저자: JimCramer · 외국인
요약 보기
파라마운트-스카이댄스 합병을 두고 Cramer는 높은 부채와 시너지 달성 가능성에 회의적이며, 전통 미디어의 이자비용 부담이 큰 문제라고 봄. 반면 AI 인프라 수요는 GDP와 무관한 구조적 성장이며 엔비디아 칩 가격이 더 높아질 것이라고 언급. 자막 기준 Cramer 발언은 주로 합병 분석이며 종목 가격 방향 예측은 명시적으로 드러나지 않음. 영상 내 해설자(Narration)가 엔비디아 등 AI 인프라에 대한 강세 견해를 제시.
다듬은 글
Good Thursday morning. Welcome to Squawk on the Street. With you, Carl Quintanilla and Jim Cramer on the ninth post of the New York Stock Exchange. David will join us in a moment. Just finished an exclusive interview with David Ellison of Skydance and Inon Kryze about now, Jim, the real hard work begins.
Your thoughts? I knew Inon very well at Mattel and before Mattel, and I think he will find a way to cut costs. It was mentioned , David said that he fired a lot of people. His transition to a minimal asset model at Mattel was brilliant, and I insist it saved the company. The company had too much debt and too much production capacity.
Listen, these guys, both David and Inon, all they talk about is growth, growth, growth. The sad thing is that we know from our industry that this is not growth. Perhaps the portfolio that David Zaslav brought in had more growth than many others, and David built a pretty good company. He said it cost 28, they overpaid, but only by a couple of units.
It's about debts. These are debts, and I don't like that debt servicing is very expensive, especially when you compare it to the debts they're putting into AI or AI chips. We'll talk about that in a minute. Yes, he can just say, "Listen, a debt is a debt." But this is not the case, because there is a lot of belief that the amount of funds raised for data centers will be much higher, since video chips are much more expensive.
We can talk about the Australian IPO, which may not be going very well, but what's important to me is what I don't see, and David, I think, was very accurate about that. I don't see any way in the first few years to pay down the debt as they would like, or even cover the interest, but David, you were very insightful about that being the main problem.
They wanted to come back with growth. Great interview. They wanted to come back with growth, growth, growth, and you came back with discipline, discipline, and maybe sometimes they overlapped and sometimes they did n't. No, I mean the key for them will be whether they can achieve the goals they're talking about and whether Inon Kreutz can realize those synergies, which will obviously be an important part of the process.
But I want to say, we've already mentioned that they're starting out as a company with a very high level of debt load. They have an ambitious schedule, as well as growth and deleveraging goals . True. And it will be interesting to watch this. And you know, when you listen to Ellison talk about the asset portfolio, it's really impressive.
And it is very wide. Er, 12% of TV viewing, which is interesting during the regulatory approval process. You think, "Oh, there's such huge competition here." And now it's about: " Look at our scale." That's right. But this, of course, also emphasizes the role of YouTube, which is a real beast, a real giant.
And we've watched this happen over the last 5-10 years. Well , it continues to be , and growth there is what everyone in the media industry would like. I liked the concept: traditional Hollywood , a bit lazy, allowed technology to come in, combining it with the power of Silicon Valley. And whether this is really a new model, we don't know for sure yet.
But I think Ellison put it well, and even though I've heard him discuss it before, it sounded , uh, quite aggressive and, in a way, inspiring. It makes you say, "Hey, wait, he's coming at this from a different angle." And those who support him have been talking about it from the very beginning. And now we just have to wait.
I, I wanted to, uh, when I went into the interview, say, "You know, this traditional media model, obviously, nobody likes it." We are stuck in it ourselves. This is not where you want to be. You want to be where there is growth. You want to say, "I came back and declared that this is no longer traditional media." They have a real chance here.
However, I'm still skeptical because they still mentioned the CBS nighttime network after all. They were still talking about the NFL, and that's expensive. And I don't want to depend on the NFL if I don't have cash flow." Yes, I didn't bring up the NFL topic in terms of whether they really have to, uh, you're already kicking yourself for this interview.
I always do that. Every time. You never manage to do them, you never manage to do them correctly or perfectly. Yes. Ahem. Jim, you seem to be thinking more about the external environment, the competition for capital, rather than what's going on inside that building. So this type of company correlates with the regular debt markets, correlates with what Michelle Gass is doing at Levi Strauss, even though she would say, " Look, I just lost the market and didn't do everything right." We'll talk about it.
This correlates with what Ramon Laguarta does, with the world he is in. Whereas the world of AI is not correlated. That doesn't mean it can't become too expensive. People get this confused all the time. I'm saying it doesn't correlate with GDP. These guys recently entered the corporate bond market for a huge amount of money, just as SpaceX, Broadcom, and many others will do, fueling a completely different correlation.
No, they, they, they, they don't correlate. You know, you mentioned the course. That is, I don't need to go to the market . Yes, you remembered how Ellison talked about technological change. Listen to what he had to say. media and radically destroyed the business. Yes. Companies were unable to orient themselves quickly enough.
We can talk a lot about the entrepreneurial culture of Silicon Valley owner- operators compared to the culture of Hollywood, which, frankly, has put businesses in this position. This transaction is a solution to those mistakes from a decade ago . Very interesting, and said it very clearly. Uh, and of course they are the controlling, he is the controlling shareholder.
This is a very similar model to some of the giants in Silicon Valley, which, like Meta, have one person running them, who is also the controlling shareholder. Do you think it's quite surprising how Enon moved from Mattel to this new company so quickly? That is, when Yes. Uh, and we see it. So she's the one I saw go from Gap to Nike.
That is, there is just this jump, jump, jump. I mean, Enon, the last time I talked to him, we were talking about Hot Wheels. very quickly. Yes, it was very, very fast. Very quickly. Well, we had a transition from [ __ ] DB to Meta, right? From Mattel to Skydance. We'll talk about this more. You mentioned today that Athleta's product director is moving to Lulu.
There are a lot of transitions happening. Yeah, and I just feel like I see these things happening at such a speed, I mean, I've been talking to people about contracts. What about contracts? Breach of contracts. This can all be arranged . Contracts. I mean, look at that person with, uh... Jim Cramer just spent the morning dissecting the Skydance and Paramount deal, talking about debt levels, synergies, whether they overpaid, and he's right about all of it.
Debt is cruel . Synergy is aggressive. Interest costs will become a real problem. But here's what really caught my attention in this interview. Something he said in passing, that no one pays attention to. Cramer said something like that the amount of money raised for data centers could have been much higher because Nvidia chips were much more expensive.
And then he went back to talking about Paramount's debt, effectively dismissing the most important takeaway of the entire segment. Think about what he just said. Nvidia chips. Data center infrastructure. The value is completely detached from traditional media. Cramer said that the world of AI does not correlate with GDP.
SpaceX is raising money. Broadcom is raising money. They enter the corporate bond markets and play a completely different game. That's the story, Kramer hit the mark and then moved on. That's what the split is. Traditional media companies like Paramount are drowning in debt as they try to acquire outdated assets.
This debt is destroying them. Revenue is being cut by a billion dollars a year. It's like bailing water out of a sinking boat. On the other hand, you have AI infrastructure companies that are raising capital at an unprecedented rate because they are building something that has truly unlimited demand.
Nvidia makes chips. Data center providers are building capacity. Companies are raising billions to deploy AI infrastructure, and capital is flowing because investors see the prospects. The AI market is not yet mature. TAM ( total market size) is expanding. Demand is accelerating. Cramer even mentioned that these companies are not correlated with GDP.
They exist in their own universe. This is actually the most bullish statement you can make about the AI infrastructure space right now. The economy may slow down. GDP may decline. Unemployment could skyrocket. But for Nvidia, this won't matter, because structural demand for computing is independent of macroeconomic cycles.
This is why SpaceX can raise money at a valuation of $180 billion. This is why Broadcom is growing . This is why Nvidia is still up 70%. But Kramer sits there, dissecting Paramount's debt load, and misses the point. The real leverage is not in the debts of media companies . The real leverage is in the capital markets of AI infrastructure.
Companies are using Nvidia chips as collateral. They finance data centers with the support of Nvidia. The entire ecosystem is financed through access to computing power. That's why when Cramer says Nvidia chips cost a lot more, he's effectively describing the entire AI boom in one sentence . These chips are more expensive.
Not because of a temporary surge, but because the demand is structural. Every company building AI infrastructure needs them. Every country that seeks to be competitive needs them. Every hyperscaler allocates their own capital to get more of them. The difference between the problem of traditional media and the opportunity of AI is this.
Paramount is trying to raise debt to buy declining assets. Skydance is trying to use financial machinations to save them, but it's like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Cable TV loses $1.5 billion in revenue per year. No amount of financial fraud will save you from this. But AI infrastructure—you're not trying to save something that's falling apart.
You are building something that didn't exist 5 years ago and that will dominate the next decade . That's why capital flows freely. That's why Nvidia shares are constantly finding support. That's why valuations seem expensive until you realize that the perspective is decades, not quarters. Kramer aptly noted the point.
The world of AI is in a completely different capital reality than everything else. Nvidia chips are more expensive. The economics of data centers are limitless, but he moved on too quickly . Here is a story that matters . This is where capital flows. This is why Nvidia keeps winning.
Comments 0