The Finance of Neoclouds
How to think about Neoclouds from first principles and Finance 101: Present value of future positive NPV projects
If you’ve been struggling to value NeoClouds or even think about them clearly and have figured out that they’re different from other businesses but don’t know why, you need not worry (I figured it out)
Why NeoClouds Break Normal Valuation
Most companies are valued on what they already are. A memory company is a bet on book value through a cycle. Nvidia or TSMC is a bet on earnings: a durable moat that earns and grows profit as the market grows. Crucially, these businesses do not need to raise capital. Even the capital-intensive ones fund growth out of operating cash flow; the occasional debt or equity raise is a one-off, not the engine. Nvidia never has to raise capital. Micron never has to.
NeoClouds are the opposite. Raising capital is not incidental to the model; it IS the model. Annual capex runs at a large fraction of, and sometimes the entirety of, the company’s market cap, every year, while revenue grows just as fast. That breaks both standard lenses at once. Forward multiples stop meaning anything because the denominator is exploding. Price-to-book stops working because book value is unstable because it’s being rebuilt every quarter by fresh capital, and the price itself is unstable because enterprise value is constantly inflated by new debt and dilution. The equity is a moving target sitting on top of a balance sheet that is a moving target.
What you are actually holding is a corporate wrapper for raising capital and deploying it into compute. Once you see it that way, the right valuation lens falls out.
Spread
A NeoCloud takes money from debt and equity investors and invests it in GPUs and data centers, exactly as a bank takes money from depositors and invests it in assets. The value it creates is the spread between its cost of capital and its return on that capital, and the equity is worth the present value of that spread, compounded over everything it will ever deploy.
This is how the operators themselves underwrite it: a mid-to-high-teens unlevered IRR on compute investments over roughly the ~5-year life a GPU is depreciated to. A high-teens IRR simply means the contract price on that GPU is high enough above the all-in cost of the GPU to clear that return. So the entire bull-vs.-bear question collapses to one thing: is there a durable spread between return on capital and cost of capital, and is it widening or compressing?
Why Would a Spread Exist?
The bear case is clean: NeoClouds are middlemen who buy compute and resell it. If that is all they do, customers hold the pricing power and compete the contract price down until return on capital equals cost of capital, and the spread goes to zero. The bull case is that the spread is real and persistent. There are four sources of it: two genuine value-adds (durable), and two commodity-cycle dynamics (positioning):
1. Product / operating excellence (value-add). Being genuinely good at running a cloud, with software, orchestration, and API services on top of the raw metal. A better product commands premium pricing, which widens the spread directly.
2. The people (value-add). What a customer is really buying is the operator’s team. Its relationships with Nvidia, the OEMs, and the rest of the supply chain, plus a track record of delivering, are far stronger than any relationship the customer could build on its own. You are buying that team’s relationship with the suppliers, and the certainty that they will turn scarce silicon into delivered, on-time compute. That certainty commands a premium.
3. Allocation scarcity (commodity). In a shortage, access to Nvidia allocation is itself the scarce good. You pay the NeoCloud to get in line, economically identical to paying fees into an SPV to access an allocation in a hot private company.
4. Performance surplus (commodity / market inefficiency). Each Nvidia generation improves performance by roughly an order of magnitude, but Nvidia cannot raise price by an order of magnitude. That would invite antitrust scrutiny and customer revolt, so it passes much of that surplus downstream. NeoClouds are first in line to receive it. Everyone in the chain captures a slice, but the first recipient can take the most disproportionate share. The present value of that inefficiency lands straight in the IRR.
The first two are moats you build. The last two are a function of being in the right place at the right time in the cycle. Today all four are live, which is why the IRR is high-teens while the cost of capital is nowhere near it.
Growth IS Intrinsic Value
Here is the part that makes NeoClouds strange. Because the IRR sits well above the cost of capital, every dollar deployed is a positive-NPV project. And demand is not the constraint; it is effectively infinite. Operators will tell you that a fresh 500 MW would sell instantly. So the business is not gated by how much it can sell. It is gated by how much capital it can deploy and how fast it can build.
That inverts the usual logic. For a normal company, growth is good only if it earns above its cost of capital on incremental investment, and it is usually demand-limited. For a NeoCloud in a shortage, incremental deployment is reliably positive-NPV and supply-limited, so more deployment is simply more value. The equity is worth the present value of the spread on all the capital it will ever put to work. This is why a NeoCloud can trade at a “ridiculous” price-to-book or price-to-earnings and still be cheap: if the market is not pricing in that the company will grow its compute base by an order of magnitude, the present value of the spread on that growth can dwarf the current, supposedly-overvalued, equity value.
Enterprise value is the present value of future positive NPV projects, not just future cash flows!
What Makes a Good NeoCloud
It follows directly. There are four ways to be a good NeoCloud: two that widen the spread, and two that let you deploy more positive-NPV capital.
Widen The Spread
1. Build a great product. A real cloud and software/API layer earns premium pricing.
2. The people. A NeoCloud’s supplier relationships, credibility, and track record live in its team. A customer is buying that team and its relationship with the suppliers, stronger than its own, and pays a premium for the certainty it provides. This is what separates it from lever 4. Here, it is the relationship and credibility that earn pricing, not raw build throughput.
Deploy More Capital
3. Capital access and cost of capital. Raising quickly, at good prices, and lowering the cost of capital both widens the spread and removes capital as a growth constraint.
4. Construction and execution speed. Power access, building data centers faster than anyone else, and hiring and operating at scale. This is the most important lever, precisely because demand is infinite; the binding constraint is how fast you can physically build.
A bad NeoCloud is a pure commodity middleman: thin or no product, ordinary execution, and expensive or constrained capital. Its spread compresses toward its cost of capital and its growth stalls, so it has neither a wide spread nor a large base to apply it to.
The best operators combine all four levers: a genuine product and the right people to widen the spread, plus cheap, abundant capital and construction speed to deploy it. There is also more than one way to win: an operator can lean on product and software differentiation, or on raw scale, allocation, and a relentless capital-markets engine. What they share is the ability to compound a wide spread across a rapidly growing compute base faster than the market underwrites.
The Investment Translation
Don’t value a NeoCloud on a forward multiple or on book. Both are unstable by construction. Value it as the present value of the spread between return on capital and cost of capital, applied to all the capital it can deploy. Two questions decide everything: Can it sustain the spread? (product + people/relationship moats, against the bear case that customers compete it away) and Can it keep deploying? (capital access + construction speed, against a world where demand is never the limit). The best and most underpriced NeoClouds are the ones that compound a wide spread across an order-of-magnitude-larger compute base, faster than the market is willing to underwrite.
CoreWeave vs. Nebius
Below the paywall, we will talk about CoreWeave and Nebius! Their current valuations are implying very different things about their businesses. I will show you my models for them and how they look side by side on a comparables table. And theoretically, how they are expressing very different bets. And which one I am long.
By accessing this content, you acknowledge and agree to our terms and conditions. This research is not financial advice.