These “commitments” aren’t generally contractual obligations beyond some clawback or penalty for not fulfilling them. Don’t forget Microsoft and oracle retain t

These “commitments” aren’t generally contractual obligations beyond some clawback or penalty for not fulfilling them. Don’t forget Microsoft and oracle retain the infrastructure built. It’s generally reserved capacity with minimum spend and a maximum spend as the quoted $1.5T. The spend also typically ramps and there are triggers and out clauses built in. These aren’t bonds or debt or what they imply as “coming due” in the article. People keep drawing parallels to the housing crisis and ensuing financial crisis. Those were hundreds of millions of individual contracts spread across thousands of banks and debt holders. There was little understanding at any individual institution of the correlation risks with subprime or the systemic counterparty risk (I know I sat in the center of core risk at one of the big systemic banks at the time). In this the institutions are all large, know their counterparts well, know OpenAI, etc. Despite all outward appearances none of them are signing up for insolvency, and none expect a bailout, and none WANT a bailout. It’s not good for any CFO’s career to be the one forced to give up the companies ownership to the US government and they at minimum will avoid this at all costs. I’m not saying this isn’t all a giant bubble, but it’s more akin to the dot com bubble which was more of a shakeout than long term consolidation. It’s hard to say the www isn’t an intensively valuable set of infrastructure and services even if pets.com went out of business (and its business model has turned out to be pretty viable since).