OpenAI Audited Financial Report: $38.5 Billion Loss in 2025, $19.2 Billion Burned on R&D, Microsoft Takes $17.2 Billion in a Year

marsbitPublicado a 2026-06-17Actualizado a 2026-06-17

Resumen

OpenAI's audited financials reveal staggering losses. In 2025, the company reported a net loss attributable to OpenAI of $38.53 billion, a dramatic increase from a $5.1 billion loss in 2024. While revenue grew from $3.7 billion in 2024 to $13.07 billion in 2025, costs skyrocketed to $34 billion. A massive $41.55 billion loss from the fair value change of convertible equity and warrant liabilities, tied to its shift to a for-profit structure, significantly contributed to the 2025 result. Research and development spending reached $19.18 billion in 2025. The filings also show OpenAI paid Microsoft approximately $17.2 billion in 2025 for services, including $10.59 billion categorized under "research and development," likely for model training costs. Other major payments included $867 million from SoftBank and $303 million from Microsoft to OpenAI. The report raises serious concerns about the AI company's path to sustainability and profitability, highlighting financial figures far exceeding external expectations.

Author: Ed Zitron

Compiled by: Deep Tide TechFlow

Deep Tide Introduction: OpenAI's audited financial report has been exposed for the first time, revealing losses far exceeding external expectations. The loss soared from $5.1 billion the previous year to $38.5 billion in 2025, with R&D expenditure as high as $19.2 billion, while Microsoft received $17.2 billion in fees from OpenAI in a single year. How far is this AI star company, valued at hundreds of billions, from achieving profitability?

Today, I can exclusively report, based on audited financial documents reviewed by this publication (independently verified by the Financial Times), that OpenAI lost approximately $38.5 billion in 2025, along with other key details about the company's financial condition.

Given the seriousness of this report, I will not comment extensively, as the numbers speak for themselves.

OpenAI Lost $5.1 Billion in 2024

2024 – OpenAI revenue was $3.7 billion, costs and expenses were $12.4 billion, and the net loss attributable to the company was $5.1 billion.

OpenAI's financial statements tell the story of a company with staggering losses.

Revenue: $3.7 billion

Cost of Revenue: $2.65 billion

Research and Development: $7.81 billion

Sales and Marketing: $1.11 billion

General and Administrative: $907 million

Total Costs and Expenses: $12.48 billion

Operating Loss: $8.78 billion

Other factors including interest income and interest expense brought its net loss to $8.84 billion. It then marked $3.74 billion of the loss as "Net loss attributable to noncontrolling member capital," making the net loss attributable to the company $5.1 billion.

It is currently unclear what this means or how OpenAI adjusted to remove $3.74 billion in costs. I will not speculate further.

OpenAI Lost $38.5 Billion in 2025

2025 – OpenAI revenue was $13.07 billion, costs and expenses were $34 billion, the loss was $20.92 billion, and the net loss attributable to the company was $38.53 billion.

Revenue: $13.07 billion

Cost of Revenue: $7.5 billion

Research and Development: $19.18 billion

Sales and Marketing: $5.73 billion

General and Administrative: $1.57 billion

Total Costs and Expenses: $34 billion

Operating Loss: $20.92 billion

Note that 2025 was the year OpenAI transitioned from a non-profit to a for-profit entity, resulting in a $41.55 billion loss due to changes in the fair value of convertible equity and warrant liabilities.

Considering other minor factors such as interest income and interest expense, OpenAI's net loss was $60.35 billion. This was reduced to $38.53 billion by removing $17.87 billion via "Net loss attributable to noncontrolling member capital" and an additional $395 million via "Net loss attributable to redeemable noncontrolling interests."

Ultimately, the net loss attributable to OpenAI in 2025 was $38.5 billion.

At year-end, OpenAI had assets just over $50 billion, nearly half of which was cash.

SoftBank Paid OpenAI $867 Million, Microsoft Paid $303 Million in 2025

In 2025, SoftBank paid OpenAI $867 million. Microsoft paid $303 million.

The documents disclose how much OpenAI paid Microsoft in service fees. In the 2025 calendar year, OpenAI paid Microsoft $10.59 billion for "research and development" expenses. We believe this likely refers to the costs of training OpenAI models.

The documents also mention a $6.047 billion fee related to "cost of revenue," $527 million in sales and marketing expenses, and $42 million in "general and administrative expenses." In total, OpenAI's payments to Microsoft amounted to $17.2 billion.

According to the data, at the end of the calendar year, OpenAI had liabilities to Microsoft of $3.64 billion, plus another $21 million in "accrued expenses and other current liabilities." The documents also mention an additional $58 million in non-current liabilities.

Follow-up Note

I intend to follow up on this story next month with a more in-depth report related to these documents. The documents are quite detailed, and I need time to fully parse them. You will know once it's done.

OpenAI's financial condition is deeply concerning. A loss of $38.53 billion is an astronomical figure, far higher than most anticipated. The losses also appear to be growing at an alarming rate year over year. I am unsure how this company finds a path to any form of sustainability or profitability.

As mentioned, I have not commented much today. I believe the best thing I can do for the public is to deliver this news as concisely as possible.

Preguntas relacionadas

QAccording to the article, what were the major cost drivers for OpenAI's massive losses in 2025?

AThe major cost drivers for OpenAI's massive $38.5 billion loss in 2025 were Research & Development (R&D) expenses at $19.18 billion and a significant payment to Microsoft of $17.2 billion. The R&D itself was heavily comprised of a $10.59 billion payment to Microsoft for R&D costs, likely for model training.

QHow much did Microsoft receive from OpenAI in 2025 according to the audited financials, and what was the primary purpose of this payment?

AIn 2025, Microsoft received a total of $17.2 billion from OpenAI. The primary purpose of the payment was for services, with the largest component being $10.59 billion designated for "research and development" fees, which the article suggests likely refers to the costs of training OpenAI's AI models.

QWhat financial impact did OpenAI's transition to a for-profit entity have on its 2025 losses?

AOpenAI's transition to a for-profit entity in 2025 led to a significant accounting loss of $41.55 billion due to "changes in the fair value of convertible equity and warrant liabilities." This non-cash charge was a major contributor to the company's reported net loss.

QWhat was OpenAI's revenue in 2024 and 2025, and how did its losses change between these years?

AOpenAI's revenue was $3.7 billion in 2024 and $13.07 billion in 2025. Despite this revenue growth, its net loss (attributable to the company) increased dramatically from $5.1 billion in 2024 to $38.53 billion in 2025.

QWho were the other major disclosed payors to OpenAI in 2025 besides Microsoft, and what was the amount?

ABesides Microsoft, the other major disclosed payor to OpenAI in 2025 was SoftBank, which paid $867 million. Microsoft was also listed as a payor with a payment of $303 million, separate from the massive $17.2 billion in service fees.

Lecturas Relacionadas

From Gold to Bitcoin: Fixed Supply + Institutional Frenzy, Might It Repeat the 'Explosive' Price Trend?

"From Gold to Bitcoin: Fixed Supply and Institutional Frenzy May Lead to 'Explosive' Price Rally Analysts suggest Bitcoin's price action could mirror gold's over the past two decades, following the launch of spot Bitcoin ETFs. Gold ETFs, introduced in 2004, drove gold's price surge to a current market cap near $28 trillion. Both gold and Bitcoin are non-yielding stores of value, with prices driven purely by investor sentiment rather than cash flows or credit. Gold ETFs experienced dramatic cycles: explosive growth, painful drawdowns, and slow recoveries, with each cycle reaching higher peaks. Bitcoin ETFs, approved in early 2024, saw rapid institutional adoption but are now facing similar volatility. Recent warnings highlight the risk of significant ETF outflows disrupting the current rebound. BlackRock's IBIT, a leading Bitcoin ETF, has sold nearly 100,000 BTC to meet redemptions while still holding over 733,000. The core parallel is fixed supply: when demand surges, prices explode, but demand is often volatile and wave-like, not steady. Institutional interest, through ETFs and corporate adoption, remains a key support pillar, helping to cushion sell-offs. If Bitcoin captures even a fraction of gold's role as a store of value, its upside potential is immense, though the path will be marked by high volatility. For investors, focusing on long-term trends and managing risk is crucial as this 'price explosion' narrative unfolds."

Foresight NewsHace 2 min(s)

From Gold to Bitcoin: Fixed Supply + Institutional Frenzy, Might It Repeat the 'Explosive' Price Trend?

Foresight NewsHace 2 min(s)

Why Is AI Agent Shopping Hard to Popularize?

The article argues that the popular narrative of "AI agent shopping" – equipping AI with a wallet to autonomously handle purchases – is fundamentally flawed and oversimplifies the complexity of shopping. It deconstructs shopping into two core actions: **information retrieval** (standardized, easily automated) and **value judgment** (deeply subjective and human-centric). The narrative mistakenly assumes AI can fully handle both. Value judgment itself has two layers: **evaluation** (assessing options against criteria) and **demand definition** (setting the criteria, weights, and values). The latter is inherently human and dynamic, as preferences are not fixed but constructed during the decision-making process ("constructive preferences"). The real dividing line for automation is not product standardization, but whether the **act of choosing** itself holds experiential value. For mundane purchases (e.g., printer paper), full AI delegation works. For experiential goods (e.g., wine, furniture), the joy of selection is core to consumption, so AI should act as an assistant that narrows options, leaving the final choice to humans. The "AI wallet" concept confuses three separate elements: decision-making, execution, and fund custody. Current payment industry solutions (e.g., from Stripe, Mastercard, Google, Visa) show that limited, scoped payment authorization tokens are sufficient for most consumer scenarios, not full fund custody. The true use case for autonomous AI wallets is in **B2B procurement** and **machine-to-machine (M2M) settlements** for standardized, high-frequency, low-value transactions. The real bottlenecks for AI shopping are not payment technology, but **1) the lack of trusted data sources** (e.g., fake reviews, counterfeit goods) and **2) the impossibility of automating human demand definition**. The conclusion is that the focus should be on safely automating the assessment and filtering process while reserving for humans the rights to define their criteria and enjoy the final act of choice. For experiential goods, the platform's competitive advantage shifts to providing a superior selection experience.

Foresight NewsHace 59 min(s)

Why Is AI Agent Shopping Hard to Popularize?

Foresight NewsHace 59 min(s)

After Nine Months of Shorting, a Full Turn to Long: Renowned Trader Opens Bitcoin Positions Around 64K, Crypto Market Long-Short Divergence Intensifies

After nine months of being short, prominent crypto trader Doctor Profit has closed all his bearish positions and started buying Bitcoin near $64,000, signaling a complete bullish reversal. He argues that structural market changes—such as impending U.S. regulation (CLARITY Act) and institutional adoption via securities tokenization—are rewriting the traditional four-year cycle script, potentially bringing the market bottom forward from the widely expected September/October timeframe. This view finds some technical support from on-chain analyst gumsays, who notes a bullish divergence on Bitcoin's weekly chart has persisted for 147 days, nearing the 161-day duration seen before the 2022 cycle low. However, cycle researcher Jake Pahor presents a counter-argument based on historical data. Analyzing patterns since 2014, he identifies three common features of past bear market bottoms: a ~12-month duration from peak to trough, a sustained period of extreme fear (with a proprietary risk score below 20), and the price falling below Bitcoin's realized price (~$53,000 currently). The current cycle, only nine months from its October 2025 peak, meets none of these conditions. The debate highlights a market torn between "front-running" a potential early bottom driven by new fundamentals and waiting for confirmation through traditional on-chain and sentiment metrics. While Doctor Profit opts for aggressive buying, Pahor maintains a disciplined, tiered accumulation strategy, continuing weekly buys at current risk levels but reserving larger orders for if more extreme fear emerges.

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

After Nine Months of Shorting, a Full Turn to Long: Renowned Trader Opens Bitcoin Positions Around 64K, Crypto Market Long-Short Divergence Intensifies

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

Senior Trader's Confession: How to Trade Market's False Expectations?

Veteran trader's case study: trading the market's "wrong expectations". This trade centered on a textbook "expectation error" after a weak CPI report. While the market initially priced in broad monetary easing (sending Nasdaq to 30,060), the crucial 30-year real yield hit a 20-year high. This signaled a fractured transmission mechanism: short-term rates eased, but long-term funding costs (vital for tech valuations) refused to fall. The trader executed five short positions on the Nasdaq (NQ) as it fell from 30,060 to 28,768. The core methodology: don't just trade the data, but analyze the market's implied causal chain and identify where it breaks. In this case, the chain was: Weak CPI → Policy Easing → Lower Long-Term Funding Costs → NQ Valuation Expansion. The break occurred between policy easing and long-term rates. The "veto variable" – long-term real yields – refused to confirm the bullish narrative. Trades were structured around "fast variables" (price) temporarily repairing while "slow variables" (funding conditions) remained broken. The article outlines a repeatable framework: 1) Map the market's implied causal chain. 2) Identify the veto variable. 3) Observe if it rejects the narrative. 4) Enter when price still follows the old script. 5) Choose the cleanest asset expression (e.g., short NQ, not broad S&P). 6) Define both invalidation and fulfillment exit conditions. The key insight: Alpha often comes not from an information edge, but from a "reaction function edge" – recognizing when the market is applying an outdated causal logic to new data. The critical question: What causal chain is the market's first reaction relying on, and is that chain still valid today?

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

Senior Trader's Confession: How to Trade Market's False Expectations?

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

Trading

Spot
活动图片