Big Tech Isn't Hiding $1.65T of Debt
kellyluu
21 points
13 comments
July 23, 2026
Related Discussions
Found 5 related stories in 930.0ms across 14,736 title embeddings via pgvector HNSW
- Five tech giants are hiding $1.6T in AI debt, using the trick that toppled Enron arto · 78 pts · July 21, 2026 · 77% similar
- Five US tech giants' hidden debts soar to $1.65T on opaque AI funding NordStreamYacht · 120 pts · July 21, 2026 · 75% similar
- AI Companies Are Trying to Hide a Staggering Amount of Debt technewssss · 634 pts · July 23, 2026 · 71% similar
- Big Tech is borrowing like never before krupan · 60 pts · June 20, 2026 · 61% similar
- Big Tech Needs to Justify AI Spending as Investors Dump Stocks 1vuio0pswjnm7 · 19 pts · July 20, 2026 · 56% similar
Discussion Highlights (8 comments)
cheeseblubber
Related: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49020999
david927
"It's not debt, it's what they owe, and it's not hidden, if you dig you can find it."
mjhay
If there’s anyone I can trust to give an accurate and unbiased assessment of AI company finances, it’s surely an outfit selling a “finance CLI for your trading agent”
thegreatpeter
3-9% of revenue spread between 10 and 30 years
joshstrange
> But it is not debt. It combines $821 billion of leases that have not started with $829 billion of purchase and construction commitments. These payments are spread over one to 30 years. I can't help but have my "weasel words" alarm go off. Perhaps the original article was also misleading, but I find it strange that they call out 1 to 30 years when we all know there's no way most of those commitments are spread over thirty years. I couldn't find anywhere in the article where they show any sort of graph to show commitments one year out, two years out, etc. because it seems that would answer the question better. They show the commitments vs revenue but I kind of find that misleading because it (sort of) assumes there's no more commitments coming, and there are certainly new commitments coming. So knowing what their revenue is versus when those commitments come due seems like the most useful piece of information which isn't teased out. I'm not saying the original article or this rebuttal is wrong or right. I just found this confusing and it feels like it would have cleared up things to explain this better.
john_strinlai
> But it is not debt. It combines $821 billion of leases that have not started with $829 billion of purchase and construction commitments. These payments are spread over one to 30 years. i am not a finance guy, but is this kind of like arguing "it's not debt, its a financial liability" (while pushing their glasses up their nose, and starting with an 'actually')? is this just a semantic distinction without a material difference? i feel like i need jumpcrisscross or someone financially savvy to translate. my gut says the ai tech company's words on big ai tech debt should be handled with several grains of salt. (i am typically hesitant to say so, but this article gives me strong vibes of a response to a "is the hidden 1.65T debt news real?" prompt)
cryo32
This is a load of horse shit. You can't run a debt over 30 years for short lifespan infrastructure, staffing, energy usage and interest. You have to spend again 3 years down the line. It's a fucking snowball. There isn't enough revenue to cover the expenditure, ever. It's like Musk's Twitter accounting but with more crack sprinkled on it.
nylonstrung
Why is this flagged? It doesn't seem to violate guidelines