The AI infrastructure boom has changed the nature of hyperscaler financial commitments. Traditionally, investors focused on on-balance-sheet debt (bonds, bank loans and finance leases). Today, a growing issue is contractual obligations that are legally binding but are not yet recognized as liabilities under U.S. generally accepted accounting practices.
These commitments include:
Multi-decade data center leases
Colocation agreements
GPU purchase commitments
Power purchase agreements (PPAs)
Network infrastructure contracts
Joint venture funding commitments
Capacity reservation agreements
The accounting treatment, while legitimate, represents future fixed cash commitments not reflected on balance sheets.
According to Moody's Ratings, at year-end 2025, about $1.9 trillion in such future commitments were incumbent on a few hyperscale high-performance-computing suppliers::
According to Moody's, $662 billion of uncommenced lease obligations exceeded the group's adjusted reported debt by roughly 113 percent.
Meta provides one of the clearest examples:
future AI lease obligations appr;;;;;;\\q12aaching $279 billion
another approximately $68 billion of new leases signed after quarter-end
lease terms extending as long as 30 years
commitments tied to multiple multi-gigawatt AI campuses.
Many obligations never appear as debt but nevertheless commit future cash flow:
Such practices are common in other capital intensive industries, or parts of industry infrastructure, including airline transportation providers, because doing so:
preserves reported leverage ratios
matches accounting recognition to asset availability
allows capacity to be secured years before facilities open
enables landlords and infrastructure funds to finance construction
reduces the need to issue corporate debt immediately.
If AI capital spending continues near today's pace, a reasonable scenario for Alphabet, Amazon, Microsoft, Meta and Oracle is:
p[;;;;;
The issue for some observers is whether such future commitments are a problem, or not. Even if not considered “debt” in a GAAP sense:
They require future cash payments.
They reduce future financial flexibility.
Many cannot easily be canceled without substantial penalties.
Credit analysts increasingly incorporate them into leverage analysis.
The issue is impact on firm leverage.
But that seemingly often is an issue with the financing of infrastructure. Railroads, electric utilities, pipelines, airports, seaports, cellular networks, and fiber networks all required enormous up-front investment years before meaningful revenues arrived.
Each wave developed financing techniques that shifted risk away from the sponsoring company while securing long-term capital.
Electricity infrastructure evolved from vertically integrated utilities financing everything on their own balance sheets to today's mixture of:
utility-owned assets,
independent power producers,
project-financed generation,
long-term power purchase agreements (PPAs), and
infrastructure funds.
The important innovation was separating ownership from usage. A utility could commit to buying electricity for 20–30 years without necessarily owning the generating plant. That resembles today's hyperscalers signing 15- to 30-year leases for AI campuses built by third-party developers.
Modern project finance emerged because infrastructure became too expensive for sponsors to fund entirely on their own balance sheets.
Instead:
a special-purpose vehicle (SPV) owns the project,
lenders are repaid primarily from project cash flow,
the sponsor's liability is limited,
long-term customer contracts reduce lender risk.
This structure became common for:
toll roads,
airports,
ports,
power plants,
pipelines.
AI data centers resemble these projects.
Wireless carriers originally owned virtually everything:
towers,
land,
buildings,
backup power.
Beginning around 2000 they sold towers to companies such as American Tower, Crown Castle, and SBA Communications.
Instead of ownership they signed:
10- to 20-year leases,
automatic renewals,
inflation escalators.
From an economic perspective, tower lease obligations became debt-like commitments while freeing carriers' balance sheets for spectrum purchases and network equipment. Hyperscalers appear to be following almost exactly the same path.
