Azeem Azhar

But the question is, when we look out over three or five years, will we start to see benefits emerging from it?

So it turns not less to be a black hole and more to be an M-class star.

Well, I think they'll make back the money if the revenues show up.

So we can talk about revenues later in the discussion, but you've put your finger on one of the uglier parts of all of this, which is that, you know, of the three, $400 billion that will go into data centers this year,

About 50% to 60% will be in those GPUs.

So we'll call it a couple of hundred billion.

And the companies themselves mostly keep them on their books for six years.

So that's a long time, but it's not a canal or a railroad.

And as we know, within three years, they have to move out of frontline service.

So I think that there is a bit of an ugliness in the way that this is accounted for.

It is something that we should keep our eye on.

Now, they may argue, well, the GPUs make money and we're paid back within two years, which is what it seems to be the case.

And they still have some useful life in 6.

But it feels like it's a bit of a thin argument.

And this is one area where I think we could...

Ask for, hope for, but we won't get better rules around how GPUs should get depreciated, the kind of tax incentives companies should get because they are effectively operational expenses and greater transparency.

Somebody sent me an email about this and they said that...

In China, the accounting rules are such that computer chips are effectively depreciated over a three year maximum five year period.

So I think this is a you know, this is one of those ugly pimples of this picture that we should just stare at and say this could turn into a problem.

Well, I mean, it is worrying, but it's just not where other things were.