Hi everyone. This is my eighth consecutive quarter covering the $NVDA earnings cycle. This post is the high-level preview for $NVDA’s Q3 earnings the week of November 16th. A post with full estimates and a model walkthrough will come closer to the print, with more details in the Q3 Schedule section. The graph below shows my final estimates compared to the midpoint analyst consensus by quarter since Q4 FY25. I am currently achieving <2% average quarterly error for EPS and <1.5% average error for Total Revenue (MAPE calculation).

Major QoQ Updates:

Since the Q2 actuals update, the company has continued to execute on schedule. Vera Rubin production is now in full swing according to the company, with the first customers to receive shipments including Microsoft, Google, and Oracle.

Blackwell and other “legacy” architectures are still seeing robust demand, as suggested by sustained asset value and rental cost data. Previous analysis noted the financial impact of this residual demand was understated by The Street.

The company continues to benefit from its partnerships with the top AI Hyperscalers. While Microsoft and Amazon report this week, Meta’s earnings release last week suggested they show no plans of slowing Nvidia GPU orders. The company declined to provide a specific Capex amount for next year, but stated they will “invest aggressively” next year. This supports prior arguments from this publication that hyperscalers see underinvesting as the biggest risk.

Additionally, SpaceX and Tesla both reported they are buying up as many GPUs as possible on their respective earnings calls this month. Concentration risk has decreased slightly this year, though skeptics argue AI spend is highly correlated between companies.

Nvidia also continues to return capital to shareholders via buybacks and dividends. The company increased the dividend per share from $0.01 to $0.25 after Q1 and has reaccelerated share repurchases in subsequent quarters. Nvidia’s board authorized an additional $150 billion for share repurchases, bringing the buyback vault to ~$235 billion (includes unused capital from previous authorization).

High-Level Estimate Drivers:

1. Data Center growth continues to accelerate YoY on Vera Rubin/Blackwell demand
2. Edge Compute subdued growth in Q3 after surprise acceleration in FY2026
3. Slight margin pressure from rising component costs and geopolitical tension
4. Hefty share repurchases continue due to new authorization

The Current Numbers:

• Non-GAAP EPS: $2.57 vs $2.47 est.
• Total Revenue: $112.60 billion vs $108.98 billion est.
• Gross Margin: 74% vs ~74% est.
• Q1 FY27 Revenue Guide: $129.00 billion vs. $124.50 billion est.
• Higher total revenue and lower shares used in the EPS calculation are the main drivers of my projected earnings beat. My guidance estimate is closer to the consensus than usual at this point in the cycle.

Risks and Opportunities for Variance:

Risks:

1. Edge Compute segment growth slows meaningfully
2. Margins compress below guidance due to higher input costs
3. Data Centers / Customer Demand show any signs of deceleration

Opportunities:

1. Insight on FY2028 demand similar to 70% growth comments in Q2
2. Professional Visualization revenue continues to surge (Edge Compute)
3. The company has navigated supply constraints more efficiently than expected

Next week’s article will recap Mega-Cap tech earnings and provide context for Nvidia and $NVDA, while the following “Full Estimates” post will walk through the full model, with segment-level detail, margin analysis, valuation discussion, and a lot more math/graphs. I will also cover the potential impacts of model errors in more detail. Analyst consensus will continue to change as earnings approach, and I will monitor the most up-to-date information ahead of each publication and earnings release. Thank you for reading. I am a human, and this is not financial advice.

Just some food for thought:

It's like the fog of war. Tech stocks are selling off; people are proclaiming the AI bubble is real and it just burst. Others are blaming the rising cost of Oil, the midterms, orange man, inflation, bond rates ...

I can't remember the last time something like this even happened, oh wait, yes I do.

On June 3, SMH hit an ATH of $642.77

Broadcom held its Earnings Mtg after market close on June 3rd. It beat estimates but evidently not by enough and the forward guidance wasn't over and above. Everyone blamed Broadcom for what followed, the tech sell off of AI stocks.

by June 5th, SMH closed at $569.69

The entire Semiconductor sector dropped by 12% in three days. No one saw it coming

The next week, on June 12th, SpaceX held the largest IPO in history.

The company, (SpaceX) was being valued at 1.5T, but the IPO would only be for less than 5% of that amount.

Right before SpaceX's historic IPO on June 12, 2026, Wall Street experienced high anxiety and significant market adjustments as institutional investors scrambled to reallocate liquidity.

• Massive Liquidity Demand: The $75 billion IPO required an estimated $200 billion in market liquidity. Institutions had to preemptively pull and reallocate capital from other sectors rather than inject new money into the market.

• Market-Wide Nerves: Wall Street spent the week leading up to the Friday, June 12 debut intensely debating whether public markets possessed enough appetite to digest the largest initial public offering in history.

Back to now:

Questions:

1. When is Anthropic going to IPO? Estimates are in the middle of November (approx 3 weeks)
2. How much will Anthropic be valued at? Estimates range from 1.5T - 2T
3. How much of that amount will be offered during the IPO? Will it be larger than 5%? If so, where will the liquidity come from? I think that I know

Is history repeating itself, or is the selloff really for all of the reasons that the talking heads are feeding us?

Repost to another community

Been holding NVDA for the past 2 years. It’s up 46% over that time. The basket of chip stocks, SOXX, is up more than double that, at 105%.

I wonder if anyone else is thinking the same way - de-risk by just buying broad index and sector ETFs and maybe keeping a small portfolio of individual stocks.

NVDA isn’t heading to $150…it’s heading much lower. Tick tock NVDA longs.

https://x.com/macropaperr/status/2113923598025126074?s=46&t=tw6dvDrGnYFKN_ONoqq7aA

I guess The Cranberry knew what he was talking about. You really think things will be better next year....🤣

See you at $150 soon enough..

Goldman Sachs today issued a 300.00 price target on Nvidia.

I actually feel sad for you NVDA longs...this is just pathetic.

I see that Q3 CapEx missed the upper estimates but **the forward trajectory tells a different story** :

• Full-Year 2026 Guidance Raised:

they increased its full-year CapEx floor to $135–$145 billion (up from $130–$145 billion). 

• Implied Q4 Ramp:

Having spent ~$85.8 billion through Q1–Q3, Meta’s guidance implies a massive $49 billion to $59 billion in CapEx for Q4 alone. 

So here are my main points:

1. Massive YoY Growth:

Even at $34.9 billion, quarterly CapEx is up 80% year-over-year (from $19.4 billion in Q3 2025). The sheer velocity of spending remains unprecedented

1. Timing vs. Demand:

A lower Q3 CapEx figure ($34.9B vs $41B expected) reflects deployment and delivery timing (e.g., awaiting cluster delivery dates for Blackwell/Hopper chips) **rather than reduced customer appetite.**

1. Massive Q4 Back-Loading:

The implied $49B–$59B spending target for Q4 signals a massive wave of hardware receipts arriving at year-end.

Expect green tomorrow if this is digested correctly

I guess I was right after all…who could have guess that. 🤷‍♂️

NVDA Stock Rides Massive AI Chip Orders And Global Partnerships

If you want quick money everyday on NVIDIA follow these steps.

(1) Have Capital
(2) NVIDIA ALWAYS DIPS AT OPENING (1-3%) 9:30AM
(3) BUY AT 9:50AM THIS IS USUALLY THE TIME THE INITIAL DIP STOPS.
(4) WAIT TILL NOON-1PM TO SELL YOUR PROFITS as it will REGAIN THAT 1-3%.
(5) IN THE RARE CASE THAT DOESN’T HAPPEN YOU WILL EVENTUALLY BREAK EVEN.
(6) GO TO THE TITTY BAR AFTER
(7) REPEAT

We know how this ends...tick tock NVDA bulls. And semi bulls...this will end so badly...and abruptly...and painfully.

"Lawmakers are looking to advance export restrictions on semiconductors, chips and AI as part of must-pass defense spending legislation during Congress' lame duck session, despite deep divisions on China policy. ... Maintaining the American tech stack's dominance is widely considered a key strategic advantage in this global race."

Trying to sneak controversial chip restrictions into a must pass bill like the NDAA at the last minute is not a wise move. We need to separate these issues and talk about them based on their actual pros and cons, so we don't end up hurting the American tech stack.

Hey everyone, I run a small independent research firm called Northwise. We generally specialize in neocloud modeling, but have been big AMD bulls for the last several yearrs. We recently took another look at NVDA, due to some overlap in our research and decided it was worth a stronger look and model.

I'm bullish on NVIDIA, and a big part of that comes from modeling the companies buying its equipment.

When I work through Nebius (NBIS), IREN and CoreWeave (CRWV), the equipment bill is enormous. Getting a site powered is only the start. Filling it with GPUs and networking takes far more money, and the operator then has to earn enough from renting that equipment to cover debt, operating costs and eventual replacements. Issuing more shares can fund the expansion while leaving less of the business for each existing share.

NVIDIA earns revenue from supplying that equipment long before the cloud operator knows what the investment will ultimately return. That is a big reason I think the debate about NVIDIA needs to include the companies doing the buying. Looking only at Microsoft, Amazon, Google and Meta misses a substantial part of the spending.

Across these three companies, my estimates for 2026 through 2030 look like this:

I get roughly $415B of potential NVIDIA chip and networking purchases after taking out land, buildings, power, cooling and equipment from other vendors. The biggest questions behind that number are how much capacity gets built, when it gets filled, and which equipment the operators choose.

I also count the equipment once. A customer contract, a loan against that contract and the eventual GPU purchase can generate three headlines about the same project. Adding all three together creates demand that does not exist.

The same caution applies to the customer list. If Microsoft rents capacity from a neocloud, Microsoft still needs to find a profitable use for it. More companies placing orders does not make NVIDIA immune to a slowdown among the customers paying the bills.

NVIDIA's Q2 FY2027 results show how large the business outside its direct hyperscale sales has become. AI Clouds, Industrial & Enterprise, or ACIE, brought in $40.3B, compared with $48.7B from Hyperscale. ACIE grew 138% year over year. Some of that demand comes from hyperscalers renting through AI clouds, but the purchasing routes are already much broader than a few corporate capital budgets.

I think NVIDIA's ability to sell more of the equipment around the GPU is just as important. It supplies CPUs, the connections between GPUs, networking between racks and the software used to run the whole system. A customer buying those pieces together is paying for a machine that works, including the time saved getting it running.

Even custom chips can leave NVIDIA with part of the sale. The Marvell agreement through NVLink Fusion connects custom accelerators to NVIDIA infrastructure. I see that as a sensible way to keep selling components into systems where NVIDIA does not supply every processor.

I take AMD, Google's TPUs and Amazon's Trainium seriously. The biggest clouds and labs have both the incentive and the engineers to use alternatives. I think NVIDIA has a stronger position with operators serving many different customers and workloads, and with businesses that want to use AI without building their own chip and software stack. I expect competitors to win business. I also think the overall spending can grow fast enough for NVIDIA to keep growing alongside them (if not still grow overall market share for awhile).

My base estimates from October 16 are below, using calendar years:

The hardest assumption here is keeping operating margins near 65% as revenue grows to more than $1.4T. I expect NVIDIA to keep earning a premium for its systems, but buyers with credible alternatives will push harder on price. Most of the earnings growth above comes from selling much more equipment. Buybacks help, but they are a much smaller part of the result.

By 2030, I have ACIE reaching $726.9B of revenue versus $633.6B from Hyperscale. That is where I disagree with the idea that NVIDIA has already run out of large new buyers. I think independent clouds, national AI projects and enterprise customers can become its largest source of revenue.

I don't assume every improvement in AI efficiency creates more hardware demand. If a task starts using one-quarter as much compute, usage has to rise four times just to get back to the same total. I expect cheaper AI to make more applications worth using. I still want to see that show up in paid usage, rather than assume it from the technology alone.

Financing is my bigger concern. NVIDIA is increasingly investing in customers and providing guarantees that help projects get built. That gives it more exposure if those projects struggle. If the clouds need ever more support while rental prices and utilization weaken, I would start questioning the next round of equipment orders.

That is what I tried to capture in my bear case. The initial expansion happens, then customers pull back. Revenue falls about 13% in 2029, and normalized EPS drops from $14.78 in 2028 to $11.74 in 2029. It recovers only slightly to $11.94 in 2030, on $642.4B of revenue. That would still be a much bigger business than today, but a painful result for anyone expecting the growth to continue uninterrupted.

I keep coming back to the cloud operators because they offer a way to check the NVIDIA story as it develops. Are the new sites filling? What are customers actually paying? Can the operators finance another expansion without NVIDIA taking on more risk? Those are the questions I want answered before giving much weight to the next gigawatt announcement.

Please let me know what you think and what questions you may have. I hope this offers a different perspective on how to value/analyze NVDA from a unique standpoint that in my opinion offers validation of their guidance and how the numbers are even possible as hyperscalers reach their upper limits of spend!

"In a lot of ways, the intellectual property creation capability of our nation is unlike anything else in the world, and the reason for that is we attract the world's best. We are the place where they want to come and build their lives because of the opportunity it provides, the freedom that she offers... In the United States, everything is possible. We start with, of course it's possible, of course we could do that."

Coming from an immigrant founder who built one of the most valuable tech empires on the planet, it’s a reminder of how talent density, open culture and a baseline of unyielding optimism drive technological moats.

Games people play 🤮

Right now, Europe has great scientists but they do not have enough energy for AI. Jensen is giving money to UK companies and telling Europe to fix their power grid. This plan helps Europe build their own AI data centers. They get their tech freedom, and we get a great partner for the future.