AkhenOsiris
$GOOGL $META OpenAI
Evercore's Mahaney tonight on OpenAI ads opportunity:
Advertising could become a $25 billion business for OpenAI — and pose a threat to Google, according to new estimates on Monday.
Mahaney sees the startup generating that level of annual ad revenue by 2030 if it executes well on rolling out this new business.
"A path to generating several billion dollars in ad revenue in 2026, going to $25B+ by 2030, seems reasonable," Mahaney wrote in a note to investors.
"That's based on the likely scale of ChatGPT by that time, the proven monetization of high-intent performance marketing platforms, and the current size of this market"
Mahaney noted that Google's Search and YouTube businesses likely generated close to $300 billion in ad revenue in 2025, with Meta generating an additional $180 billion. These are highly profitable operations, with operating profit margins of 40%.
OpenAI has said that initial test ads will appear at the bottom of ChatGPT answers and be relevant to the user's conversation with the chatbot. That approach might not be too intrusive for users, while still being attractive to advertisers, Mahaney said.
"OpenAI's move directly challenges this core revenue stream by offering an alternative, highly engaging platform for users to discover products and services," Mahaney wrote. "If ChatGPT can successfully integrate ads that are helpful rather than intrusive, it could siphon off valuable commercial queries that traditionally go to Google."
The analyst also warned that if OpenAI can develop a "conversational" ad format, where users research and discuss potential purchases within ChatGPT, that could prompt advertisers to shift some of their marketing budgets because this is "high-intent engagement."
tweet
$GOOGL $META OpenAI
Evercore's Mahaney tonight on OpenAI ads opportunity:
Advertising could become a $25 billion business for OpenAI — and pose a threat to Google, according to new estimates on Monday.
Mahaney sees the startup generating that level of annual ad revenue by 2030 if it executes well on rolling out this new business.
"A path to generating several billion dollars in ad revenue in 2026, going to $25B+ by 2030, seems reasonable," Mahaney wrote in a note to investors.
"That's based on the likely scale of ChatGPT by that time, the proven monetization of high-intent performance marketing platforms, and the current size of this market"
Mahaney noted that Google's Search and YouTube businesses likely generated close to $300 billion in ad revenue in 2025, with Meta generating an additional $180 billion. These are highly profitable operations, with operating profit margins of 40%.
OpenAI has said that initial test ads will appear at the bottom of ChatGPT answers and be relevant to the user's conversation with the chatbot. That approach might not be too intrusive for users, while still being attractive to advertisers, Mahaney said.
"OpenAI's move directly challenges this core revenue stream by offering an alternative, highly engaging platform for users to discover products and services," Mahaney wrote. "If ChatGPT can successfully integrate ads that are helpful rather than intrusive, it could siphon off valuable commercial queries that traditionally go to Google."
The analyst also warned that if OpenAI can develop a "conversational" ad format, where users research and discuss potential purchases within ChatGPT, that could prompt advertisers to shift some of their marketing budgets because this is "high-intent engagement."
tweet
Offshore
Photo
memenodes
You start earning and finally understand why dad never spent on himself https://t.co/AgwaVSbPLL
tweet
You start earning and finally understand why dad never spent on himself https://t.co/AgwaVSbPLL
tweet
Offshore
Video
Brady Long
When the summon button says “just one more”
but your screen says “we're at war with Greenland”
tweet
When the summon button says “just one more”
but your screen says “we're at war with Greenland”
Something new is coming to Gambo 👀
Asset Management + Multi-Frame Generation (testing)
Built internally by a non-game-dev.
From scratch — to a game at this level.
More to share soon. Stay tuned! https://t.co/ydo8qp99J7 tweet
Offshore
Video
Brady Long
Now that AI can make full games with literally 1-2 prompts I feel 99% of game creators will go out of business but the top 1% will be more valuable than ever.
tweet
Now that AI can make full games with literally 1-2 prompts I feel 99% of game creators will go out of business but the top 1% will be more valuable than ever.
Something new is coming to Gambo 👀
Asset Management + Multi-Frame Generation (testing)
Built internally by a non-game-dev.
From scratch — to a game at this level.
More to share soon. Stay tuned! https://t.co/ydo8qp99J7 tweet
Offshore
Photo
Dimitry Nakhla | Babylon Capital®
RT @kevg1412: Chris Hohn on why investing in the long term is a real advantage, and actually a "free lunch"
"They say there's no free lunch in finance, but actually, I do think long termism in a great company is a free lunch, because if you look at any sell side model, they'll go out three years, or two years.
Why? Because that's the time horizon of the typical buy side investor--one or two years. But what if it can keep being good for 30 years? Then you're completely undervaluing that company.
And people don't look at it because there are--most companies, 95%, are mediocre or bad companies."
tweet
RT @kevg1412: Chris Hohn on why investing in the long term is a real advantage, and actually a "free lunch"
"They say there's no free lunch in finance, but actually, I do think long termism in a great company is a free lunch, because if you look at any sell side model, they'll go out three years, or two years.
Why? Because that's the time horizon of the typical buy side investor--one or two years. But what if it can keep being good for 30 years? Then you're completely undervaluing that company.
And people don't look at it because there are--most companies, 95%, are mediocre or bad companies."
tweet
Offshore
Photo
Offshore
Photo
Dimitry Nakhla | Babylon Capital®
There’s a powerful investing lesson here — and both Chris Hohn and Dev Kantesaria point to it.
As @kevg1412 quoted Hohn:
“They say there’s no free lunch in finance, but … 𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐦 𝐢𝐧 𝐚 𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐟𝐫𝐞𝐞 𝐥𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐡 … 𝐢𝐟 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐥𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐚𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐥 𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐥, 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲’𝐥𝐥 𝐠𝐨 𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐞 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬, 𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐰𝐨 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 … 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭’𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐡𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐳𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐲𝐩𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐛𝐮𝐲 𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫—𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐰𝐨 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬. But what if it can keep being good for 30 years? Then you’re completely undervaluing that company.”
In a similar light, on The Investor’s Podcast (TIP 680), Dev Kantesaria said:
“Getting worked up over whether a stock trades at 26 or 29 times earnings is far less important than making sure you own the right business... 𝐈𝐟 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐨𝐫𝐠𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐜 𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐰𝐭𝐡 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐜 𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐮𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐢𝐝-𝐭𝐨-𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡 𝐭𝐞𝐞𝐧𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐚 𝒅𝒆𝒄𝒂𝒅𝒆, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐜𝐤 𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐦𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐩𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐚𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐭 𝐬𝐞𝐞𝐦𝐬, regardless of the entry multiple.”
When two of some of the world’s best hedge fund investors of our generation are essentially making the same point, it’s not something to dismiss.
𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦:
𝐌𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐬 (𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐦𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐥𝐬) 𝐝𝐫𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐰𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞 — 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐚𝐝𝐯𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞.
They obsess over near-term multiples, near-term catalysts, and short-term outcomes…
…When the quiet advantage is owning businesses that can compound earnings and free cash flow over long stretches of time — powered by pricing power and enduring competitive strengths.
𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦’𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘰𝘥𝘢𝘺:
With infinite information, constant updates, and dopamine-driven markets, 𝐝𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐝 𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 — 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐰𝐡𝐲 𝐢𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬, 𝐚𝐬 𝐇𝐨𝐡𝐧 𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬, 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐞𝐝𝐠𝐞𝐬 𝐚 𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐠-𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐦 𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞.
Most people can’t hold through boredom, drawdowns, or “dead money” periods—which is exactly why patient, long-term investors are still rewarded.
tweet
There’s a powerful investing lesson here — and both Chris Hohn and Dev Kantesaria point to it.
As @kevg1412 quoted Hohn:
“They say there’s no free lunch in finance, but … 𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐦 𝐢𝐧 𝐚 𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐟𝐫𝐞𝐞 𝐥𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐡 … 𝐢𝐟 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐥𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐚𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐥 𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐥, 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲’𝐥𝐥 𝐠𝐨 𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐞 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬, 𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐰𝐨 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 … 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭’𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐡𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐳𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐲𝐩𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐛𝐮𝐲 𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫—𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐰𝐨 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬. But what if it can keep being good for 30 years? Then you’re completely undervaluing that company.”
In a similar light, on The Investor’s Podcast (TIP 680), Dev Kantesaria said:
“Getting worked up over whether a stock trades at 26 or 29 times earnings is far less important than making sure you own the right business... 𝐈𝐟 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐨𝐫𝐠𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐜 𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐰𝐭𝐡 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐜 𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐮𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐢𝐝-𝐭𝐨-𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡 𝐭𝐞𝐞𝐧𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐚 𝒅𝒆𝒄𝒂𝒅𝒆, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐜𝐤 𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐦𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐩𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐚𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐭 𝐬𝐞𝐞𝐦𝐬, regardless of the entry multiple.”
When two of some of the world’s best hedge fund investors of our generation are essentially making the same point, it’s not something to dismiss.
𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦:
𝐌𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐬 (𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐦𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐥𝐬) 𝐝𝐫𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐰𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞 — 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐚𝐝𝐯𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞.
They obsess over near-term multiples, near-term catalysts, and short-term outcomes…
…When the quiet advantage is owning businesses that can compound earnings and free cash flow over long stretches of time — powered by pricing power and enduring competitive strengths.
𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦’𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘰𝘥𝘢𝘺:
With infinite information, constant updates, and dopamine-driven markets, 𝐝𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐝 𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 — 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐰𝐡𝐲 𝐢𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬, 𝐚𝐬 𝐇𝐨𝐡𝐧 𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬, 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐞𝐝𝐠𝐞𝐬 𝐚 𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐠-𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐦 𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞.
Most people can’t hold through boredom, drawdowns, or “dead money” periods—which is exactly why patient, long-term investors are still rewarded.
Chris Hohn on why investing in the long term is a real advantage, and actually a "free lunch"
"They say there's no free lunch in finance, but actually, I do think long termism in a great company is a free lunch, because if you look at any sell side model, they'll go out three years, or two years.
Why? Because that's the time horizon of the typical buy side investor--one or two years. But what if it can keep being good for 30 years? Then you're completely undervaluing that company.
And people don't look at it because there are--most companies, 95%, are mediocre or bad companies." tweet