If $120 bn of AI data centre debt is in SPVs, am I or my pension funding it?

Jon Stapleton has Professional Pensions pointing over the Christmas period to this lengthy article in the FT. I’ve been digesting the article as he had, not least for the final paragraphs The article points out that $120bn of debt doesn’t sit on big-tech’s balance sheets but on those of SPVs set up to front debt raising and keep it off the Tech Group’s balance sheet.. A special purpose vehicle (SPV) is a subsidiary company that’s formed to undertake a specific business purpose or activity

So if not the tech companies raising money who? The answer arrives at the end of the long article.

A number of tech bankers said they had even seen securitisation deals on AI debt in recent months, where lenders pool loans and sell slices of them, known as asset-backed securities, to investors. Two bankers estimated these deals numbered in the single-digit billions of dollars.

These deals spread the risk of the data centre loans to a much wider pool of investors, including asset managers and pension funds. Matthew Mish, UBS’s head of public and private credit strategy, said most investors “feel that actually it’s a good thing you ultimately end up with hyperscaler risk” given these companies’ strong balance sheets and credit profiles.

But Mish added SPV financings still “add outstanding liabilities” for tech companies, meaning the “overall credit quality for the hyperscaler would be worse than what’s currently being modelled”.

I suspect he’s picked up what I’m worried about and that the American bond markets are looking more and more like what we saw in the years leading up to the financial crisis of 2008/9. Capital is being raised, this time for the data centres to fulfil AI ambitions and the capital is coming from somewhere

Private capital investors are keen to get in on the AI boom, boosting demand for these novel structures. Tech companies had borrowed about $450bn from private funds as of early 2025, $100bn more than over the previous 12 months, according to UBS.

And what are these private funds?

A number of tech bankers said they had even seen securitisation deals on AI debt in recent months, where lenders pool loans and sell slices of them, known as asset-backed securities, to investors. Two bankers estimated these deals numbered in the single-digit billions of dollars. These deals spread the risk of the data centre loans to a much wider pool of investors, including asset managers and pension funds.

The bold is mine.

There are two worries that preoccupy and they both are about ordinary people getting caught up in extraordinary finance.

The first is the retail customer. The recent articles that have appeared on this blog about “retailisation” of private stem from discussions with Naomi Rovnik, Ludovic Phalippou and most recently this  sound familiar?  To put it simply, the cascade of risky credit ends with the retail holder of packaged debt which looks good, smells good but is explosive as it was in the Financial Crisis.

The second is that capital is being acquired by a small group of private capital specialists in the US who are buying into and buying out UK pension funds in exchange for bonds that look more and more esoteric. If these are the pension funds mentioned below, the PRA should be worried, if this is what funded reinsurance is exposing UK pensioners to, we should be  worried indeed.

The numbers needed to fund AI are huge and if you’ve read this far, here is the free share of the article from the FT. If you find it’s run out, mail me at henry@agewage.com.

Have a good new year and be careful about these SPVs in your or your pension’s private credit portfolio.

About henry tapper

Founder of the Pension PlayPen,, partner of Stella, father of Olly . I am the Pension Plowman
This entry was posted in pensions and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to If $120 bn of AI data centre debt is in SPVs, am I or my pension funding it?

  1. John Mather says:

    The debt is enough of a risk but the real trouble starts if confidence is shaken and redemptions increase. In this circumstance who is left holding the parcel?

    Back in September there were signs. Some called them the canary in the mine.

    UBS liquidated two invoice finance funds within its O’Connor hedge fund business, with exposure linked to the bankrupt U.S. auto-parts supplier First Brands Group. This situation does not involve a “private car finance fund” in the general consumer sense, but rather a private credit fund with exposure to a corporate entity in the auto-parts supply chain.

    Details of the Fund Closures
    Affected Funds: The specific funds being wound down are the O’Connor Working Capital Finance Opportunistic funds.

    Another related “High Grade” invoice finance fund with no exposure to First Brands is also being liquidated due to general investor concern and redemption requests.
    Reason: The liquidation was prompted by redemption requests from investors and the financial fallout from the September 2025 bankruptcy filing of First Brands Group, to which the funds had significant exposure (around $500 million in total across several funds).

    Exposure Details: First Brands Group, an auto-parts manufacturer, had liabilities exceeding $10 billion when it filed for bankruptcy. The affected UBS funds were invested in the company’s accounts receivables through a working capital finance strategy.

    UBS Stance: UBS has stated that it has no direct balance sheet exposure to the situation and the affected funds were designed for sophisticated investors with clear risk disclosures.

    Timeline: The bank informed investors in October 2025 that the funds would be wound down, with the majority of assets expected to be monetised by the end of 2025.

    This event is also affecting the planned sale of UBS’s O’Connor hedge fund unit to Cantor Fitzgerald LP, with the buyer reportedly seeking to change the terms of the deal.

  2. henry tapper says:

    Am I right in thinking these SPVs are artificial and unnecessary. I see that google, amazon and Microsoft have funded their AI activities using their own cash and I see Meta, Oracle and others going the SPV way. I hope that the market takes a view on this behaviour and it uses its usual levers if it shares the concerns expressed in this article?

    • John Mather says:

      Henry, there are good actors and bad actors in the fund industry. Layered structures can serve legitimate purposes—such as directing risk to appropriate parties or sharing it strategically among investors.

      However, at the other end of the spectrum, these same structures can be used by bad actors to obscure fees, hide conflicts of interest, or disguise unfavourable fund features.

      The structure itself is neutral; the motivation behind it determines whether it serves investors or exploits them.

Leave a Reply to John MatherCancel reply