The massive capital expenditure for AI infrastructure will not primarily come from traditional unsecured corporate credit. Instead, a specialized form of private credit known as asset-based finance (ABF) is expected to provide over $800 billion of the required $1.5 trillion in external funding.

Unlike prior tech revolutions funded mainly by equity, the AI infrastructure build-out is increasingly reliant on debt. This blurs the line between speculative growth capital (equity) and financing for predictable cash flows (debt), magnifying potential losses and increasing systemic failure risk if the AI boom falters.

The current AI infrastructure build-out is structurally safer than the late-90s telecom boom. Today's spending is driven by highly-rated, cash-rich hyperscalers, whereas the telecom boom was fueled by highly leveraged, barely investment-grade companies, creating a wider and safer distribution of risk today.

A new risk is entering the AI capital stack: leverage. Entities are being created with high-debt financing (80% debt, 20% equity), creating 'leverage upon leverage.' This structure, combined with circular investments between major players, echoes the telecom bust of the late 90s and requires close monitoring.

This AI cycle is distinct from the dot-com bubble because its leaders generate massive free cash flow, buy back stock, and pay dividends. This financial strength contrasts sharply with the pre-revenue, unprofitable companies that fueled the 1999 market, suggesting a more stable, if exuberant, foundation.

The AI boom's funding is pivoting from free cash flow to massive bond issuances. This hands control to credit investors who, unlike vision-driven equity investors, have shorter time horizons and lower risk appetites. Their demand for tangible near-term impact will now dictate the market's risk perception for AI companies.

The AI buildout is forcing mega-cap tech companies to abandon their high-margin, asset-light models for a CapEx-heavy approach. This transition is increasingly funded by debt, not cash flow, which fundamentally alters their risk profile and valuation logic, as seen in Meta's stock drop after raising CapEx guidance.

Current AI spending appears bubble-like, but it's not propping up unprofitable operations. Inference is already profitable. The immense cash burn is a deliberate, forward-looking investment in developing future, more powerful models, not a sign of a failing business model. This re-frames the financial risk.

Tech giants are no longer funding AI capital expenditures solely with their massive free cash flow. They are increasingly turning to debt issuance, which fundamentally alters their risk profile. This introduces default risk and requires a repricing of their credit spreads and equity valuations.