[lotsofpulp]

It isn’t printing money (money supply was not increased, and no one has access to more money due to the contract signed between the two parties), but I assume it makes the poster feel good to be outraged and express it by writing something like that.

[theli0nheart]

AMD's valuation increased by over 30% this morning, so to say no one has access to more money because of this news is untrue.

I'm not outraged at all, I just think this sort of bizarre financial engineering is not a good sign. If the ROI was so obvious, why not, for example, simply issue bonds and buy AMD stock on the open market?

[lotsofpulp]

I wrote:

> and no one has access to more money due to the contract signed between the two parties

If a third party decides to pay a higher price for a publicly listed share because of the news of this contract, that is not printing money. The buyer of the shares loses money, the seller gains it, for a net change of zero in money supply.

[rchaud]

If OAI issued bonds, they'd be carrying all the risk. With these deals with Microsoft, Nvidia and now AMD, they're shifting some of that risk to powerful players in the "too big to let fail" category.

[theli0nheart]

Well, yeah, that's exactly my point. OpenAI is not issuing bonds because these transactions are way riskier than people are willing to admit.

[lotsofpulp]

Who is “people”? Investors and people familiar with finance are well aware of the deal and its risks, as they are public information.

[theli0nheart]

Do you recall what “people familiar with finance” did with CDOs and mortgage-backed securities during the financial crisis? That didn’t work out so well either, despite all parties being aware of the risks.

It bears repeating my original question: if the risks are so minor, why is OpenAI simply not issuing bonds and buying AMD stock with the proceeds?

[lotsofpulp]

I didn’t claim the risks are minor, I am just arguing against the notion of it being “printing money”, as if they have the powers of the Treasury.

> Do you recall what “people familiar with finance” did with CDOs and mortgage-backed securities during the financial crisis? That didn’t work out so well either, despite all parties being aware of the risks.

There was straight up fraud involved in the underwriting for the mortgages where verification (or rather underwriting itself) was not being done.

This deal is a transparent bet on an outcome with no deceived party.

[rhetocj23]

Indeed. Youre one of the few posters ive seen on here that gets it.