🔍 Read the full analysis: Why AI Pays Off In Tech But Rarely Elsewhere, An Economist Says on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get business pricing on monitors, keyboards and dev gear
- Business-only prices and quantity discounts
- Tax-exempt purchasing
- Multiple users, one account, clear invoices
TL;DR
Apollo economist Torsten Slok says aggregate measures show revenue per worker and profit margins rising among seven major technology companies but flat among the other 493 S&P 500 firms. The finding is not proof that AI has produced no benefits anywhere outside tech: company-level gains vary, productivity data have not yet shown a broad lift, and the spending required to build AI infrastructure is growing.
Apollo Global Management chief economist Torsten Slok said in an October 24 research note that available aggregate data show no visible financial payoff from AI outside the technology sector, even as companies commit enormous sums to computing infrastructure. The finding describes broad trends, not proof that no individual non-tech business has benefited.
Apollo’s charts compare the Magnificent Seven—Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta, Microsoft, Nvidia and Tesla—with the other 493 S&P 500 companies. Apollo’s reading puts revenue per worker for the seven at about $780,000 in the third quarter of 2026, while the other companies were around $525,000 and had remained in a similar range since 2021. The seven’s profit margins were near 30%, compared with roughly 10% for the rest. These figures show a widening difference between groups; they do not establish that AI alone caused it.
The note also points to San Francisco Federal Reserve measures of productivity, which Apollo said show no sign yet of AI lifting productivity growth. Separate data from Ramp, a corporate spending platform, suggest AI purchases are concentrated: its top 10% of business customers accounted for 99.5% of model-serving and inference spending, 99% of neocloud spending and 95.6% of spending on OpenAI and Anthropic. Those figures describe Ramp’s customers, not the full S&P 500.
The investment burden is visible in company disclosures. Meta reported $34.91 billion in capital expenditures in the third quarter and said it expects $135 billion to $145 billion in capital spending in 2026. Its filing listed about $355.73 billion in leases not yet started and $454.52 billion in non-cancelable contractual commitments, mainly for cloud capacity, servers and network equipment, as well as up to $14.72 billion in contingent cloud purchases. Together, the amounts approach $825 billion; they span future years and are not all exclusively AI-related.
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 Spending and Returns
The data point to a widening question for investors and business leaders: who is capturing value from AI, and when might wider gains appear? Technology firms are investing in chips, data centers and cloud capacity at a scale that makes the eventual returns consequential for their cash flow and financing. If customers outside the technology sector do not use AI to raise output or revenue, infrastructure providers may face pressure to justify continued spending.
But Apollo’s aggregate comparison should not be read as a verdict on every company or use case. A flat average can conceal firms that gained and firms that did not, and the figures cannot isolate AI from other influences such as labor costs, interest rates or trade policy. Slok’s “zero” is an interpretation of broad financial indicators, not a direct measurement showing that AI generated no value in every non-tech business.
There are examples of gains in specific workflows. The source material cites studies reporting 14% more customer-support issues resolved per hour, rising to 34% for novice workers, and retail sales results ranging from no increase to 16.3%, depending on the process tested. Such findings suggest that results can depend on how a tool is deployed. They do not establish economy-wide returns.
Products Worth Considering
Sonos Era 100 Wireless Smart Speaker, Black
Amazon Kindle Paperwhite Signature Edition (12th Generation, 2024), 32 GB, Metallic Black
Logitech MX Mechanical Wireless Illuminated Keyboard, Tactile Quiet, Graphite
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
What Apollo’s Charts Measure
Apollo’s October 24 note, titled “No Signs of AI Payoff Outside the Tech Sector,” was reported by outlets including TechCrunch, PYMNTS and Bloomberg on October 25. It brings together comparisons of revenue per worker and margins, productivity indicators, and spending data. The measures answer different questions: company financial results track broad business performance, while productivity statistics aim to capture output relative to inputs across the economy.
That distinction matters because a change in corporate margins cannot by itself identify the contribution of AI. Nor does a lack of movement in economy-wide productivity prove that no business or worker has benefited. The source material also cites a survey of nearly 9,000 executives in which 83% reported no productivity impact so far, with average reported productivity effects of 0.2% a year. These are reported survey results, not a universal measure of every firm’s experience.
At the same time, the infrastructure buildout is moving ahead. Meta’s third-quarter revenue was $64.60 billion, up 26%, while its operating cash flow was $32.79 billion and free cash flow was negative $2.12 billion, compared with positive $10.6 billion a year earlier. A separate headline figure cited in the source material says SpaceX borrowed $40 billion to buy AI chips. These examples show the scale of financing involved, but spending and borrowing are not evidence that the investment will earn a profit.
“Artificial intelligence has delivered zero financial payoff to corporate America outside of tech.”
— Torsten Slok, Apollo chief economist, in the October 24 Daily Spark note
What the Aggregate Data Cannot Show
The Apollo comparison does not isolate the effect of AI from other business conditions, and it does not reveal how gains and losses are distributed among the 493 companies. The Ramp spending figures represent Ramp’s own customer base, not all US businesses. The source material also does not provide a direct, company-by-company accounting of AI investment against resulting revenue or cost savings.
It remains unclear how much of Meta’s listed commitments will ultimately be used, how much relates specifically to AI rather than other infrastructure or products, and what returns the spending will produce. The commitments extend over multiple years and include items such as Reality Labs hardware. Reported productivity effects from individual experiments also cannot establish what will happen across the wider economy.
Evidence to Watch in Company Results
The next evidence will come from company filings and productivity measures showing whether the infrastructure spending begins to translate into higher output, revenue or margins beyond technology suppliers. Investors will also watch how Meta and other large technology companies fund their planned capital expenditures, and whether cloud and AI providers can attract customers at prices that support returns.
For businesses considering AI, the key test is likely to remain specific to each workflow: whether a tool improves a measurable task enough to outweigh its costs. Apollo’s note sets out the current aggregate picture, but it does not settle how quickly—or how widely—such gains may emerge.
Key Questions
What does Apollo mean by “zero financial payoff”?
Economist Torsten Slok uses the phrase for a lack of visible broad financial gains outside technology in the indicators Apollo examined. It is an interpretation of aggregate data, not proof that no non-tech company or team has benefited from AI.
Which companies did Apollo compare?
Apollo compared the Magnificent Seven—Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta, Microsoft, Nvidia and Tesla—with the other 493 companies in the S&P 500. Its charts showed higher revenue per worker and profit margins for the seven, while the other group was broadly flat in the measures cited.
Does the note show that AI caused the performance gap?
No. The comparison shows different trends between the two groups but does not separate AI’s effects from other factors, such as labor costs, interest rates or trade policy.
How large are Meta’s reported future commitments?
Meta’s filing lists about $355.73 billion in leases not yet started, $454.52 billion in non-cancelable commitments and up to $14.72 billion in contingent cloud purchases. The combined figure is about $825 billion, extends across future years and is not entirely specific to AI.
Are there reported examples of AI improving business results?
Yes. The source material cites customer-support studies reporting 14% more issues resolved per hour, with a 34% gain for novice workers, and retail experiments with sales effects ranging from zero to 16.3%, depending on the workflow. These specific results do not establish broad economy-wide productivity growth.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
