When Silicon Valley giants' AI capital expenditures approach their annual cash flow levels, market focus has shifted from "value assessment" to "sustainability concerns."
Recent disclosures indicate four hyperscale cloud providers—Alphabet, Amazon.com, Microsoft, and Meta Platforms—have combined 2026 capital expenditure guidance approaching $650 billion. Including Oracle and CoreWeave raises the total to $740 billion. These figures not only exceed market expectations but represent exponential deviations from projections.
The $740 billion figure carries multiple implications: it reflects approximately 70% year-over-year growth from 2025 levels; doubles consensus expectations of 35% capex growth; and nearly matches the entire hyperscale cloud sector's annual operating cash flow.
Goldman Sachs analyst Shreeti Kapa notes this expenditure intensity would approach 1.4% of GDP levels seen during the dot-com bubble peak. While still below Industrial Revolution benchmarks, this represents unprecedented spending in modern tech history.
Financial blog ZeroHedge observed: "The numbers are so enormous that we immediately joked about Magnificent Seven being unable to afford stock repurchases after dedicating all free cash flow to capital expenditures by 2026."
The market shock stems not from individual companies overspending, but from simultaneous loss of expenditure control across the entire hyperscale cloud ecosystem. This represents not ordinary budget increases but structural transformation.
Cash flow is being consumed by AI investments. The scenario of insufficient funds for stock buybacks is transitioning from theoretical concern to reality. Goldman Sachs calculates that $700 billion in 2026 capital expenditures would nearly equal hyperscale cloud providers' total operating cash flow.
Bank of America's detailed modeling reveals: - Microsoft stands alone in maintaining operating cash flow sufficient to cover capital expenditures through 2026 - Meta Platforms has indicated potential transition from "net debt neutral" to "net debt positive" positioning - Other companies would exhaust free cash flow even with complete repurchase cessation
The bank noted: "Excluding Microsoft, cash flow surpluses will significantly shrink even with reduced or eliminated stock buybacks."
Further capital expenditure increases would rapidly deplete cash reserves, making debt financing inevitable. This creates substantial systemic concerns.
AI is evolving into a debt bubble, with related debt comprising approximately 14% of the US investment-grade bond market. As internal cash flows prove inadequate, tech giants are forced into large-scale bond market participation.
ZeroHedge previously warned: "AI has become a debt bubble quietly surpassing all banks as the market's largest sector." Bloomberg's Credit Weekly recently stated: "Large tech companies are preparing to spend far more on AI than investors anticipated, and fund managers increasingly worry about credit market impacts regardless of outcomes."
The week preceding February 11, 2026 witnessed remarkable activity: - Oracle issued record $25 billion bonds despite stock plunges from negative cash flow and default risk concerns, attracting $129 billion in orders - Alphabet followed with $20 billion bond issuance (originally planned at $15 billion), its largest ever, receiving over $100 billion in orders. The company even plans rare 100-year bonds—the first such tech issuance since the dot-com era.
Why such massive debt issuance? Advertising and cloud service revenues prove insufficient. Global data centers require approximately $2.9 trillion in capital expenditures through 2028, with corporate operating cash flow covering only half. The remaining $1.5 trillion gap must be filled through corporate bonds, asset-backed securities, private credit, and even sovereign debt.
By late 2025, AI-related investment-grade debt constituted 14% of the US IG market, surpassing banking as the largest thematic sector. Morgan Stanley projects record $2.25 trillion in technology, media, and telecom investment-grade bond issuance for 2026.
Cracks are emerging in debt markets despite strong current demand. Bloomberg data shows US investment-grade corporate bond spreads widened approximately 2 basis points last week. Oracle's new bonds significantly underperformed Treasuries in secondary trading, with anxiety intensifying after the company announced equity fundraising plans.
F/m Investments CEO Alexander Morris commented: "The AI investment boom attracts buyers, but offers limited upside with minimal error margins. No asset class is immune to depreciation."
The current equilibrium remains fragile. Markets operate on autopilot—debt markets stay open while the AI narrative holds. However, any disruption similar to the January 2025 "DeepSeek moment" or technological shifts eroding competitive advantages could abruptly close bond market access.
AI is not only draining corporate cash flows but also disrupting traditional software valuation logic, creating significant credit market risks. Bloomberg notes that as AI tools penetrate professional services, investors are repricing software sector growth prospects.
Key concerns include: - AI efficiency gains reducing software demand as tools like Anthropic's offerings threaten to make many SaaS products obsolete - Software company bond prices declining approximately 4% year-to-date - Private credit exposure representing the most dangerous vulnerability
Barclays analysis shows software constitutes about 20% of Business Development Companies' portfolios—the largest sector exposure. The bank noted: "Software represents BDCs' biggest industry exposure, making them particularly sensitive to recent equity and credit valuation declines."
While AI giants aggressively build infrastructure, they're simultaneously developing technology that could undermine their downstream software clients. If software companies default due to AI displacement, the private credit market holding their debt would collapse first, triggering chain reactions.
Why do Alphabet, Microsoft, and Amazon.com CEOs maintain maximum investment despite Goldman Sachs' "excessive input, insufficient returns" concerns? Game theory's Nash equilibrium provides the answer.
Companies face a binary strategic choice: - Non-investment risks permanent market share loss in winner-take-all AI infrastructure dynamics - Overinvestment compromises financial statements and extends return periods, but maintains competitive positioning
This creates a prisoner's dilemma where rational strategy always favors investment, as Goldman Sachs analysis confirms. Even facing net-cash-to-net-debt transitions and trillion-dollar debt burdens, companies cannot afford to fall behind technologically.
The ultimate outcome depends on return on investment. Shreeti Kapa's calculations show large tech giants typically generated 2-3 times capital expenditure returns over the past decade. Maintaining investor-accustomed returns on $500-600 billion annual capex requires exceeding $1 trillion annual profit run rates—far above 2026 consensus estimates of $450 billion.
Goldman outlines two potential scenarios: - Bull case (Cloud 2.0): AI adoption follows cloud computing trajectories, with Amazon.com's AWS achieving breakeven in three years and 30% operating margins within a decade - Bear case (Global Crossing replay): Not all current giants will generate sufficient long-term returns, mirroring historical technology pioneers' failures
Before this gamble resolves, bond market vigilantes may awaken. If they refuse to continue funding this expansion, the debt-driven AI boom could conclude abruptly.
Comments