Because not every deal reported seems to have that math.

Some of the deals look really good on paper, and others look like $1 in equity investment produces $1 in revenue.

You also need to factor in whatever non-equity financing Nvidia extends to these buyers, how much debt they've raised from lenders and what backstops Nvidia has committed to.

Investing a bunch of money in a company that is heavily indebted, and committing yourself to buying significant amounts of any unsold compute might not be so smart, especially if that company has only one or two big customers.

So this is the real problem with Nvidia: it has all these deals, some of which might be totally sensible and others that might be WTF, and it's really hard for investors to figure out what the "portfolio" looks like overall.

Doesn't seem like it would be that much harder than gauging any other equity investments. Wouldn't non-equity financing also show up on balance sheets and SEC reports.

They have been reinvesting all their inflated profits into more of these deals, at increasingly uneconomic valuations. That already makes it Ponzi-like.

It doesn't make recurring revenue, either. Not without fresh cash infusions into all the startups.

Largely means P/E is a useless metric here, investors don't get to see their short term net profits, and even if they do see it, those don't extrapolate to future years/decades.

We've got a lot of investors out there not thinking about this with a level head, they just see %%% growth and a "low" P/E.

sounds like a personal problem for dumb investors. Im not sure why people expect business operations should come second to protecting low information ivestors.

I know people that dont even know what P/E or market cap means but purchase stocks based on ticker price. They think <$100 means a good deal for a big company. Should stock splits be forbidden to protect them?