Markets
Complex Simplicity
Getty Images

OpenAI doesn’t have the cash to pay Oracle $300 billion — raising it will test the very limits of private markets

The ChatGPT maker plans to burn though $115 billion by 2029. No company in history has ever lit that much money on fire intentionally, let alone tried funding such a splurge through private markets alone.

There’s a playbook in Silicon Valley: raise some money; build something people want; raise a lot more money; burn it in the pursuit of growth. The core of this strategy is to swap money for time by acquiring talent, companies, infrastructure, and technologies, all in the pursuit of leapfrogging your competition in the burgeoning field you’re disrupting.

Then, if you’re successful in ascending to the top: kick back, up your prices, and rake in the billions.

From Uber to Amazon, Tesla to Facebook, this game plan has worked time and time again. Jokes on late-night talk shows about companies losing money year after year, or paying a billion dollars for then boutique apps like Instagram, have become unfunny fast, as Big Tech has swallowed advertising, apparel, and everything in between.

But no company has ever burned as much money as OpenAI is planning to.

In the last few weeks, major deals with Broadcom and Oracle have thrown into sharp relief just how insane OpenAI’s ambitions are. The Oracle deal alone is worth $300 billion over five years starting in 2027. OpenAI does not have that kind of cash.

In fact, four of the tech world’s big “cash incinerators” — Uber, Tesla, Snap, and Netflix — together burned a pathetic ~$42 billion during their respective heavily cash-burning periods.

Lossmaking big tech burning cash
Sherwood News

Per The Information, OpenAI is planning on burning $115 billion through 2029. Given that the company raised “only” $40 billion earlier this year — and $64 billion in its lifetime to date, per Pitchbook data — it’s fair to assume that OpenAI will have to dip into the capital markets again to raise another $50 billion to $75 billion to fund its spending splurge.

And OpenAIs funding needs might not stop there — after that monstrous 2029 spending figure is reached, the company could still be on the hook for hundreds of billions of dollars as part of the freshly inked deal with Oracle, which runs for five years and only starts in 2027.

We’re going to need a bigger cap table

Just a few years ago, the idea of raising that amount on the deeply liquid public markets would have been remarkable; the biggest IPO ever was 2014’s Alibaba, which raised $25 billion — a figure that might not cover even a single year of OpenAI’s peak cash burn. Doing it in private markets would have been near unthinkable. Doing it as a complicated entity controlled by a “not-for-profit” entity? Insane.

Last week, the company revealed it had made progress on that last point. The Financial Times reported that OpenAI and Microsoft had signed a “non-binding memorandum of understanding” marking “a significant step forward in the start-up’s effort to convert to a more investor-friendly, for-profit structure.” That could unlock a potential IPO, giving institutional and retail investors the ability to invest directly in the company.

But in August, CEO Sam Altman said that an IPO was not a priority, suggesting there’s a very good chance that OpenAI continues to fund its runway via the private scene.

If the company pulls it off — raises all that money and finds a way to make the unit economics of its chatbot work along the way — it will raise a major question: is the stock market doing its primary job? If the most capital-hungry business of all time doesn’t need to raise on the public markets, we may need to rethink our textbook definitions of the stock market. The capital-allocating conduit that’s been the bedrock of American capitalism for more than a century is increasingly about price discovery, liquidity, and risk transfer, and less about capital formation.

What’s most remarkable, though, is that this might be quite an easy feat for OpenAI. Given the pervasive AI mania that we find ourselves experiencing in 2025, it’s hard to imagine that the world’s leading consumer-facing AI company will struggle to find investors for its cap table in the private markets, even at a nosebleed valuation of $500 billion and even with evidence that AI adoption might be cooling.

Related reading: Where did all the stocks go?

More Markets

See all Markets
markets

GameStop jumps in after-hours trading after CEO Ryan Cohen purchases another 500,000 shares

Ryan Cohen is putting his money where his mouth is.

The GameStop CEO bought another 500,000 shares of company stock for $10.8 million on Wednesday, per a filing.

The stock was trading higher on Wednesday thanks to Cohen’s purchase of 500,000 shares for roughly $10.6 million on Tuesday, and extended these gains in the after-hours session on this news.

“The Reporting Person believes that it is essential for the Chief Executive Officer of any public company to purchase shares of such company in the open market with his or her own personal funds in order to further strengthen alignment with stockholders,” per the filing. “The Reporting Person believes that any Chief Executive Officer who fails to do so should be fired.”

Cohen is poised to become even more financially enmeshed with GameStop’s stock and operating performance should shareholders approve a package that would tie his pay completely to ambitious targets for the company’s earnings and market cap.

The CEO now owns about 8.56% of shares outstanding.

markets

AppLovin tumbles; company dismisses negative report as “false, misleading, and nonsensical”

AppLovin managed to finish Tuesday well off its lows after initially getting clobbered in the wake of an incendiary report published by CapitalWatch.

Nonetheless, shares are getting torched on Wednesday, ending down nearly 6%. An AppLovin spokesperson forcefully denied the allegations made by CapitalWatch, which included calling the ad tech firm “the ultimate monument to 21st-century new-type transnational financial crime.”

Per an emailed statement:

We categorically reject the claims made in this report, which is rife with false, misleading, and nonsensical allegations. AppLovin’s public filings transparently disclose our material investments, global operations, and information regarding significant shareholders.

Claims that AppLovin facilitated money laundering or its products are used for unauthorized downloads are patently false. AppLovin functions within a broader ecosystem that includes major app stores, operating systems, and payment providers, and the apps monetized through our platform must be publicly available on the major app stores and subject to their independent review and enforcement. Economically, the money laundering theory is implausible: publishers receive only a portion of advertiser spend, meaning any attempt to launder funds would require forfeiting a substantial share while creating a highly visible, auditable transaction trail across multiple independent companies. Accepting the report’s premise would therefore imply a systemic failure across the broader mobile advertising and app-store ecosystem, for which the report provides no evidence.

Nonetheless, shares are getting torched on Wednesday, ending down nearly 6%. An AppLovin spokesperson forcefully denied the allegations made by CapitalWatch, which included calling the ad tech firm “the ultimate monument to 21st-century new-type transnational financial crime.”

Per an emailed statement:

We categorically reject the claims made in this report, which is rife with false, misleading, and nonsensical allegations. AppLovin’s public filings transparently disclose our material investments, global operations, and information regarding significant shareholders.

Claims that AppLovin facilitated money laundering or its products are used for unauthorized downloads are patently false. AppLovin functions within a broader ecosystem that includes major app stores, operating systems, and payment providers, and the apps monetized through our platform must be publicly available on the major app stores and subject to their independent review and enforcement. Economically, the money laundering theory is implausible: publishers receive only a portion of advertiser spend, meaning any attempt to launder funds would require forfeiting a substantial share while creating a highly visible, auditable transaction trail across multiple independent companies. Accepting the report’s premise would therefore imply a systemic failure across the broader mobile advertising and app-store ecosystem, for which the report provides no evidence.

markets

Intel soars amid retail engagement, analyst chatter

Intel ripped toward a new 52-week high Wednesday, amid a flurry of activity in the options market and a couple of positive analyst assessments ahead of its earnings report due tomorrow.

Shortly after 11 a.m. ET, call options activity was roughly equivalent to the full-day average over the past 10 sessions. Bets on stock swings using call options have become a highly popular retail trade, suggesting that retail investors are getting interested in the shares ahead of the report from the partially nationalized American chip icon.

(That interpretation is buttressed by what we’re seeing on social sentiment-monitoring sites like SwaggyStocks, which at about 11:30 a.m. listed Intel as the fifth-most-mentioned stock on Reddit’s r/WallStreetBets forum over the past 24 hours.)

Wall Street analysts are also chattering about the stock, with RBC and Bernstein Research both writing about it in the last 24 hours.

RBC — which has a “sector perform” (or neutral) rating on Intel — said it expects a “slight beat and largely inline outlook” when the company reports after the close Thursday.

Bernstein’s Intel watchers — who have a “market perform” (also neutral) rating on the stock — seemed a bit more cautious, writing, “Overall numbers going forward still looking high to us. Fundamentals and valuation keep us sidelined.”

Latest Stories

Sherwood Media, LLC produces fresh and unique perspectives on topical financial news and is a fully owned subsidiary of Robinhood Markets, Inc., and any views expressed here do not necessarily reflect the views of any other Robinhood affiliate, including Robinhood Markets, Inc., Robinhood Financial LLC, Robinhood Securities, LLC, Robinhood Crypto, LLC, or Robinhood Money, LLC.