than traditional DRAM, and not all additional memory capacity can immediately be used to produce the most advanced AI memory products. Now, could we eventually see oversupply in 2029? ABSOLUTELY. Memory is a cyclical industry and I've never argued that these companies will enjoy record pricing and margins forever. But there's a massive difference between acknowledging that possibility and acting like the memory cycle is already over. I still believe the fundamentals of the memory trade remain incredibly strong, especially for companies positioned to benefit from HBM and the broader AI infrastructure buildout. Bullish on memory and if you want to see how I’m investing through this selloff and check out my full portfolio below. link.milkroad.com/tx5qip

The majority of neocloud companies will NOT survive. I strongly believe we're going to see a MASSIVE amount of consolidation across this industry over the next several years, and only a handful of companies will come out on top. Personally, I think $CRWV and $NBIS will be the top 2. Just look at how competitive this industry is becoming. You have the traditional hyperscalers like Microsoft, Amazon, and Google spending hundreds of billions of dollars building their own AI infrastructure. Then you have companies like CoreWeave, Nebius, Crusoe, Lambda, and several others trying to capture a piece of that same market. As we know, building a neocloud is EXTREMELY capital intensive. We're talking billions of dollars in GPUs, data centers, power infrastructure, networking equipment, and everything else required to operate these facilities. And that's before you even consider the cost of financing all of this. Not every company is going to have access to the capital necessary to compete, and more importantly, not every company is going to have customers willing to sign multibillion dollar contracts. This is why I believe we're eventually going to see smaller neoclouds either go bankrupt or get acquired by larger players. I wouldn't be surprised if the industry eventually becomes dominated by just a few major independent GPU cloud providers. But here's why I'm particularly bullish on CoreWeave and Nebius. Both companies have already demonstrated that some of the largest technology companies in the world are willing to commit billions of dollars to their infrastructure. CoreWeave has built an enormous contracted backlog, while Nebius has secured major agreements with Microsoft and Meta. And then there's $NVDA, which I think is one of the most underrated parts of this entire conversation. Jensen Huang has a HUGE incentive to make sure the neocloud industry succeeds. Think about it. Why would Nvidia want the entire AI infrastructure market controlled by Microsoft, Amazon, Google, and Meta when it can help create another group of major customers buying billions of dollars worth of GPUs? We've already seen Nvidia make strategic investments across this ecosystem, including its investment in Nebius. Now, that doesn't mean Jensen is going to bail out every struggling neocloud, but I do believe Nvidia will continue supporting strategically important partners where it makes financial sense. And this brings me back to what's happening with CoreWeave right now. Investors are absolutely freaking out over its borrowing costs, and I understand why. Financing an enormous infrastructure buildout when interest rates are elevated is not easy, especially when you're already carrying significant debt. But I think people are confusing financing risk with demand risk. The demand for AI compute hasn't suddenly disappeared. If anything, the latest growth we're seeing from companies like Anthropic suggests we're going to need substantially MORE computing capacity over the next several years. That doesn't guarantee CoreWeave or Nebius will succeed. Both still need to execute, manage their capital requirements, and eventually demonstrate that their businesses can generate sustainable free cash flow. But I think the companies that survive this period could emerge in a MUCH stronger competitive position as weaker players get pushed out of the market. You can check out the full podcast here: youtu.be/g46xoq5AAQE?si=mrVs…

Michael Dell just told the Wall Street Journal that the memory crunch is going to get WORSE. On CNBC this week he said supply and demand get worse next year, and when asked about memory he called it "maybe a four year problem because there's just not enough supply." His reasoning is that a new chip fab takes about four years to build, so the capacity being planned today may not produce anything until 2029 or 2030. That is a STRUCTURAL shortage, and it is exactly what Samsung, SK Hynix and $MU want to hear after the brutal selloff in memory stocks this week. The more interesting part is how $DELL plans to survive if the AI boom ever busts. Dell builds just in time, so it isn't sitting on a mountain of inventory or debt like a lot of AI infrastructure players, and the WSJ says that gives it a CUSHION if demand collapses. One of the biggest buyers of memory in the world is telling you the shortage isn't close to over.

Curious if anyone else bought any stocks today?

GPU rental prices went up 81 times in 60 days, per FastGPU's report. The biggest increases were on the chips used for frontier training and production inference: → B200: 7 increases (~17.7% each) → H200: 6 increases (~17.5% each) → H100: 8 increases (~14.3% each) → B300: 6 increases (~10.4% each) For a team renting 8 B200s around the clock, a single $1.20/GPU-hour increase adds roughly $7,000 to the monthly bill. And when supply is short, the provider controls the price, and you absorb the increase. It doesn’t have to work that way. With B3IQ, you own the machine and pay for it once. We build, host, and run it for you. And you can also rent out the hours you don’t need.

Maybe more than 10GW