🔍 Read the full analysis: What An Economist Sees In The Numbers On AI And Industry on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Prime made for students and young adults
- Fast, free delivery for dorm and study essentials
- Prime Video and Amazon Music included
- Member-only deals
TL;DR
Apollo chief economist Torsten Slok says aggregate measures show rising revenue per worker and margins at seven major technology companies, but little movement among the other 493 S&P 500 firms. That finding does not prove AI has produced no gains: productivity data have not yet shown a broad lift, while specific customer-support and retail studies report benefits in some workflows. Meanwhile, infrastructure spending and financing commitments are growing, with the full returns still uncertain.
Apollo chief economist Torsten Slok says recent company and productivity data show no visible broad financial payoff from AI outside major technology firms, even as businesses commit vast sums to computing infrastructure. His October 24 note compares the seven largest technology companies with the other 493 S&P 500 firms; it describes an aggregate pattern, not proof that AI has generated no gains at individual companies.
Apollo’s charts show revenue per worker and profit margins rising among the Magnificent Seven—Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta, Microsoft, Nvidia and Tesla—while the measures for the other 493 S&P 500 companies have been broadly flat. Apollo’s chart places the seven near $780,000 in inflation-adjusted revenue per employee in the third quarter of 2026, compared with about $525,000 for the other firms. The seven’s margins are around 30%, against roughly 10% for the rest, according to the note.
The note also points to San Francisco Federal Reserve productivity measures, which Apollo says show no signs yet of AI boosting productivity growth. Separate spending data from Ramp, a corporate-card and spending platform with more than 85,000 U.S. business customers, indicate that AI-related purchases are concentrated: the top 10% of firms account for 99.5% of spending on model serving and inference. Those figures describe Ramp customers, not all U.S. companies.
Slok’s assessment arrives amid expanding infrastructure bills. Meta reported $34.91 billion in capital expenditures in the third quarter and narrowed its 2026 spending outlook to $135 billion to $145 billion. Its quarterly free cash flow was negative $2.12 billion, compared with positive $10.6 billion a year earlier. A filing listed about $825 billion in future commitments, including leases and contractual obligations for data centers, cloud capacity, servers and network equipment. The total includes items not all attributable to AI.
Infographic 01 · The “zero” in numbers
What “zero financial payoff” actually measures.
Apollo’s headline rests on five charts. Here are their numbers, and what they can and cannot prove.
Who pays for AI? Share of spending by the top 10% of firms
Ramp customer data via Apollo · non-AI categories in grey for comparison
Spending is concentrated in every category, not only AI; AI is the most extreme.
What the five charts do and do not show
shown not shown
- Shown: revenue per worker and margins rising for the 7 tech giants, flat for the other 493
- Shown: no AI lift yet in US productivity statistics (San Francisco Fed TFP, output per hour)
- Shown: AI spending sits in few, mostly venture-funded firms (Ramp, 85,000+ US businesses)
- Not shown: that AI caused the gap; rates, tariffs and wages move the same lines
- Not shown: gains inside single functions, which can cancel out in an average
- Not shown: the S&P 493 itself in the Ramp data; those are Ramp’s customers
“The AI story will be decided in the S&P 493, not the Mag 7.”Torsten Slok, Apollo chief economist, 24 Oct 2026 (opinion)
Sources: Apollo Daily Spark (24 Oct 2026) with charts by Bloomberg, Macrobond, SF Fed, BLS and Ramp; Apollo (20 Oct 2026); Ramp AI Index. Values with ≈ are read off Apollo’s charts. Assessment: Thorsten Meyer.
Powered by Thorsten Meyer AI
The Gap Between AI Costs and Returns
The figures highlight a central business question: can companies turn AI infrastructure spending into durable productivity, revenue or profit gains? Large technology providers are recording strong revenue per worker and margins, but those measures do not establish that AI caused the difference. For companies outside the sector, flat aggregate measures make it harder to identify a broad return so far.
The distinction matters to investors and business leaders weighing further spending. Infrastructure commitments can extend for years, while revenue gains may depend on whether firms redesign work around AI rather than simply add tools. The available data do not settle that question. They do show that the costs are measurable now, while economy-wide benefits remain difficult to detect in standard measures.
There are signs of gains in particular tasks. The source material cites research reporting a 14% increase in issues resolved per hour in customer support, rising to 34% for novice workers, and retail experiments ranging from no sales increase to a 16.3% gain depending on the workflow. These findings suggest outcomes can vary by task; they do not establish a comparable return across entire companies.
AI workstation desktop computer with NVIDIA GPU
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
What Apollo’s Figures Measure
Apollo’s October 24 “Daily Spark” note, titled “No Signs of AI Payoff Outside the Tech Sector,” builds its argument from five charts. It compares the Magnificent Seven with the other S&P 500 companies on revenue per worker and margins, examines productivity measures, and uses Ramp data to show how AI spending is distributed. Slok’s conclusion is that mainstream companies are beginning to treat token spending as a cost that can weigh on margins rather than as a clear source of growth.
The note’s headline wording is stronger than what an aggregate comparison can establish. A flat average across 493 firms may conceal companies that gained or lost, and the figures cannot isolate AI’s effect from other factors such as labor costs, interest rates or tariffs. “No visible payoff in aggregate” is a narrower reading than saying no company outside technology has benefited.
The spending picture is also broader than one quarter’s capital expenditure. Meta’s October 22 filing included about $355.73 billion in leases not yet started and $454.52 billion in non-cancelable contractual commitments, with up to $14.72 billion in contingent cloud purchases. The commitments run across multiple years, and some relate to activities beyond AI. Forecasts for spending by major cloud and technology companies are projections, not booked commitments.
“No Signs of AI Payoff Outside the Tech Sector”
— Torsten Slok, Apollo chief economist, in the October 24 Daily Spark note
What the Aggregate Data Cannot Show
The measures do not establish how much AI caused any observed change in revenue, margins or productivity. The comparison groups differ in many ways, and the figures may mask gains at some companies and losses at others. Ramp’s customer spending patterns cannot be assumed to represent the wider economy.
It is also unclear when AI benefits, if they materialize, will appear in official productivity data or corporate results. The source material cites a survey in which 83% of nearly 9,000 executives reported no productivity impact so far, with an average estimated impact of 0.2% a year. The survey’s timing and methods are not specified in the material, so those figures should not be treated as a definitive economy-wide estimate.
Meta’s commitments do not equal cash already spent, and the company’s reported total includes non-AI activity. The scale and timing of future spending, its financing costs and the returns it will produce remain uncertain. Evidence of improvements in particular support or retail workflows does not resolve whether those improvements will outweigh costs across whole businesses.
Evidence to Watch in Coming Results
The next evidence will come from company filings, capital-spending updates and productivity data. Investors and businesses will be watching whether firms outside the largest technology companies report stronger output or profits linked to AI, rather than only higher spending on computing capacity.
Meta’s future reports should clarify how its spending outlook and commitments develop, while the broader technology sector’s disclosures will show whether planned infrastructure investment continues to rise. For now, Apollo’s conclusion is an assessment of current aggregate indicators; later data may change the picture, but the available material does not establish when or whether a broad payoff will appear.
Key Questions
What does Apollo mean by “zero financial payoff”?
It is Slok’s characterization of aggregate trends: revenue per worker and margins rose for the seven major technology companies but were broadly flat for the other 493 S&P 500 firms. The comparison does not prove that no individual company outside technology has benefited from AI.
Does the productivity data prove AI has had no effect?
No. Apollo says the cited productivity measures show no broad AI-driven increase yet. Those measures may not capture every task-level gain, and the source material does not establish how much of any change is caused by AI.
What is included in Meta’s roughly $825 billion in commitments?
The total combines leases not yet started, contractual commitments and possible cloud-capacity purchases. It includes spending on data centers, servers, cloud and network capacity, and not all of it is specific to AI. It is a future-commitments figure, not cash already spent.
Are there measured examples of AI benefits?
The source material cites customer-support research showing 14% more issues resolved per hour, with a larger reported gain for novice workers, and retail experiments with results from no sales increase to a 16.3% increase depending on the workflow. These examples do not establish economy-wide returns.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Halloween Picks
halloween
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
