logoalt Hacker News

darth_avocadotoday at 4:46 AM14 repliesview on HN

Well technically they don’t own the debt, the SPVs that own the data centers do. The giants just have long term commitments, but if shit hits the fan, it’s not the tech giants but the banks that lent the money to the SPVs that are at risk. This usually means all of us are on the hook.


Replies

AznHisokatoday at 4:48 AM

As someone who belongs to “all of us”, i vote to not bail us out if shit hits the fan. No need to ask me when it happens, OK? No really, it’s nice of you but we really dont need to be bailed out. You are welcome :)

show 8 replies
lemaxtoday at 8:47 AM

These are relatively contained private credit markets though. We’re not looking at anything 2009 level. For scale, total US mortgage debt peaked at $9.3T ahead of the subprime mortgage crisis, 73% of GDP at the time. We’re talking here about ~5% of GDP.

walrus01today at 5:09 AM

If I owe the bank $750,000 and can't pay, it's my problem.

If I owe the bank $1,750,000,000 and can't pay, it's the bank's problem.

show 4 replies
shelledtoday at 7:29 AM

> This usually means all of us are on the hook.

And since we are talking about USD (specifically "of" USA), it also means globally a hell lot more of "all of us" are on the hook than we would have been involved (even remotely) had (or would) this endeavour ever ended up in some sort of general success.

I don't know whether it'd be "tails I win, heads you lose" or "I reap the profits alone, you reap the losses alone". Maybe the latter and it becomes magnitudes more interesting when it expands (or rather engulfs) beyond the boundaries of the great nation.

harry8today at 6:05 AM

>Well technically they don’t own the debt

Channelling the 1980s for off-balance sheet financing 101.

From an economic perspective there is zero difference between borrowing to buy an asset and entering into a non-cancellable long term (equivalent to its economic life) lease for the asset.

The first option causes an asset and a liability on the balance sheet, affecting debt ratios that appear in financing contracts and so on. The second does not appear on the balance sheet.

You pay every month, like it or not. You call it interest or you call it a lease payment. You need it off balance sheet for reasons, investment bankers will structure that to make it happen for a fee.

Technically, from an economic perspective, it's debt.

show 3 replies
sajithdilshantoday at 8:30 AM

But how could it be that the banks have lent the money without a leverage or proper risk assessment? Also what I don't understand is that how come the banks cannot claw back the money they lent if they found out corruption or any other ill intention by the borrowers.

m101today at 7:29 AM

The banks aren’t lending the money to these SPVs. It’s mostly private credit.

The way banks get involved is that they may be lending senior financing to the private credit funds but that means they have a ton of subordination.

show 1 reply
SanjayMehtatoday at 4:48 AM

"U.S. energy company Enron, though fundamentally different from tech giants, collapsed in 2001 due to off-balance-sheet debt hidden behind multiple shell companies. Even with proper accounting practices, an increase in joint ventures with low transparency could raise concerns in the market."

Remember the vendor financing model which got a lot of technology companies into trouble at the same time? It took some years, almost all those companies disappeared. Motorola, Nortel, Lucent ...

surgical_firetoday at 11:25 AM

That is not accurate according to the article:

> By investing in the data center's operating company with a 20% stake and using the facility under a lease agreement, Meta secured computing resources but also increased its hidden debt.

> Meta has a contract guaranteeing investors' losses if the data center becomes unnecessary and the lease is terminated.

The way they are hiding these debts is by having a stake in a data center company. But if shit goes tits up they are contractually liable for 100% of the losses.

It's not the fund that lent the money to the SPV, it is Meta who is offering guarantees here.

0xbadcafebeetoday at 7:21 AM

> it’s not the tech giants but the banks that lent the money to the SPVs that are at risk

Banks have not been loaning AI money for some time. They hit all their regulatory safeguard limits so they can't keep loaning. Half the money being invested in AI is private capital. There is still systemic risk, because private capital is a shadow banking system and you don't know who will be affected when they go kaput. Your utility company may [read: will] go bankrupt, but the money in your personal bank account is safe. Your retirement account, however...

fancyfredbottoday at 7:25 AM

s/banks/private credit/

VirusNewbietoday at 5:19 AM

how are these long term commitments structured? Can the big companies default on them? pay a small penalty? I think that probably makes a large difference.

blkstoday at 7:19 AM

Capitalists love to socialize losses

show 2 replies
protocolturetoday at 5:20 AM

>SPVs that own the data centers

I mean if AI falls short we might see a collapse in the price of colo but those investments would probably just be paid back over 10x the period.