Spending & obligations

Start with comparable cash, not a sum of announcements

Property-and-equipment purchases are cash paid for long-lived assets such as buildings and servers. The comparison below covers the whole parent companies, not only AI, and uses the same 1 July 2025–30 June 2026 window. It does not add model revenue, cloud sales, chip sales, financing rounds and multiyear commitments into a fictitious “AI money” total.

Microsoft supplies a fiscal year and Amazon a trailing year. Alphabet and Meta are reconstructed as calendar 2025 plus January–June 2026 minus January–June 2025. Source-linked inputs and calculations preserve that bridge.

The last column is not company-defined free cash flow or an AI-project return. It leaves out finance-lease principal and other uses such as acquisitions, equity investments, debt repayment and dividends. Operating-lease payments already affect operating cash flow. Noncash lease additions are not purchases paid in the period.

Amazon’s own trailing free-cash-flow reconciliation adds $4.021bn of property-sale proceeds and incentives to the gross-purchase subtraction, giving −$7.604bn rather than −$11.625bn. Different definitions explain the difference; neither number is an estimate of AI-only loss. Amazon reconciliation.

A shorter period inside the year changes the comparison

The January–June comparison puts cash purchases at $294.800bn against $322.486bn of operating cash. The remaining $27.686bn is the same limited subtraction, not money freely available after all claims. Spending 91.4% of operating cash on these purchases does not mean imminent default: reserves, borrowing, new equity, lease financing and future receipts also matter. It does reduce room for other uses without additional funding.

A newer inspection date must not turn these June-ended accounts into a complete September cash balance. Exact half-year table and financial boundaries.

Cash, leased assets and future promises belong in different columns

A lease can deliver an asset before most of its cash payments occur. Adding the asset recognized at inception to the period’s principal payments and calling both “cash spent” mixes stages. A lease not yet commenced is another category again.

Microsoft disclosed $329.1bn of leases not yet commenced at 30 June 2026. That is substantial future exposure, not that amount already paid or borrowed. Its change in estimated building and data-center life from 15 to 25 years, effective in fiscal 2027, affects accounting and prospective lease classification—not the economic life of accelerators. Management said the physical investment expectation was unchanged. Lease disclosure; accounting explanation.

Forecasts also retain their own definitions. Alphabet’s $195–205bn calendar-2026 capex outlook, Microsoft’s approximately $175bn discussion and Meta’s $130–145bn range are not automatically comparable; Meta includes finance-lease principal. They are not cash receipts or payments already observed. Guidance sources and qualifications.

Almost funding the equipment bill is not recovering the whole investment

The IREN–Microsoft deployment shows why the spending boundary must be set before a financing headline is interpreted. The original $5.8bn GPU/ancillary budget excludes $2.8–3.2bn of data-center construction. At the combined $8.8bn midpoint, covering almost all the equipment bill would still leave a substantial facility investment. Budget components and exclusions.

The customer contract and the lender’s calendar need separate treatment. Dell’s original purchase terms call for payment within 30 days of shipment; customer acceptance and collections can follow later. The service contract extends end dates to preserve aggregate fees after a delayed start. The notes have acceptance-adjusted amortization but also an outside maturity date of December 31, 2031. A customer extension is not automatically a lender amendment.

The 5.96% note coupon, SOFR-plus-2.25% loan spread, reported 6% weighted financing claim excluding fees and effective accounting rates are different measurements. Debt draws can fund construction; they are not customer revenue or investment profit. Interest and principal belong in a dated financing model, not a second deduction from an all-capital discounted-return model. Contract sources and the two cash clocks →

A creditor’s legal claim is not a measured recovery value

Meta issued $25bn face amount of parent senior unsecured notes in May 2026, with about $24.910bn net proceeds, fixed coupons of 4.55–6.45% and maturities from 2031 to 2066. Repayment is supported by the parent’s resources rather than one GPU fleet’s receipts. That can make debt resilient even when a particular investment earns a poor return. Meta debt note.

CoreWeave’s $8.5bn DDTL 4.0 ceiling is not cash already borrowed. The named borrower, CoreWeave Compute Acquisition Co. VIII, LLC, reported $2.837bn principal at 30 June. Borrower collateral and contractual cash rights support the debt; its parent guaranty covers defined conduct-related obligations, not every ordinary operating shortfall. Other group facilities have different protection. June principal; guaranty.

Start with the repayment source rather than the GPU resale price. DBRS’s 3 April credit analysis identifies Meta’s take-or-pay capacity contract and expects full amortization without refinancing or re-leasing. The facility’s final maturity is 31 March 2032, but monthly amortization is intended to retire it earlier through its life. This is underwriting, not a current borrower cash certificate. The confidential MSA and monthly model remain unavailable.

The 1.15× contractual coverage test starts after the applicable commitment-termination trigger and transition periods. Its debt-service definition excludes the initial special amortization payment and final bullet. That exclusion means the covenant alone does not establish full repayment; it does not establish that a material balloon is expected, given the full-amortization design. Definitions and §6.12; the full-amortization countercase.

The June principal schedule is not a September bill

$10.597bn, or 29.8%, was scheduled through the end of 2027. The earlier March schedule had $25.149bn total and 46.6% through 2027. The lower share is not a clean decline in risk: the remaining calendar window is shorter, principal and financing changed, and the denominator is larger. June filing, Note 10; historical comparison.

August drawdowns and September financing are separate later events. The 17 September proposed convertible was upsized and priced at $3.7bn on 18 September, with settlement expected 22 September 2026, subject to conditions. It was not a cash receipt at the 20 September evidence boundary. Authority to distribute up to 35 million shares likewise does not establish sales. Pricing release; share-distribution authority.

CoreWeave’s first-half operating cash of $3.663bn was below $14.117bn of property/equipment cash investment by $10.454bn before principal repayments and other uses. Including the $5.219bn of actual principal payments gives a −$15.673bn historical residual. That is financing dependence during expansion, not a forecast default gap: some repayments refinance old borrowing rather than represent recurring amortization.

Sources: CoreWeave June 2026 Form 10-Q.

If closing occurs with no purchaser option, the issuer estimates $3.6445bn after initial purchasers’ discounts; subtracting $0.4988bn of capped-call costs leaves $3.1457bn before other expenses. The $3.7bn face amount remains, with a 2.875% coupon implying $106.375m annual cash interest. Capped calls can mitigate specified dilution, but do not repay principal. This prospective amount is not added to June cash. CoreWeave $3.7bn note-pricing release; cash and financing reconciliation.

Cash can arrive and still be unavailable for another obligation

Group operating cash is not DDTL 4.0’s eligible deposited customer cash. Advance payments help finance construction but also commit future service; recognizing that revenue later does not create a second receipt. CoreWeave’s deferred-revenue balance rose $1.507bn, while its cash-flow adjustment was $1.365bn. Neither is a disclosed project-by-project gross collection total.

A payment analysis also must avoid double-counting interest. First-half operating cash already deducted $0.806bn of expensed cash interest. Adding that back, then deducting principal and total interest including $0.176bn capitalized, leaves −$1.732bn before non-interest property/equipment cash purchases. Deducting those $13.941bn purchases produces the same −$15.673bn residual—not a new loss added on top.

Sources: CoreWeave June 2026 Form 10-Q.

For a matched three-month period, the conditional collection test is C ≥ K + 1.15 × (I + A + H): net eligible customer cash must cover prior costs K plus the contractual cushion on included interest, principal and hedges. Actual costs and installments remain missing; reserves and excluded payments need separate cash tests. See the grounded threshold and cash-only reserve bound.

Defined cure rights may restrain acceleration while further advances need not be made. A blocked distribution or a funding pause can be important before enforcement. New sponsor money used for a cure is not additional independent customer demand. §7.03 cure provisions.

Linked financing can be real commerce and shared dependence

Amazon’s filing reports $50bn invested in OpenAI across $15bn in the first quarter, $13.7bn in the second and $21.3bn after June before the filing. This payment evidence had already been corrected in Cash, commitments and capacity. It is investor-reported funding, not a direct inspection of the recipient’s bank account or independent customer revenue. Amazon investment note.

The Amazon–Anthropic relationship separately includes investment, a remaining conditional facility ceiling of $15bn after the specified $5bn Series H reduction, and Anthropic’s announced commitment to buy more than $100bn of AWS computing over ten years. Milestones govern facility availability. A ceiling is not an available balance, a drawing or a payment. Facility disclosure; purchase commitment.

Such partnerships can secure useful capacity and share commercial upside. Their vulnerability is common dependence on the same eventual customer cash: an investor’s stake, its customer’s ability to purchase and a new facility’s utilization can disappoint together. The existence of that relationship does not establish sham services. The unresolved test is persistent outside-funded net payment and cash conversion. Repeat purchasing and its limits.

Keep an obligation separate from verified receipt

NVIDIA’s PORTS-Pike arrangement is phase-dependent residual-value support, with a disclosed main ceiling of $105bn for the initial 4.25 GW and lease commencements expected from 2028. It is not cash already paid, expected loss, or an unconditional promise to pay every missed invoice. An additional 3.8 GW option is separate. NVIDIA 17 August current report.

NVIDIA entered into a $1.5bn prepaid-forward contract with Energy Global, LP. The agreement requires payment within three business days after its date. The documents inspected for this investigation do not verify receipt.

This is an evidentiary correction, not a finding of nonpayment. Keep the forward apart from the separate $1.5bn offering-linked subscription and from contingent credit support. Contract, section 1(f); exact correction and consequence.

The filed lease and guaranty forms add delivery and ready-for-service gates, notice/cure, reserves, and alternatives to immediate settlement such as assumption, re-letting or specified deferral. Lawful rent abatement for delivery or power failure is not automatically default. The main loss formula and phase values remain redacted; the headline cannot be turned into a current all-in cash call. A landlord can need interim funding even if support eventually pays. Lease form; guaranty form; the support and reimbursement path.

A large parent can absorb poor returns—within limits

Meta’s existing operating business is both the resilience comparison and the payment base behind the selected take-or-pay contract. A bounded second-half sensitivity starts from approximately $90.260bn of June cash and marketable securities. It retains the $130–145bn annual capex guidance, including finance-lease principal, assumes either flat OCF or a 30% fall from the first half, repeats $11.403bn of RSU-tax/dividend uses, and assumes no new financing.

The residual is $63.863bn in the flat-OCF/lower-capex case and $29.637bn in the lower-OCF/higher-capex case, after only the modeled uses. This supports a serious containment case, not a full cash forecast or proof of AI returns. Every scenario consumes some starting liquidity. Restricted escrow is already outside the starting pool; May borrowing is already inside it.

Sources: Meta second-quarter results; Meta June 2026 Form 10-Q.

Not all spending can simply stop: Meta reports substantial non-cancelable contracts and future leases. Those commitments overlap future operating and capital expenditures and must not be subtracted a second time without a mapping. Inspect all four cases, exclusions and fixed-commitment boundaries.

Who can lose even while AI remains useful?

Customers may continue to benefit while providers earn less per task. Shareholders can absorb poor investment returns or dilution without a debt default. A thinly capitalized borrower can lose service receipts while interest and lease payments remain due. Lenders may enforce collateral, but its resale value, location, customer contracts and competing hardware determine recovery.

A stronger parent may absorb a project loss; a guarantee can move some loss to its issuer under specified terms. Lower equipment values can weaken recovery elsewhere. These are channels, not a measured sector loss or systemic-crisis probability. The wider answer requires actual creditor exposures and funding structures, not a large number in one contract. Complete loss pathways.

The next link is economic rather than contractual: what annual cash and earning life would recover the investment?

For DDTL 4.0, the favorable case repays from contracted service—not liquidation. If that cash fails, a separate conditional recovery test uses its actual June principal and rounded book collateral. It is not the earlier hypothetical investment cohort or an observed GPU resale value. Collateral thresholds and ultimate-holder limits explain the backup and why origination roles do not identify current loan holders.

An operating site can remain useful after its first GPUs no longer command the original price. Net recovery then depends on transferable power and leases, compatible cooling, service continuity, replacement equipment and the next customer. The physical recovery investigation tests continuation rather than assuming a forced sale or treating book assets as cash. Its IREN thresholds do not revalue CoreWeave’s collateral.