[HN Gopher] Cloud Provider Gets $2.3B Loan Using Nvidia's H100 a...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Cloud Provider Gets $2.3B Loan Using Nvidia's H100 as Collateral
        
       Author : belltaco
       Score  : 71 points
       Date   : 2023-08-04 19:43 UTC (3 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.anandtech.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.anandtech.com)
        
       | comboy wrote:
       | I can't find any info in the article but that seems like.. a lot
       | of H100s.
        
         | foota wrote:
         | The street price is 235 an ounce.
        
       | thewataccount wrote:
       | The funny part to me is they'll likely use that money to buy more
       | H100's.
       | 
       | > Last month, Inflection AI built a supercomputer worth hundreds
       | of millions of dollars powered by 22,000 NVIDIA H100 compute
       | GPUs.
       | 
       | What? InflectionAI has relatively little brand recognition, do I
       | not know something about them, are they just the first in line,
       | or is nvidia just selling this many cards in general? I can only
       | imagine all the typical ones like lambda, AWS, openai, apple,
       | <insert large tech company here> are buying even more?
       | 
       | EDIT: Wait if the collateral is for a 2.3B USD loan - how many
       | cards do they have?!
        
         | multicast wrote:
         | It really depends on the type of financial institution that has
         | given the loan. A bank for this type of transaction is very
         | unlikely nowadays, so I guess it is a private credit fund.
         | Given that they have probably applied some sort of traditional
         | Loan-to-value ratio, it's very likely that the $2.3 billion is
         | only a portion of the total value. Meaning the cloud provider
         | has received e.g. 50 or 80% of the total value of the H100's as
         | a loan. It surely is not very much since electronics have a
         | high depreciation rate from an accounting perspective (3-5
         | years max).
        
         | [deleted]
        
       | neom wrote:
       | Kinda how we built DigitalOcean in the early days, the software
       | was venture funded but the HW was funded as lease lines and
       | credit against the HW we owned originally + a decent business
       | plan based on the growth. It's a good(/slightly scary) strategy!
       | Highly recommend more folks look at credit facilities.
        
         | jacquesm wrote:
         | That works as long as you maintain that growth. Too long a bump
         | and you're waiting tables ;) But at least that didn't happen to
         | DO. Being create with financing is probably a very important
         | component in starting companies that have a lot of capital
         | expenses to make, and it is the kind of thing that your typical
         | tech founder usually has little experience with.
        
         | dylan604 wrote:
         | >Highly recommend more folks look at credit facilities.
         | 
         | Are you suggesting funding with lines of credit vs "free" money
         | from VC which diminishes the founder's control?
        
           | jacquesm wrote:
           | VC money is _super_ expensive. Banks are the cheapest option,
           | especially if you own property you can just use that that get
           | a bunch of working capital. Any capital for equity should if
           | you can swing it be done as convertible loans so that you at
           | least have the option to pay it back if that is in your best
           | interest. It also keeps the cap table clean and you (the
           | founders) solidly in control until you decide to change that.
           | 
           | I've seen more than one case where a company was looking to
           | do a round but they had not even considered the option of
           | taking out a bank loan against their inventory. Especially
           | for short term liquidity that's much, much better than VCs
           | buying stock.
        
           | neom wrote:
           | It's very different types of money. Both are dangerous but vc
           | money is considerably less dangerous (imo). If you take
           | someone like Fortress as your capital group (credit line)
           | you're going to lose the company if you f up, period. With
           | VC, you have more latitude to have a conversation. We ran a
           | very difficult path to build DO, I'm sure a lot of people
           | lost sleep many nights, but if you're very sure about the
           | business, credit facilities can be helpful, just know they're
           | not joke. Neither is better or worse than the other, they're
           | different but both useful. My point was if you are sure about
           | the business credit facilities can be really helpful and are
           | under explored for many startups (granted HW is often a
           | factor in credit)
        
       | Animats wrote:
       | It's a routine financial transaction. Often these are structured
       | as leases, where the lender remains the owner. It's common for
       | aircraft, locomotives, etc - things with long, predictable
       | lifespans, insurable against damage.
       | 
       | The problem for the lender is that it's a bet against progress in
       | the field obsoleting the thing. If the user can cancel and send
       | the thing back because there's a more cost-effective model, the
       | lender has a problem. That mistake hurt Lloyds of London in the
       | 1970s.[1]
       | 
       | [1] https://www.nytimes.com/1979/07/30/archives/lloyds-
       | insurers-...
        
         | mediaman wrote:
         | I don't know the details of this lease, but it is likely a
         | capital lease, not an operating lease. The lessee will not have
         | the option of returning it. It will be recognized as an asset
         | on the lessee's balance sheet. The lessee backs the lease not
         | just with the collateral, but with the full value of the
         | capital structure up to any debt senior to it.
         | 
         | It's a bet against progress in the field only to the extent
         | that they depend on the collateral if the lessee fails. Lessors
         | hate getting collateral back. So they've probably looked at the
         | lessee's capital structure and decided that, along with
         | whatever interest rate they're getting, it's a reasonably
         | priced risk. They're likely mapped out their estimated risk of
         | default by year along with a declining recovery value of the
         | collateral by year.
        
       | jes5199 wrote:
       | how long do we expect these things to hold value?
        
         | stefan_ wrote:
         | Once they stop working for training they can still do inference
         | for a long time.
        
         | wmf wrote:
         | Four years, maybe more. People aren't throwing away their A100s
         | yet.
        
           | belval wrote:
           | Even the larger V100 instances are still heavily used at
           | AWS/GCP/Azure. The reality is that demand does not disappear
           | if there are no H100/A100, it just finds another way.
           | 
           | There's also the fact that if you are not training LLM, you
           | can get a better deal using some older hardware.
        
         | H8crilA wrote:
         | Possibly longer than some stocks against which rich people take
         | loans. Much stupider things have happened in the credit market.
         | 
         | Also, the Reuters article says that they have a depreciation
         | schedule built into the contact. Compute hardware can
         | depreciate pretty quickly, if I remember correctly major tech
         | companies have around 3 years planned for the depreciation.
        
           | dmoy wrote:
           | > if I remember correctly major tech companies have around 3
           | years planned for the depreciation.
           | 
           | Historically yea, though now I think it's being stretched to
           | 5+ years as they see hardware last longer in production (but
           | you're atiop correct, it's very quickly relative to a lot of
           | other loan collateral, still a short term deal even if it's 7
           | years)
        
         | TechBro8615 wrote:
         | I expect they'll lose value in the step-function shape that's
         | typical of technology, where each new generation decreases the
         | value of the previous one. But that's fine, as long as each
         | chip generates more revenue over its lifetime than it cost. And
         | the lifetime can extend through multiple generations, as long
         | as each successive generation is only a marginal improvement
         | over its predecessor.
         | 
         | Personally I think the bigger risk is software innovations
         | making CPU training (and/or inference) sufficiently viable that
         | it's cheaper to train models on a commodity CPU cluster than on
         | some proportionally expensive GPU cluster. I don't know enough
         | about the space to say whether that's likely, but it seems like
         | a low risk, since pretty much any parallel algorithm will
         | always be faster on GPU than CPU - it's just a question of the
         | marginal benefits and cost (e.g. maybe it takes more CPU to
         | train same model in same time, but cost of CPU is so much lower
         | that it's worth buying more of them).
        
       | ramesh31 wrote:
       | Chips are the new oil and H100s are the finest sweet light crude
       | on earth.
        
       | throwing_away wrote:
       | Are GPUs a security now?
        
       | mk_stjames wrote:
       | Why does it feel like this story will be depicted in a future
       | Adam McKay film, and involve Steve Carell or Ryan Gosling on the
       | phone, talking to a loan officer, maybe interposed with a
       | cutscene of Selena Gomez explaining what the hell an Nvidia H100
       | is to the audience?
        
         | wmf wrote:
         | Don't forget Martin Shkreli (played by himself) in a trenchcoat
         | trying to buy H100s out of the back of a van.
        
         | tmpz22 wrote:
         | I don't - companies misallocating resources to chase fads most
         | of which end up as mediocre product is nothing new nor is it
         | tech industry specific.
        
       | Havoc wrote:
       | For how long? Loans tend to last longer than cutting edge gear
        
         | mediaman wrote:
         | Lease deals like this tend to be structured as an amortizing
         | loan over 3-5 years. They also probably did not finance the
         | entire value, but the entire value will be collateral. If they
         | financed, say, 70%, then a couple years in the remaining
         | exposure may be well under 50% of original price; four years
         | in, they likely need only a low recovery to become whole.
        
           | Havoc wrote:
           | That's precisely my point - even very conservative financing
           | you're looking at collateral value that falls off a cliff in
           | what a year vs a 3-5 year loan.
           | 
           | Worse the collateral side of the equation is currently in max
           | AI hype bubble frenzy pricing while the loan is well what it
           | says.
           | 
           | Very much feel like we're getting half the
           | story...specifically the part that makes for good PR "Look at
           | us we have lots of H100s and they're really valuable".
        
       | kev_dev wrote:
       | They are using H100s as collateral for a loan to buy... more
       | H100s. Sign of an AI bubble? Nvidia is the real winner here.
        
         | CaptRon wrote:
         | Seems like the start of a funny Matt Levine article in a few
         | years.
        
         | ramesh31 wrote:
         | >They are using H100s as collateral for a loan to buy... more
         | H100s. Sign of an AI bubble?
         | 
         | Or signs of an exponentially accelerating technological
         | singularity
        
         | PartiallyTyped wrote:
         | Somebody has to make the shovels, right?
        
           | tester756 wrote:
           | kinda TSMC / ASML
        
       | ballenf wrote:
       | Next week's news: Nvidia prohibiting collateral loan agreements
       | as part of their partner agreements. The last thing they want is
       | a glut of these hitting the market due to bankruptcies.
       | 
       | But their sales team or other execs who have incentives to keep
       | sales prices inflated for as long as possible will fight against
       | such a move.
        
         | mschuster91 wrote:
         | Even if a few companies go bankrupt, the demand for AI training
         | hardware is absurd and likely won't go down any time soon - and
         | unlike all the shitcoins, there is no (viable) threat of ASICs
         | outcompeting GPUs.
        
       | ShrigmaMale wrote:
       | surprised they couldn't get asset-backed financing for the new
       | build. wonder if they just took a better rate this way. ceo says
       | cheap way to access debt so i guess so
        
       | vsareto wrote:
       | This is sourced from a Reuters article but they link to an MSN
       | page which hosts it, so here's the original, damnit:
       | 
       | https://www.reuters.com/technology/coreweave-raises-23-billi...
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-08-04 23:01 UTC)