1D·

The Perpetual Motion Machine of Data Centers: Why the Data Center Hype Is Once Again Pushing the Limits of the Laws of Money

Every technological megatrend needs that one magical moment when all healthy skepticism is collectively set aside. Today we’re witnessing this spectacle unfold with artificial intelligence: Expectations are astronomical, future revenues have long since been mentally booked away in our minds, and data centers are springing up like mushrooms after a gentle spring rain. Everyone is in complete agreement: This technology will liberate humanity and rake in trillions. But amid all the euphoria, it’s easy to forget one tiny, ruthless truism: Visions take a hell of a long time—but bills and loans have a rock-solid due date.


The Principle of Infinite Growth


To satisfy the insatiable hunger for computing power, the infrastructure pioneer reaches deep into the bag of tricks of modern financial wizardry. He floods the market with billions in convertible bonds and high-yield debt, while simultaneously signing 10- or 15-year lease agreements as if there were no tomorrow.


The reassuring narrative sounds like pure gold at every investor conference:


Whoever builds the data centers today will collect the tolls for the entire digital universe tomorrow.

And if someone does timidly point out the gigantic mountains of debt, the manager waves it off: “Don’t worry, tech heavyweights have secured capacity for years anyway. It’s all absolutely rock-solid!”


The Deadly Trap of Convertible Bonds

Convertible bonds are particularly appealing during such hype phases because, thanks to low interest rates, they seem wonderfully cheap. The clever promise to creditors: “You’ll get almost no interest, but in return, you’ll soon convert your bonds into soaring stocks when our share price goes through the roof.”


It’s just too bad that this is the classic balance-sheet time bomb. If the stock price misses the magic target at maturity, the conversion right vanishes into thin air. And in exactly that fraction of a second, reality strikes with the force of a sledgehammer: The company is contractually obligated to repay the entire amount to investors in real, hard cash.


If the coffers are completely empty at that point—because the revolutionary AI application hasn’t yet brought in billions—it means: batten down the hatches; the bankruptcy trustees take over.


On top of that comes the second, wonderfully creative lever: The financial circular economy. Hardware giants grant data center operators lucrative vendor credit or invest capital directly in them (vendor financing) so that the operators can use that very borrowed money to repurchase expensive servers and chips in record time. This artificially drives chip manufacturers’ revenues through the roof, but at its core, it’s based on pure speculation.


When harsh reality sets in


What actually happens when the hype fizzles out? It’s simple: The laws of money are damn humorless.


  • No leniency: Creditors and bondholders want to see real money on the due date—very few bakers will accept promises of a bright future or PowerPoint slides as payment for their bread rolls.


  • Pricing collapse: When overcapacity suddenly looms in the market because customers are staying away, rents and prices for computing power plummet.


  • Merciless major clients: Even the richest tech giants show zero loyalty as soon as cheap vacant space becomes available. They mercilessly exploit the crisis to renegotiate existing contracts downward.


  • Those lovely fixed costs: Meanwhile, interest payments, cash repayments due, and long-term data center leases merrily continue, regardless of whether the servers are humming or standing idle.



The Resolution: A Brief History Lesson


Exactly this brilliant mechanism—endless revenue fantasies, tangled hardware deals, billions in convertible bonds, and outrageously expensive, long-term leases—has, of course, existed before in economic history. We’re talking about the period from 1998 to 2001. And back then, too, it was a data center operator.


I’m not settling scores with today’s NeoClouds here. This is the almost tragicomic story of the company Exodus Communications in the late 1990s and how it built its highly hyped data centers back then, until reality caught up with it.


Exodus was the absolute megastar on the stock market back then. It operated the server infrastructure for the Internet pioneers of the time: Yahoo!, eBay, and Cisco. Tech giants like Intel and Microsoft , as strategic partners, provided the hardware and the funding. Exodus issued convertible bonds on a massive scale and was valued at over $32 billion. Everyone swore back then: The Internet is unstoppable; the debt will pay for itself.


What Nvidia, Broadcom, and AMD are today—key financiers and, at the same time, the largest hardware suppliers for modern cloud operators—was back then Intel, Cisco, and Microsoft, using exactly the same method: They injected capital into the market, extended loans, and, in return, equipped the infrastructure to boost their own sales through targeted vendor financing.


But then came the spring of 2000. Suddenly, it dawned on the market that monetizing the Internet would take much longer than had been simply imagined in the billion-dollar business plans and PowerPoint fantasies. The dot-com bubble burst with a massive bang, and stock prices plummeted.


This abruptly shut the door on the stock consolidation of the convertible bonds—and creditors demanded their hard cash back. Customers went bankrupt, major clients drove down prices, and the coffers were empty. In September 2001 —a mere three years after the triumphant IPO—Exodus was bankrupt and filed for bankruptcy. The shareholders’ money had simply vanished.


What We Can Learn From This


The parallels to today’s NeoClouds are striking. The technology may sound fancy today, but the fundamental mathematical laws of interest, fixed costs, and the harsh reality of failed convertible bonds haven’t changed one bit since 1998.


​“History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme.” (M. Twain)


$IREN (+17,11%)
$CRWV (+6,9%)
$NBIS (+7,72%)
$HUT (+15,25%)
$CIFR (+18,11%)

34
18 Comentários

imagem de perfil
Great post. 👏🏼
•
5
•
imagem de perfil
History repeats itself… yeah. Great post, Olli!
What I’d love to see from a distance is which suppliers—besides the big players like Nvidia, Broadcom, AMD, etc.—will be supplying the market with their new technologies in the future. That’s exactly where you can grab some popcorn… maybe the next supplier will come around the corner with chips that use less energy… and maybe perform better… who knows

The interesting thing is this: A little over 100 years ago, many people still believed the emperor was God’s chosen one. Today, we have an AI assistant in our pocket and watch all kinds of AI slop videos every day. 🤣
Back then, there was no AI to further accelerate technological progress. So who knows how quickly the world will change by 2028?
And that’s exactly why history might rhyme a little faster this time… with a few extras, multisyllabic rhymes, and all that
•
3
•
imagem de perfil
@PoorDad That is precisely the point that people tend to forget in the midst of any technological euphoria: In the event of a crash or a sharp market correction, it is not the companies with the most dazzling visions of the future or the most cutting-edge technology that ultimately survive, but those that have the tightest grip on their finances and loans.
•
2
•
imagem de perfil
@Olli68 Good point! I think in this case, it’s the clients… that is, the ones who sell the finished product. The ones with a solid footing.

Suppliers first have to prove themselves to the clients in order to secure long-term deals.
Apple had several suppliers for screens with “long-term deals,” but they’re history now… that’s how fast things change…
•
1
•
@Olli68: Thanks for your interesting analysis—you’ve really put a lot of thought into this, and it’s got me thinking, too 👍. I’m also invested in this sector.

I don’t quite understand yet—what specific risk are you trying to highlight?

Is your point that data centers are financed through convertible bonds issued by the operator (of the data center), and that if you buy them, you might end up with nothing but worthless shares?

Or are you concerned that the tech giants are overextending themselves because too much (data center) capacity is being built?

Of course, there will be a stock market crash when this investment boom bursts. You can see from the quarterly figures—for example, from $GOOG —that they can no longer easily cover these investments out of their free cash flow (FCF).

But what’s the alternative, or what course of action do you recommend? Should we not invest at all because the crash will happen eventually—and with near certainty? What do you suggest?

Maybe the boom will slow down for now because various local and state governments in the U.S. have changed… who knows?
•
2
•
imagem de perfil
@AlterFalter24 In a nutshell: The absolute tech giants usually don’t overreach, but extreme risk lurks among the second-tier, debt-laden infrastructure players.
The problem with convertible bonds is the harsh reality at maturity: If the stock price falls below the fixed threshold, the conversion right expires completely. The company is then contractually obligated to repay the amount in real, hard cash.
If they don’t have the money—because their revenue existed only on paper—insolvency is inevitable, just as it was back then with Exodus Communications. That’s why, for me, balance sheets and actual, reported revenue trump any overly optimistic forecast. Anyone investing here without safeguards is playing with fire.
•
3
•
imagem de perfil
I’ve actually been thinking about that too! I’m invested in Iren as well, but that “fun” part makes up just 0.8% of my portfolio! So for me, this is an “all or nothing” bet!

I think it’s about time to take a closer look at the whole tech bubble; which companies do I really believe in…

Well, I won’t be selling the big players like Microsoft or Alphabet, but I’m going to start gradually increasing my holdings of defensive stocks and ETFs!

Best regards and have a great weekend 🙂
•
1
•
imagem de perfil
@BavarianLion 0.8% is fine, of course. It's just that sometimes you read here that risky bets like Irish stocks make up the largest portion of a portfolio.
•
1
•
imagem de perfil
@Olli68 Yes, it’s always been important to me that the core of my portfolio consists of solid companies! I’m okay with a small bet here and there, like the Irish do, but the maximum is 1% of my portfolio!

What’s your overall take on the tech sector? Do you stay completely away from it, or would you consider adding a few big players as good investments?
•
1
•
imagem de perfil
@BavarianLion No, of course I’m still in the game to some extent. But I’ve sold or reallocated the majority of my holdings over the past 6 months. I sold my entire Nasdaq ETF position (30% of my retirement portfolio) last Friday (following the 30-day rule).
I now only hold tech companies with clean balance sheets (little to no debt) $ANET $APH $ISRG $PURR.
Otherwise, just “old economy” stocks and 40% cash.
•
1
•
imagem de perfil
@Olli68 That's definitely a good strategy! I think companies like Microsoft or Alphabet will certainly remain profitable, but I will NOT be buying any more tech stocks! Next year, I'll just be sticking to my savings plan—other than that, I don't have anything else planned for now!
•
1
•
imagem de perfil
@BavarianLion P.S.: But I should also mention that I was born in 1968, and this certainly shouldn't serve as an example for someone who is 20 or 30 years younger. A potential crash would hurt me much more.
•
1
•
imagem de perfil
@Olli68 I’m 34 and have to admit that I haven’t really experienced a “crash” yet—aside from COVID and 2022, of course 😉

But I can understand that you’re naturally more focused on protecting your portfolio!
My personal goal has always been to make a million before 40—let’s see if that works out 😅
••
imagem de perfil
@BavarianLion Yeah, when I was 25–35, I was investing differently, too. In the late ’90s, EM.TV was the only stock in my portfolio. The position rose to 100k DM, and I was completely convinced, so I stayed invested until the very end. It went bankrupt, and in the end, I lost everything.
I didn’t want that to happen to me again, so I switched to Nasdaq stocks. One year later ---> the dot-com crash. 🤮
That’s definitely not going to happen to me again. 😁
•
1
•
imagem de perfil
@Olli68 Yeah, the 2000s were definitely tough for anyone in the stock market! First the dot-com bubble, then right on the heels of that—the 2008 financial crisis! You’re definitely “hardened” by now! But I figure, all things considered, my portfolio isn’t in such bad shape right now! I’m just (maybe unfortunately) convinced of the potential of some tech companies!
I definitely see a bright future for Alphabet in particular!

Maybe I’m a little naive, but I don’t take every “shock” on the stock market that seriously! For example, what happened on Thursday didn’t really shock me that much!
•
1
•
imagem de perfil
@BavarianLion Yeah, that sounds good. 👍
Unfortunately, I'm not quite as optimistic about the stock market. For the past six months, I've been thinking that it's going to crash soon and that next year will be a bear market as a result. But of course, I could be wrong. 😉
•
1
•
imagem de perfil
@Olli68 You might very well be right that next year is going to be pretty rough 📉 But that’s where my “buy and hold” philosophy comes into play! I’m not going to panic if things take a nosedive! That said, I’ll be keeping a very close eye on the quarterly earnings reports from the tech companies I’m invested in… But as long as the fundamentals don’t change, I wouldn’t really care if it turned out to be a bad year!
•
1
•
imagem de perfil
How much capital have you invested in short positions?
•
1
•
Participar na conversa