> that’s a pretty load-bearing as long as its cash flows continue. The two things are surely correlated

It's an important difference. In the GFC, the value of AAA-rated tranches fell. With the benefit of hindsight, we know they continued paying. They were directly leveraged, however, so mark-to-market losses caused firms to fail.

Nvidia stock crashing shouldn't have a similar effect to these commitments. If someone else has massively levered their Nvidia position, they'll obviously blow up. But Nvidia could survive a good deal of equity-market tumult in a way a bank could not.

Related but in specific ways. Stock is often priced in anticipation of growth. If NVDA could meet its credit obligations while its real profit stayed flat, the two would diverge, at least for awhile. A large amount of NVDA’s current cash flow is likely purchase contracts with a fixed multi-year term, which further smooths out the impact of, say, a stock crash following a couple of quarters of terrible earnings.

Now, whether many things NVDA has invested in with expectation of repayment or earnings would be able to repay or appreciate in a market environment where Nvidia’s stock was crashing? That’s another question entirely.

Indeed. https://www.groundbrkr.com/p/the-second-derivative-why-no-on...

> load-bearing

I'm worried I'm going to start picking up claudisms, and then accused of being AI.

"Uh, that’s a pretty load-bearing as long as its cash flows continue. The two things are surely correlated."

Ppl have made the prediction of it being a bubble or unsustainable since 2022. At this point, it's hard to say these people have credibility anymore. Ai is big enough, much like Google in 2005 or Facebook/Social Network in 2010 or apps in 2015, that it's an institution unto itself. It's not going to just crash as so many are expecting and have been wrong the past 4 years about.