Is Nvidia's Artificial Intelligence (AI) Business Recession-Resistant?
Nvidia (NASDAQ: NVDA) held its GPU Technology Conference (GTC) 2025 last month in San Jose, California. The artificial intelligence (AI) chip leader's annual happening is widely considered the world's leading AI event.
I watched CEO Jensen Huang's two-hour keynote address in real time, caught a couple of his interviews, and viewed several panel discussions about AI and humanoid robots. Great information was shared during all these events, particularly Huang's keynote. It was chock-full of promising new product launches and partnerships, reinforcing my bullish view of Nvidia stock as a long-term investment.
Where to invest $1,000 right now? Our analyst team just revealed what they believe are the 10 best stocks to buy right now. Learn More »
But there was one incredibly bullish thing he said during GTC week that most investors probably aren't aware of. It wasn't uttered during his keynote or an interview, but at the GTC Financial Analyst Q&A on March 19.
Is Nvidia's AI business better than "just" recession-resistant?
A Wall Street analyst asked this question at the Q&A event: "If there's a recession, what does that do to your business? To AI demand?"
Huang's answer: "If there's a recession, I think that the companies that are working on AI are going to shift even more investment toward AI because it's the fastest growing [area/space]. Every CEO will know to shift toward what is growing."
I think a reasonable interpretation of his answer is that he's suggesting a recession should increase, or at least not decrease, demand for the company's AI -enabling products. Those products, collectively, garnered at least 87% of the company's total revenue in its most recent quarter, which ended in late January. (The data center segment's products are essentially all AI-enabling, and this segment took in about 87% of the company's revenue in the most recent quarter.)
Huang's answer might seem counterintuitive, but it makes sense upon reflection. CEOs, especially in certain industries, realize that AI investments are now so critical that they are a necessity. Innovations in AI are occuring so rapidly that companies that cut back on AI investments even for a relatively brief time will likely fall behind their competitors in AI capabilities. This could lead to an existential crisis from which they might not ever recover.
Let's say that Apple decided to cut back on its AI investments during the next economic downturn or full-fledged recession. It could risk potentially permanently losing some of its iPhone customers to competitors, namely makers of cellphones that use Alphabet 's Android operating system. That would be a risky move, since the iPhone is its bread-and-butter product.
As Palantir CEO Alex Karp bluntly put it in the AI-powered data analytics company's third-quarter 2024 earnings release, "The world will be divided between AI haves and have-nots." Indeed, it seems probable that the AI haves, which could be companies or countries, will be winners, and the AI have-nots will be losers.
Nvidia is built to weather tough times
Data by YCharts. Data as of each company's most recently reported quarter. Free cash flow numbers are for the trailing-12-month period.
What if Huang's statement proves inaccurate and demand for AI-enabling products and services -- including Nvidia's -- decreases during the next economic downturn or recession?
Investors should fear not, as Nvidia's balance sheet is hardy. The company is in a better position than most of its peers and competitors to weather a downturn in demand leading to lower revenue, earnings, and cash flows.
As the chart shows, Nvidia's cash position and long-term debt are roughly equal at about $8.5 billion to $8.6 billion. Chipmaker Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) has more cash than long-term debt, so it's also in good shape in this respect. But chipmakers Broadcom and Intel have much more long-term debt than they have cash, so they're using a lot of cash to service their debt. This is an OK situation for Broadcom because it has strong cash flows, at least currently, but Intel is bleeding cash. Over the last year, Intel's free cash flow (FCF) was negative-$15.7 billion, almost double its cash on hand.
Nvidia is an FCF machine. Over the past year, it churned out $60.9 billion in FCF. It could easily use its cash flow to pay down, or even fully pay off, its long-term debt. But it makes sense that it doesn't do so. The company's big cash position coupled with its massive FCF provides it with many options for investing in long-term growth initiatives.
Should you invest $1,000 in Nvidia right now?
Before you buy stock in Nvidia, consider this:
The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Nvidia wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.
Consider when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $578,035!*
Stock Advisor provides investors with an easy-to-follow blueprint for success, including guidance on building a portfolio, regular updates from analysts, and two new stock picks each month. The Stock Advisor service has more than quadrupled the return of S&P 500 since 2002*. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor.
See the 10 stocks »
*Stock Advisor returns as of April 5, 2025
Suzanne Frey, an executive at Alphabet, is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. Beth McKenna has positions in Nvidia. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Advanced Micro Devices, Alphabet, Apple, Intel, Nvidia, and Palantir Technologies. The Motley Fool recommends Broadcom and recommends the following options: short May 2025 $30 calls on Intel. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Toronto Sun
an hour ago
- Toronto Sun
Global streamers fight CRTC's rule requiring them to fund Canadian content
Published Jun 08, 2025 • 4 minute read Fans are reflected in a Disney+ logo during the Walt Disney D23 Expo in Anaheim, Calif., Sept. 9, 2022. Photo by PATRICK T. FALLON / AFP / FILES / Getty Images OTTAWA — Some of the world's biggest streaming companies will argue in court on Monday that they shouldn't have to make CRTC-ordered financial contributions to Canadian content and news. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Don't have an account? Create Account The companies are fighting an order from the federal broadcast regulator that says they must pay five per cent of their annual Canadian revenues to funds devoted to producing Canadian content, including local TV news. The case, which consolidates several appeals by streamers, will be heard by the Federal Court of Appeal in Toronto. Apple, Amazon and Spotify are fighting the CRTC's 2024 order. Motion Picture Association-Canada, which represents such companies as Netflix and Paramount, is challenging a section of the CRTC's order requiring them to contribute to local news. In December, the court put a pause on the payments _ estimated to be at least $1.25 million annually per company. Amazon, Apple and Spotify had argued that if they made the payments and then won the appeal and overturned the CRTC order, they wouldn't be able to recover the money. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. In court documents, the streamers put forward a long list of arguments on why they shouldn't have to pay, including technical points regarding the CRTC's powers under the Broadcasting Act. Spotify argued that the contribution requirement amounts to a tax, which the CRTC doesn't have the authority to impose. The music streamer also took issue with the CRTC requiring the payments without first deciding how it will define Canadian content. Amazon argued the federal cabinet specified the CRTC's requirements have to be 'equitable.' It said the contribution requirement is 'inequitable because it applies only to foreign online undertakings and only to such undertakings with more than $25 million in annual Canadian broadcasting revenues.' Your noon-hour look at what's happening in Toronto and beyond. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. Please try again This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Apple also said the regulator 'acted prematurely' and argued the CRTC didn't consider whether the order was 'equitable.' It pointed out Apple is required to contribute five per cent, while radio stations must only pay 0.5 per cent — and streamers don't have the same access to the funds into which they pay. The CRTC imposes different rules on Canadian content contributions from traditional media players. It requires large English-language broadcasters to contribute 30 per cent of revenues to Canadian programming. Motion Picture Association_Canada is only challenging one aspect of the CRTC's order — the part requiring companies to contribute 1.5 per cent of revenues to a fund for local news on independent TV stations. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. It said in court documents that none of the streamers 'has any connection to news production' and argued the CRTC doesn't have the authority to require them to fund news. 'What the CRTC did, erroneously, is purport to justify the … contribution simply on the basis that local news is important and local news operations provided by independent television stations are short of money,' it said. 'That is a reason why news should be funded by someone, but is devoid of any analysis, legal or factual, as to why it is equitable for foreign online undertakings to fund Canadian news production.' In its response, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters said the CRTC has wide authority under the Broadcasting Act. It argued streamers have contributed to the funding crisis facing local news. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. 'While the industry was once dominated by traditional television and radio services, those services are now in decline, as Canadians increasingly turn to online streaming services,' the broadcasters said. 'For decades, traditional broadcasting undertakings have supported the production of Canadian content through a complex array of CRTC-directed measures … By contrast, online undertakings have not been required to provide any financial support to the Canadian broadcasting system, despite operating here for well over a decade.' A submission from the federal government in defence of the CRTC argued the regulator was within its rights to order the payments. 'The orders challenged in these proceedings … are a valid exercise of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission's regulatory powers. These orders seek to remedy the inequity that has resulted from the ascendance of online streaming giants like the Appellants,' the office of the attorney general said. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. 'Online undertakings have greatly profited from their access to Canadian audiences, without any corresponding obligation to make meaningful contributions supporting Canadian programming and creators — an obligation that has long been imposed on traditional domestic broadcasters.' The government said that if the streamers get their way, that would preserve 'an inequitable circumstance in which domestic broadcasters — operating in an industry under economic strain _ shoulder a disproportionate regulatory burden.' 'This result would be plainly out of step with the policy aims of Parliament' and cabinet, it added. The court hearing comes as trade tensions between the U.S. and Canada have cast a shadow over the CRTC's attempts to regulate online streamers. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. The regulator launched a suite of proceedings and hearings as part of its implementation of the Online Streaming Act, legislation that in 2023 updated the Broadcasting Act to set up the CRTC to regulate streaming companies. In January, as U.S. President Donald Trump was inaugurated for his second term, groups representing U.S. businesses and big tech companies warned the CRTC that its efforts to modernize Canadian content rules could worsen trade relations and lead to retaliation. Then, as the CRTC launched its hearing on modernizing the definition of Canadian content in May, Netflix, Paramount and Apple cancelled their individual appearances. While the companies didn't provide a reason, the move came shortly after Trump threatened to impose a tariff of up to 100 per cent on movies made outside the United States. Foreign streamers have long pointed to their existing spending in Canada in response to calls to bring them into the regulated system. Read More Sports Sunshine Girls Sunshine Girls Columnists World
Vancouver Sun
an hour ago
- Vancouver Sun
Apple, Amazon and Spotify challenging CRTC's Canadian content rules in court this week
Some of the world's biggest streaming companies will argue in court on Monday that they shouldn't have to make CRTC-ordered financial contributions to Canadian content and news. The companies are fighting an order from the federal broadcast regulator that says they must pay five per cent of their annual Canadian revenues to funds devoted to producing Canadian content, including local TV news. The case, which consolidates several appeals by streamers, will be heard by the Federal Court of Appeal in Toronto. Start your day with a roundup of B.C.-focused news and opinion. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. The next issue of Sunrise will soon be in your inbox. Please try again Interested in more newsletters? Browse here. Apple, Amazon and Spotify are fighting the CRTC's 2024 order. Motion Picture Association-Canada, which represents such companies as Netflix and Paramount, is challenging a section of the CRTC's order requiring them to contribute to local news. In December, the court put a pause on the payments — estimated to be at least $1.25 million annually per company. Amazon, Apple and Spotify had argued that if they made the payments and then won the appeal and overturned the CRTC order, they wouldn't be able to recover the money. In court documents, the streamers put forward a long list of arguments on why they shouldn't have to pay, including technical points regarding the CRTC's powers under the Broadcasting Act. Spotify argued that the contribution requirement amounts to a tax, which the CRTC doesn't have the authority to impose. The music streamer also took issue with the CRTC requiring the payments without first deciding how it will define Canadian content. Amazon argued the federal cabinet specified the CRTC's requirements have to be 'equitable.' It said the contribution requirement is 'inequitable because it applies only to foreign online undertakings and only to such undertakings with more than $25 million in annual Canadian broadcasting revenues.' Apple also said the regulator 'acted prematurely' and argued the CRTC didn't consider whether the order was 'equitable.' It pointed out Apple is required to contribute five per cent, while radio stations must only pay 0.5 per cent — and streamers don't have the same access to the funds into which they pay. The CRTC imposes different rules on Canadian content contributions from traditional media players. It requires large English-language broadcasters to contribute 30 per cent of revenues to Canadian programming. Motion Picture Association-Canada is only challenging one aspect of the CRTC's order — the part requiring companies to contribute 1.5 per cent of revenues to a fund for local news on independent TV stations. It said in court documents that none of the streamers 'has any connection to news production' and argued the CRTC doesn't have the authority to require them to fund news. 'What the CRTC did, erroneously, is purport to justify the … contribution simply on the basis that local news is important and local news operations provided by independent television stations are short of money,' it said. 'That is a reason why news should be funded by someone, but is devoid of any analysis, legal or factual, as to why it is equitable for foreign online undertakings to fund Canadian news production.' In its response, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters said the CRTC has wide authority under the Broadcasting Act. It argued streamers have contributed to the funding crisis facing local news. 'While the industry was once dominated by traditional television and radio services, those services are now in decline, as Canadians increasingly turn to online streaming services,' the broadcasters said. 'For decades, traditional broadcasting undertakings have supported the production of Canadian content through a complex array of CRTC-directed measures … By contrast, online undertakings have not been required to provide any financial support to the Canadian broadcasting system, despite operating here for well over a decade.' A submission from the federal government in defence of the CRTC argued the regulator was within its rights to order the payments. 'The orders challenged in these proceedings … are a valid exercise of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission's regulatory powers. These orders seek to remedy the inequity that has resulted from the ascendance of online streaming giants like the Appellants,' the office of the attorney general said. 'Online undertakings have greatly profited from their access to Canadian audiences, without any corresponding obligation to make meaningful contributions supporting Canadian programming and creators — an obligation that has long been imposed on traditional domestic broadcasters.' The government said that if the streamers get their way, that would preserve 'an inequitable circumstance in which domestic broadcasters — operating in an industry under economic strain — shoulder a disproportionate regulatory burden.' 'This result would be plainly out of step with the policy aims of Parliament' and cabinet, it added. The court hearing comes as trade tensions between the U.S. and Canada have cast a shadow over the CRTC's attempts to regulate online streamers. The regulator launched a suite of proceedings and hearings as part of its implementation of the Online Streaming Act, legislation that in 2023 updated the Broadcasting Act to set up the CRTC to regulate streaming companies. In January, as U.S. President Donald Trump was inaugurated for his second term, groups representing U.S. businesses and big tech companies warned the CRTC that its efforts to modernize Canadian content rules could worsen trade relations and lead to retaliation. Then, as the CRTC launched its hearing on modernizing the definition of Canadian content in May, Netflix, Paramount and Apple cancelled their individual appearances. While the companies didn't provide a reason, the move came shortly after Trump threatened to impose a tariff of up to 100 per cent on movies made outside the United States. Foreign streamers have long pointed to their existing spending in Canada in response to calls to bring them into the regulated system. Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here .
Edmonton Journal
an hour ago
- Edmonton Journal
Apple, Amazon and Spotify challenging CRTC's Canadian content rules in court this week
Article content Spotify argued that the contribution requirement amounts to a tax, which the CRTC doesn't have the authority to impose. The music streamer also took issue with the CRTC requiring the payments without first deciding how it will define Canadian content. Amazon argued the federal cabinet specified the CRTC's requirements have to be 'equitable.' It said the contribution requirement is 'inequitable because it applies only to foreign online undertakings and only to such undertakings with more than $25 million in annual Canadian broadcasting revenues.' Apple also said the regulator 'acted prematurely' and argued the CRTC didn't consider whether the order was 'equitable.' It pointed out Apple is required to contribute five per cent, while radio stations must only pay 0.5 per cent — and streamers don't have the same access to the funds into which they pay.
