A financial flywheel, reminiscent of the pre-2008 crisis, is fueling the AI data center boom. Demand for yield-generating securities from investors incentivizes the creation of more data center projects, decoupling the financing from the actual viability or profitability of the underlying AI technology.

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.

The current AI spending frenzy uniquely merges elements from all major historical bubbles—real estate (data centers), technology, loose credit, and a government backstop—making a soft landing improbable. This convergence of risk factors is unprecedented.

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.

Before AI delivers long-term deflationary productivity, it requires a massive, inflationary build-out of physical infrastructure. This makes sectors like utilities, pipelines, and energy infrastructure a timely hedge against inflation and a diversifier away from concentrated tech bets.

The massive capital rush into AI infrastructure mirrors past tech cycles where excess capacity was built, leading to unprofitable projects. While large tech firms can absorb losses, the standalone projects and their supplier ecosystems (power, materials) are at risk if anticipated demand doesn't materialize.

While the AI capex boom may seem unsustainable, the mechanics of shorting it (e.g., buying puts) reveal the extreme difficulty of the trade. The bet requires being correct not just on the eventual downturn but on its precise timing. The risk of losing the entire premium makes it an unattractive risk-adjusted bet.

Companies like Meta are partnering with firms like Blue Owl to create highly leveraged (e.g., 90% debt) special purpose vehicles (SPVs) to build AI data centers. This structure keeps billions in debt off the tech giant's balance sheet while financing an immature, high-demand asset, creating a complex and potentially fragile arrangement.