Some Thoughts on Nvidia (NVDA) Earnings & Cash Flow Variance

We hosted Siblings Thanksgiving tonight because visit different extended family on the actual day. I had a blast, ate great food, and didn’t think about NVDA once.

Then everyone left, I opened Twitter, and BAM … it’s NVDA earnings everywhere. I can’t scroll more than one thumb length without seeing something about NVDA’s earnings report. The Qs are up, of course. Maybe I get stopped out on my short overnight, we’ll see.

Before I continue, I want to mention that I don’t care about NVDA at all. I’ve spent the past two years diving deep into the metals and mining space. I am the farthest thing from an NVDA/chips/AI/data center expert.

But I do care about cash flows, accounting, and learning why not all growth is cash flow positive (read: shareholder accretive).

In 2020, I wrote a two-part series called Cash Flow: It’s All That Matters (read part 1 and 2). The series explored the Georgia Institute of Technology’s famous (and invaluable) paper Cash Flow Analysis
Modified UCA Cash Flow Format
.

In part 1, I argued that we should focus more on the cash flow statement and less on the income statement. And by going through each case study, we could spot the differences a cash flow approach can make on analyzing a business’ true cash-generating capabilities.

In part 2, I introduced two key frameworks from the paper: Operating Cushion and Core Operating Growth Profile.

Operating Cushion is the percentage difference between your Gross Margin % and your SG&A %. In English, it’s the contribution of a $1 increase in revenues to operating profits. Core Operating Growth Profile is then the Operating Cushion less Working Capital Requirements (represented as a % of revenue).

I won’t rehash the details here. Just go read parts 1 and 2 and come back.

Here’s how all of this relates to NVDA’s latest earnings. After everyone left, I opened my phone to this tweet.

It has 1K+ likes, ~400K impressions, and hundreds of comments confirming or denying whichever NVDA bias you entered the tweet with.

I love this tweet. Not because I 100% agree with it or because I’m an NVDA bear (I’ve already told you I don’t care, remember). But because it offers me a chance to put my Cash Flow Variance Analysis to work!

NVDA’s Q3 2025 Cash Flow Variance Analysis (QoQ)

Normally I’d perform CFV Analysis on a YoY basis, but it still works with @JG_Nuke’s QoQ timeframe.

The first step in CFV Analysis is to calculate Operating Cushion (see below).

That’s a fantastic operating cushion margin. In fact, we could stop there and declare, “Of course NVDA is worth two Canadas, one Brazil, and three Kim Kardashian startups combined!”

But that’s not the entire picture. We need to transform Operating Cushion % into Core Operating Growth Profile (or COPG).

This is where @JG_Nuke gets all hot and bothered because we account for things like A/R, A/P, and inventory growth (or shrinkage). We’re measuring two things here:

  1. Rate of change in absolute dollar values.
  2. Rate of change on a “Days” basis.

Check out the Balance Sheet/Working Capital data below.

There’s the $5.58B increase in AR from the viral tweet. But wait, we also see a reduction in Days Receivables from 217 to 214. Granted, a 3 day reduction from 217 days is still not good! But it at least provides a more complete picture than simply stating “AR up $5.58B = bad.”

We can break down the $5.58B AR cash outflow impact into two categories:

  1. Cash Impact from Revenue Growth
  2. Cash Impact from Days Receivable Change

Here are the results.

The ~3 day reduction in AR saved $522M, but NVDA’s revenue growth still resulted in a $6B negative cash impact (i.e., cash outflow).

We run the same exercise for inventory and AP (see below).

Inventory saw negative cash impacts from revenue growth and increased Days Inventory, fueling more flames on the “NVDA is channel stuffing” theory.

The final step is turning all the working capital measurements into percentages of revenue, which I’ve done below. Now we have our Core Operating Growth Profile Margin %. This tells us how much cash a company will keep (or lose) for every $1 of incremental revenue growth.

This is where things get interesting. Sure, the company has a 71% operating cushion. But that cushion is more than 100% consumed by its working capital requirements, leaving no room for cash generation.

Putting It All Together: Total Cash Impact of Growth + Change

The final step in our Cash Flow Variance Analysis is analyzing the Total Cash Impact of Growth and Change. In other words, what levers drove the greatest positive/negative cash impact?

There are two main buckets: Profitability Measures and Operating Efficiency. Both of which bifurcate into two more buckets: Growth and Change (or delta).

Here are the Profitability Measures.

Growth generated $7.2B in positive cash impact and Change generated $798M in positive cash impact. All good things!

But remember, the balance sheet is where things get rough. Check out the Operating Efficiency Metrics.

Growth resulted in a -$7.4B cash impact with -$9.3B in AR and inventory, offset by ~$2B in AP growth. NVDA picked up $522M in cash impact from reducing AR days, but that was more than offset by the increase in Inventory Days of $1.54B and a reduction in days payable for -$2.4B.

Putting this all together and you get the Total Cash Impact of Growth + Change on a QoQ basis (see below).

In other words, working capital matters.

Here’s another way to put it. NVDA grew revenues by $10.26B but consumed $2.9B to do it.

The Lesson: Apply Cash Flow Variance Analysis

The takeaway isn’t to short, sell, buy or do anything with NVDA. I don’t care about the stock, and it will probably rip tomorrow.

The goal is to show you how to use Cash Flow Variance Analysis to determine how much cash a rapidly growing company consumes (or generates) via it’s growth.

Maybe this is part of NVDA’s end game … sell enough chips, build enough inventory, give their customers longer credit, in hopes that they dominate their market and use their leadership position to slowly become a cash cow that actually generates cash as it grows, albeit more slowly.

High-growth companies need cash, and there’s often a long period of working capital investment required to satisfy those growth objectives. Just be careful if that growth keeps sucking cash out of the business. Companies are like hot air balloons and cash is like oxygen. Run out of oxygen and you can’t keep the fire burning to keep the balloon flying.

I hope you guys enjoyed this piece.

Related Posts

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Brandon Beylo

Value Investor

Brandon has been a professional investor focusing on value for over 13 years, spending his time in small to micro-cap companies, spin-offs, SPACs, and deep value liquidation situations. Over time, he’s developed a deeper understanding for what deep-value investing actually means, and refined his philosophy to include any business trading at a wild discount to what he thinks its worth in 3-5 years.

Brandon has a tenacious passion for investing, broad-based learning, and business. He previously worked for several leading investment firms before joining the team at Macro Ops. He lives by the famous Munger mantra of trying to get a little smarter each day.

AK

Investing & Personal Finance

AK is the founder of Macro Ops and the host of Fallible.

He started out in corporate economics for a Fortune 50 company before moving to a long/short equity investment firm.

With Macro Ops focused primarily on institutional clients, AK moved to servicing new investors just starting their journey. He takes the professional research and education produced at Macro Ops and breaks it down for beginners. The goal is to help clients find the best solution for their investing needs through effective education.

Tyler Kling

Volatility & Options Trader

Former trade desk manager at $100+ million family office where he oversaw multiple traders and helped develop cutting edge quantitative strategies in the derivatives market.

He worked as a consultant to the family office’s in-house fund of funds in the areas of portfolio manager evaluation and capital allocation.

Certified in Quantitative Finance from the Fitch Learning Center in London, England where he studied under famous quants such as Paul Wilmott.

Alex Barrow

Macro Trader

Founder and head macro trader at Macro Ops. Alex joined the US Marine Corps on his 18th birthday just one month after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. He subsequently spent a decade in the military. Serving in various capacities from scout sniper to interrogator and counterintelligence specialist. Following his military service, he worked as a contract intelligence professional for a number of US agencies (from the DIA to FBI) with a focus on counterintelligence and terrorist financing. He also spent time consulting for a tech company that specialized in building analytic software for finance and intelligence analysis.

After leaving the field of intelligence he went to work at a global macro hedge fund. He’s been professionally involved in markets since 2005, has consulted with a number of the leading names in the hedge fund space, and now manages his own family office while running Macro Ops. He’s published over 300 white papers on complex financial and macroeconomic topics, writes regularly about investment/market trends, and frequently speaks at conferences on trading and investing.

Macro Ops is a market research firm geared toward professional and experienced retail traders and investors. Macro Ops’ research has been featured in Forbes, Marketwatch, Business Insider, and Real Vision as well as a number of other leading publications.

You can find out more about Alex on his LinkedIn account here and also find him on Twitter where he frequently shares his market research.