The Big Short Duo, Now on Opposite Sides
When two legends from "The Big Short" disagree about something, people tend to pay attention. Steve Eisman and Michael Burry both made fortunes betting against the housing market before the 2008 crisis, but now they're split on whether Big Tech's AI boom is built on questionable accounting.
Speaking on The Real Eisman Playbook podcast recently, Eisman addressed Burry's latest moves—short positions against AI darlings like Palantir Technologies Inc. (PLTR) and Nvidia Corp. (NVDA). Burry's argument centers on depreciation schedules, specifically how companies are spreading out the cost of their AI infrastructure over longer periods.
The Depreciation Debate
"Burry is arguing that the hyperscalers are artificially inflating their earnings simply by changing their depreciation schedules," Eisman explained. Burry's calculations suggest that Meta Platforms Inc. (META) and Oracle Corp. (ORCL) could overstate their earnings by 26.9% and 20.8% respectively by 2028 if these accounting changes continue.
Here's the thing: Eisman doesn't dispute the math. He just thinks it's beside the point. "I just don't think his concerns matter that much," he said bluntly.
His reasoning? The depreciation timeline isn't what determines whether these AI investments are actually worthwhile. Whether you write off that server farm over three years or five years doesn't change whether it generates real value.
What Actually Matters
Eisman cuts to what he sees as the core issue: "The big question as to AI spending is what kind of returns and cost savings these massive investments will or won't bring. That is the key question and we won't know the answer for a while."
In other words, focus on substance over accounting mechanics. Tech companies are pouring billions into AI infrastructure. The question isn't how they're depreciating those assets on paper—it's whether those investments will actually deliver productivity gains, cost reductions, or new revenue streams.
Burry's Next Chapter
The timing of this debate is particularly interesting given recent developments in Burry's career. Reports emerged last week that he's shutting down Scion Asset Management, his hedge fund, after telling investors he hasn't been "in sync with the markets" amid what he sees as runaway valuations and irrational exuberance.
But Burry isn't disappearing. On his X account, he's teased something new launching November 25, cryptically noting he's moving "on to much better things." Whatever comes next, it's clear he remains convinced that current market dynamics are unsustainable.
The disagreement between Eisman and Burry highlights a fundamental tension in how to think about the AI investment wave. Are we looking at accounting gimmicks masking overvaluation, or is the focus on depreciation schedules a distraction from the real question of whether AI delivers actual economic value? Time will tell who's reading the room correctly this time around.