AI

China Tungsten Export Curbs: Is Japan’s AI Chip Supply at Risk?

Published

4 weeks ago

June 14, 2026

Deep inside a modern semiconductor fabrication plant, the difference between a functional artificial intelligence processor and a useless square of silicon often comes down to invisible pillars of metal. These microscopic vertical interconnects, known as vias, act as the electrical wiring between billions of transistors. To build them, foundries rely heavily on tungsten hexafluoride—a highly volatile, ultra-pure gas that deposits tungsten metal atom by atom.

For decades, the global supply chain for this esoteric process operated smoothly, largely out of public view. China mined the raw ore, Japan refined it into high-purity specialty chemicals, and foundries in Taiwan and South Korea baked it into the chips powering the digital economy. That quiet equilibrium is fracturing. With Beijing tightening its grip on critical minerals, the semiconductor industry faces a stark question: are China’s export curbs on tungsten the bottleneck that finally chokes the global AI hardware boom?

The Geopolitical Chessboard of Critical Minerals

The current anxiety pulsing through Tokyo and Silicon Valley did not emerge in a vacuum. It is the latest escalation in a tit-for-tat technology war that has steadily moved from final consumer products down into the foundational elements of the periodic table.

When Washington restricted Chinese access to extreme ultraviolet (EUV) lithography machines and advanced Nvidia accelerators, Beijing retaliated at the base of the supply chain. In late 2023, China imposed strict export licensing on gallium and germanium—two metals vital for advanced optoelectronics and military radars. A year later, antimony and graphite faced similar regulatory walls.

Now, tungsten sits squarely in the crosshairs. The arithmetic is unforgiving. China commands roughly 81% of global tungsten mine production, holding an effective monopoly on the intermediate chemical compounds, such as ammonium paratungstate (APT), required to feed overseas refineries.

Japan, despite its dominance in the semiconductor materials sector, is structurally exposed. The Japanese archipelago is functionally devoid of commercial tungsten deposits. Its chemical titans—companies like Resonac Holdings and Kanto Denka Kogyo—rely heavily on Chinese imports to synthesise the ultra-pure gases essential for global chipmakers. A disruption here doesn’t just threaten Japanese industrial margins; it jeopardises the fabrication of the advanced logic and memory chips necessary to train next-generation AI models.

The Core Development: Weaponising the Periodic Table

The mechanics of China tungsten export curbs are deliberately opaque, designed to inflict maximum anxiety while maintaining plausible deniability regarding trade warfare. Beijing hasn’t issued a blanket embargo. Instead, the Ministry of Commerce employs a complex system of dual-use export licences.

Under these regulations, Chinese exporters must detail the end-user and the exact purpose of the exported material before a shipment is cleared. This administrative friction acts as a silent quota system. Approval times stretch from weeks to months. In some cases, applications for shipments headed to countries closely aligned with US semiconductor sanctions languish indefinitely.

For Japanese chemical processors, this unpredictability is toxic. Semiconductor manufacturing operates on a ruthless just-in-time model. Fab managers cannot tolerate a disruption in specialty gas deliveries, because halting a modern 3-nanometre production line can cost tens of millions of dollars a day in ruined wafers and recalibration time.

Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) has been quietly sounding the alarm. In closed-door sessions throughout early 2026, METI officials and industry executives have war-gamed the cascading effects of a complete Chinese cutoff. The consensus is grim. While Japan maintains strategic stockpiles of raw tungsten, the specialised grades required for semiconductor-grade tungsten hexafluoride are notoriously difficult to store long-term due to degradation and strict purity requirements.

Furthermore, the surge in AI infrastructure has radically altered demand curves. High-bandwidth memory (HBM) modules—the critical companions to Nvidia and AMD logic chips—require complex vertical stacking. This process, known as Through-Silicon Via (TSV) technology, is highly dependent on precise metal deposition. The explosive growth in AI data centres has driven a corresponding spike in demand for advanced packaging materials, making the timing of Beijing’s regulatory tightening particularly painful for Tokyo’s materials sector.

The Structural Anatomy of a Bottleneck

To understand why this specific metal grants Beijing such disproportionate leverage, one must look at the physics of modern computing.

How does tungsten affect semiconductor manufacturing? Tungsten is vital in semiconductor manufacturing because it possesses an exceptionally low electrical resistance and the highest melting point of any pure metal. It is primarily used to fill “vias”—the microscopic vertical holes that connect different layers of circuitry within a silicon wafer. Without highly purified tungsten hexafluoride gas to deposit this metal, fabricating modern, high-density AI chips is physically impossible.

This physical reality creates a highly inelastic market. You cannot simply swap tungsten for aluminium or copper in these specific, microscopic applications without fundamentally redesigning the chip’s architecture—a process that takes years and billions of dollars in R&D.

When a foundry like TSMC or Samsung manufactures an AI accelerator, they utilise a process called Chemical Vapor Deposition (CVD). Inside a vacuum chamber, tungsten hexafluoride gas reacts with hydrogen, stripping away the fluorine to leave a perfectly uniform layer of solid tungsten inside trenches just a few nanometres wide.

Japan dominates the production of this CVD-grade gas, commanding over a 30% global market share. Yet, this dominance is an illusion of strength. The Japanese supply chain resembles an hourglass: wide at the top with numerous global semiconductor clients, and wide at the bottom with vast Chinese mining operations. The pinch point is the raw material flowing across the East China Sea.

If Beijing turns the tap, the global supply of AI chips doesn’t stop immediately. It slows down. Fab yields drop. Prices for advanced logic processors surge. The tech giants funding the AI revolution—Microsoft, Meta, Google—would find their data centre build-outs delayed not by a lack of capital, but by a lack of raw industrial chemistry. It is a brilliant, asymmetric pressure point. By controlling the raw dirt, Beijing exerts gravity over the most sophisticated technological ecosystem in human history.

Implications: The High Cost of Decoupling

The downstream consequences of this geopolitical squeeze are already rippling through global commodities and equity markets. The price of ammonium paratungstate (APT) has seen violent, anomalous spikes on the Rotterdam and Asian spot markets, reflecting the panic purchasing by Japanese and South Korean trading houses trying to front-run further export denials.

For policymakers in Tokyo, the curbs have triggered a frantic pivot toward supply chain diversification. The Japan Organization for Metals and Energy Security (JOGMEC) has accelerated its overseas investment mandate. We are seeing Japanese capital aggressively courting mining projects in geopolitically safer jurisdictions.

Consider the Sangdong mine in South Korea. Operated by Canada’s Almonty Industries, Sangdong was once one of the world’s largest tungsten mines before cheap Chinese exports forced its closure in the 1990s. Today, heavily backed by state-sponsored loans and long-term offtake agreements from Western and Japanese buyers, it is being resurrected. Similar capital flows are targeting high-grade deposits in Vietnam, Spain, and Australia.

Yet, throwing capital at the problem does not alter the temporal reality of mining. You can write a check in seconds; bringing a dormant deep-shaft mine into commercial production, securing environmental permits, and building an adjacent refinery takes anywhere from five to ten years. The AI boom cannot wait a decade.

For the businesses caught in the middle, the strategy has shifted from “just-in-time” to “just-in-case.” Semiconductor equipment manufacturers are actively researching ways to improve the efficiency of gas usage in CVD chambers, attempting to stretch existing stockpiles. Meanwhile, the legal and compliance teams at Japanese chemical firms are working overtime, trying to navigate the Byzantine requirements of China’s Ministry of Commerce to keep the shipments flowing, often at the cost of quietly sharing more supply chain data with Beijing than they would prefer.

The Counterargument: Why the AI Supply Chain Might Survive

It is crucial, however, to temper the panic with engineering reality. While China’s export curbs on tungsten pose a severe headache for Japan’s AI chip supply chain, they are unlikely to deal a fatal blow to global semiconductor manufacturing.

First, the semiconductor industry actually consumes a remarkably small fraction of the world’s total tungsten. The vast majority of the metal—roughly 60%—is used to make cemented carbide for heavy industrial cutting tools, drill bits, and armour-piercing munitions. Even a massive expansion in AI data centres requires only metric tonnes of ultra-pure tungsten, not the tens of thousands of tonnes consumed by heavy industry.

If push comes to shove, market economics dictate that raw tungsten will naturally flow away from lower-margin industrial applications and toward the hyper-lucrative semiconductor sector. Smelters outside of China can theoretically retool to upgrade scrap tungsten or lower-grade industrial ores into the precursors needed for chip manufacturing, provided buyers are willing to pay the massive premium.

Second, the semiconductor industry is arguably the most adaptable engineering ecosystem on the planet. Fabs are not standing still. Giants like Applied Materials and Tokyo Electron have been anticipating material choke points for years. There is aggressive, well-funded research into alternative interconnect materials. Molybdenum, ruthenium, and even cobalt are being actively tested as replacements for tungsten in certain via-fill applications.

While transitioning to a new metal introduces brutal engineering challenges—specifically regarding electromigration and thermal expansion—history shows that chipmakers will overcome the physics if the supply chain forces their hand. Industry analysts note that while substitution takes time, the sheer weight of capital flowing into AI ensures that alternative chemical pathways will be commercialised if Chinese supply becomes critically unreliable.

Finally, Beijing must weigh the macroeconomic blowback. Weaponising critical minerals is a one-way street. The moment China restricts supply, it permanently destroys demand by incentivising the rest of the world to fund alternative mines and recycling technologies. In the long run, Beijing risks accelerating the very decoupling it claims to oppose, losing its lucrative monopoly status in exchange for short-term political leverage.

The Friction of a Fracturing World

The conflict over tungsten is not simply a story about metallurgy. It is a leading indicator of how the global economy is restructuring itself for an era of persistent geopolitical conflict.

China’s export curbs on tungsten will not stop the development of artificial intelligence, nor will they completely sever Japan’s AI chip supply chain tomorrow. But they act as a heavy, unpredictable tax on innovation. They force billions of dollars to be diverted from research and development into supply chain redundancy, legal compliance, and the resurrection of uneconomical mines.

The seamless, hyper-optimised global supply chain that birthed the smartphone and the cloud is dead. In its place, a more resilient but vastly more expensive system is being forged. For the architects of the AI revolution, the greatest threat is no longer the limits of software engineering, but the hard, immutable physics of the earth.

Discover more from The Economy

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Up Next

AI Fundraising Trends: Wall Street’s Record Capital Influx

Don't Miss

US Economic Resilience: Why the Economy Keeps Defying the Odds

Click to comment

AI

AI Capex Bubble 2026: The Hidden $662B Debt Nobody Reports

Published

52 minutes ago

July 11, 2026

Abdul Rahman

Every earnings season now brings a fresh wave of headlines about hyperscaler AI capital expenditure hitting a new record. The “big four” — Amazon, Microsoft, Alphabet, and Meta — are on track to spend roughly $725 billion combined in 2026, a 77% jump from the $410 billion deployed in 2025 (UnboxFuture). That number gets reported constantly. What almost nobody is reporting with the same prominence is a separate figure that may matter more: roughly $662 billion in data center lease commitments that hyperscalers have already signed but not yet begun — obligations that currently sit entirely off balance sheet.

Why the Off-Balance-Sheet Number Changes the Whole Picture

Under GAAP accounting rules governing when a lease “commences,” these signed-but-not-started commitments don’t appear in the capital expenditure figures analysts and investors typically scrutinize when assessing hyperscaler financial health. According to reporting citing Moody’s early-2026 analysis, this shadow liability is larger than the combined on-balance-sheet debt of the same companies (Anomaly Investments).

That detail matters enormously for one specific argument AI infrastructure bulls have relied on: the claim that this buildout is being conservatively self-funded from operating cash flow rather than risky leverage. Once the full picture of committed-but-unrecognized obligations is accounted for, that defense becomes much harder to sustain.

The Debt Is Already Showing Up, Not Just Theoretical

This isn’t a purely hypothetical concern about future liabilities. Big tech companies have already issued more than $100 billion of bonds in 2026 specifically to help fund AI capital expenditure, and investors have responded by demanding record levels of protection against potential defaults through credit default swaps — essentially insurance policies against bond default (IEEE ComSoc).

Individual company examples illustrate the shift toward leverage: Oracle issued an $18 billion bond specifically tied to its data center expansion; CoreWeave secured a $2.6 billion loan alongside a $1.75 billion bond package; and OpenAI and Oracle reportedly entered into a $100 billion vendor financing arrangement (Anomaly Investments). At Amazon specifically, capital expenditure over the trailing twelve months has reached $151 billion — a figure that now exceeds the company’s entire operating cash flow, pushing free cash flow into negative territory.

The Depreciation Assumption Almost No Coverage Questions

Here’s an angle genuinely underexplored across most financial media: the depreciation schedules hyperscalers use for AI hardware assume a five-to-six-year useful life. But given how rapidly GPU generations are turning over and how intensively AI workloads are pushing hardware utilization, critics argue the real economic life of this equipment is closer to two to three years. That gap between assumed and actual depreciation is estimated to understate true asset depletion by roughly $176 billion between 2026 and 2028 alone — a figure that grows as accelerating token consumption pushes hardware utilization beyond the assumptions built into current depreciation schedules (Anomaly Investments).

Layered on top of that is the energy cost curve: running the current roughly 30-gigawatt installed base of AI infrastructure costs approximately $27 billion annually today, but that figure is projected to climb to between $45 and $90 billion per year as capacity scales toward 2029 — and crucially, these are first charges against revenue, not optional or deferrable costs.

The Revenue Gap: Who’s Actually Paying for All This?

The most commonly cited justification for the capex surge is that the pure-play AI vendors — OpenAI, Anthropic, and others — represent a massive and rapidly growing revenue opportunity. The reality is more nuanced. OpenAI’s roughly $20 billion annualized revenue run rate, while genuinely impressive for a company with barely any consumer products three years ago, represents only about 3% of projected 2026 hyperscaler capex. Anthropic’s roughly $9 billion run rate, despite showing 9x year-over-year growth, occupies a similarly small share. The entire cohort of pure-play AI vendors combined — including Cohere, Mistral, Perplexity, and others — likely accounts for less than $35 billion in projected combined 2026 revenue against a hyperscaler capex figure exceeding $700 billion (Futurum Group).

That gap is the crux of the bubble debate: hyperscalers are betting the infrastructure will ultimately serve enterprise adoption and their own AI services broadly, not just third-party AI vendor revenue — but that bet requires enterprise AI monetization to arrive at a scale that, as of mid-2026, remains largely unproven outside of code generation and basic customer service automation.

The Skeptic’s Case, From Inside Goldman Sachs Itself

The most prominent voice of institutional skepticism doesn’t come from an outside critic — it comes from within Goldman Sachs itself. Jim Covello, the bank’s Head of Global Equity Research, has consistently argued the economics of the generative AI transition are fundamentally flawed, stating in mid-2026 that the industry has moved “further away” from justifying the scale of capital expenditure compared to two years prior (UnboxFuture). Covello has specifically flagged circular capital flows between cloud providers and AI startups — where hyperscalers invest in AI companies that then spend that same capital purchasing compute from those same hyperscalers — as a red flag reminiscent of vendor financing patterns seen in the dot-com era.

The valuation comparison to that era is explicit and increasingly common among strategists: US technology and AI equities carry EV/EBITDA multiples near 25x, close to historical extremes and above the telecom valuations that preceded the 2000 dot-com peak. More specifically, capex is currently expanding roughly 46 percentage points faster than revenue growth — a gap that exceeds the 32-point divergence observed during the 2001 telecom excess cycle (Allianz Research). Separately, Bank of America strategists have pointed out that AI stock concentration has reached levels matching prior bubble peaks, with the “AI Big 10” (Nvidia, Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, Meta, Apple, Tesla, Broadcom, Micron, and AMD) now making up 41% of the S&P 500 — comparable to the concentration of tech and telecom stocks during the actual dot-com bubble (Yahoo Finance).

The Bull Case Isn’t Naive Either

It would be inaccurate to frame this purely as informed skeptics versus blind enthusiasm. Goldman Sachs’ own broader research (distinct from Covello’s individual view) models roughly $7.6 trillion in cumulative AI capital expenditure between 2026 and 2031, built on the expectation that token consumption will increase 24-fold by 2030, driven largely by enterprise AI agents becoming embedded in production workflows rather than remaining experimental (Sesame Disk / Goldman commentary). Microsoft has disclosed an $80 billion backlog of Azure orders it currently cannot fulfill due to power constraints — genuine evidence that demand, at least for existing capacity, is outpacing even the current aggressive build-out pace (Futurum Group).

Leverage levels also remain more conservative than headlines suggest in absolute terms: the top five US capex providers reported a combined $385 billion in debt at the end of 2025, with leverage ratios still roughly 20% below the “high spender” cohort from the 2000 dot-com peak, according to Allianz Research analysis — meaning rising debt levels are a trend worth monitoring closely, not yet an acute crisis.

What Happens If the Bubble Skeptics Are Right

Historical infrastructure cycles offer a specific and somewhat counterintuitive lesson: the investors who fund the initial frenzied build-out phase rarely capture the long-term rewards. If the AI capex cycle follows the pattern of the 1998-2001 fiber optic buildout, hyperscalers may eventually be forced to write down the value of data centers and GPUs purchased at today’s prices and utilization assumptions. But that collapse in computing costs, paradoxically, could pave the way for a new generation of leaner, genuinely profitable software companies to build on top of the resulting cheap, overbuilt infrastructure — much as fiber-optic overbuild eventually enabled the 2000s streaming and cloud computing boom, even after the original telecom investors were wiped out.

What This Means for Investors and Businesses

For equity investors, the practical signal to watch isn’t the headline capex number — it’s the widening gap between capex growth and revenue growth, and whether that gap begins narrowing through 2027 as enterprise adoption either accelerates or disappoints. For businesses evaluating AI vendor relationships, the circular-financing pattern flagged by Covello is worth diligence: understanding whether an AI vendor’s revenue depends partly on capital originally supplied by the same hyperscaler providing its compute is a legitimate red flag for assessing that vendor’s underlying financial independence. For fixed-income investors, the rising credit default swap pricing on hyperscaler-linked debt is itself a market signal worth tracking as an early indicator of shifting sentiment, independent of equity price action.

The Bottom Line

The AI infrastructure buildout genuinely is the largest corporate capital expenditure cycle in recorded history, and it’s happening for real, defensible reasons tied to a genuine technology shift. But the debate over whether it constitutes a bubble isn’t really about whether AI technology is useful — it’s about whether the timing of returns can keep pace with public equity markets’ patience, and whether the $662 billion in off-balance-sheet lease commitments, aggressive depreciation assumptions, and circular vendor financing arrangements represent manageable financial engineering or the early architecture of a genuinely serious correction. Both cases have real evidence behind them. What’s clear is that the headline capex figure everyone quotes is no longer the most important number in this story.

Discover more from The Economy

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

AI

AI Bubble Warning 2026: Why BIS, IMF and Bank of England Fear a Market Crash

Published

6 days ago

July 5, 2026

Abdul Rahman

Global financial regulators have moved from quiet skepticism to open warning, marking one of the most significant shifts in central-bank rhetoric since the aftermath of the 2008 crisis. The Bank for International Settlements (BIS), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the Bank of England have each flagged the risk that a correction in artificial-intelligence valuations could cascade through the global financial system, according to the BIS Annual Economic Report 2026 and reporting compiled by Wikipedia’s tracking of the unfolding episode.

From Confidence to Contagion Fear

The warnings did not emerge in a vacuum. In late June 2026, South Korea’s KOSPI index was forced into a trading halt after Samsung and SK Hynix shares each lost roughly 12% in a single morning, a shock that rippled into the Nasdaq, which fell 2.2% the same day. By the following week, Oracle had recorded its worst trading week since the dot-com crash, sliding 19%, after Apple raised product prices in response to soaring chip costs. The sell-off, detailed in Wikipedia’s account of the June 2026 rout, spread across global chip manufacturers before the BIS issued its formal caution on June 29.

Pablo Hernández de Cos, general manager of the BIS, framed the moment as one of “progress” colliding with “peril,” pointing to inflationary pressure, elevated public debt, and what the institution calls AI exuberance as compounding financial vulnerabilities.

Why This Cycle Looks Different — and Why It Doesn’t

Comparisons to the 1999–2000 dot-com bubble are now routine among Wall Street strategists. Deutsche Bank’s global economics team has described 2026 as resembling “1999 meets 1990,” according to Fortune’s coverage of the growing exuberance debate. JPMorgan’s chief executive Jamie Dimon has repeatedly used the phrase “irrational exuberance,” borrowed from former Fed chair Alan Greenspan, to describe dealmaking activity that he says is running “gung-ho.”

Yet analysts at Fidelity note a structural difference from 2000: hyperscalers are largely funding AI capital expenditure from earnings rather than debt, keeping the capex-to-free-cash-flow ratio below 1, compared with nearly 4 at the dot-com peak, based on Fidelity’s bubble-indicator research. That distinction matters for systemic risk, since debt-fueled busts tend to transmit further into the banking system than equity-only corrections.

The Systemic Transmission Risk

Oliver Wyman’s analysis of a potential AI-led market collapse estimates that an equity crash on the scale of the early 2000s could erase approximately $33 trillion in value — more than annual US GDP — a scenario that would compound if financing tied to data-center and digital-infrastructure debt turns out to be more opaque than banks currently report, according to Oliver Wyman’s assessment of financial-sector exposure. US equity market capitalization currently sits at close to twice GDP, a higher multiple than at the dot-com peak.

Prediction markets have already begun pricing the risk. Polymarket data cited by Tekedia shows the probability traders assign to an AI investment-frenzy collapse by the end of 2026 climbing to 26%, up sharply in recent months as valuations in chip and hyperscaler stocks stretched further.

What Regulators Are Asking Institutions to Do

The BIS is not calling for a halt to AI development. Instead, it is urging financial institutions to build greater transparency into AI-related financing, particularly the private-credit channels that now fund a large share of data-center buildouts, and to stress-test balance sheets against valuation drops of 30%, 40%, or even 50% in AI-exposed equities. The Bank of England has separately warned that investors have not been adequately cautioned about downside scenarios tied to companies such as OpenAI, whose valuation more than tripled between October 2024 and the following year.

For markets in the UK, US, Singapore, and East Asia’s chip-manufacturing hubs, the message from regulators is consistent: the innovation is real, but the financing structure underneath it has not been fully stress-tested against a reversal in sentiment.

Discover more from The Economy

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

AI

AI Bubble Risk 2026: BIS Warns Private Credit Could Trigger Financial Crisis

Published

1 week ago

July 3, 2026

Abdul Rahman

The Bank for International Settlements has told the world’s central banks something few wanted to hear in the middle of an AI-fueled bull run: the financing behind the boom now resembles the early architecture of a credit crisis. In its flagship Annual Economic Report, the Basel-based institution known as the central bank of central banks said that if AI returns disappoint and investors reassess risk, falling asset values combined with sudden funding withdrawals could transmit stress across the broader financial system, as first detailed by The Economy.

From Hyperscaler Capex to Systemic Fragility

The scale driving this concern is difficult to overstate. Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, Meta, and Oracle are collectively on pace to spend more than $1 trillion on AI infrastructure across 2025 and 2026 combined, a sum the BIS says already outpaces the group’s combined earnings and free cash flow. That gap is why hyperscalers have turned to debt markets at a pace unseen since the buildout of broadband infrastructure, with investment-grade bond issuance by major AI players exceeding $100 billion in six months, according to Oliver Wyman’s analysis of Dealogic and SIFMA data.

Fortune’s review of the BIS report frames the comparison in historical terms the institution itself invoked: the canal mania of the 1830s, Britain’s railway bubble of the 1840s, and the dot-com crash of 2000, each beginning with a genuine technological breakthrough that attracted more capital than commercial returns could ultimately justify, per Fortune. The BIS stops short of calling the AI boom a bubble outright, but its language leaves little room for comfort.

Private Credit’s Opacity Problem

The more acute concern sits outside public markets entirely. Private credit lending to AI companies surged from roughly $3 billion in 2010 to $40 billion last year, the BIS found. Because these loans flow through a web of investment funds, insurers, pension funds, and asset managers with little public disclosure, regulators cannot easily determine where losses would land if AI returns fall short. Unlike banks, these lenders have no deposit base and no central bank liquidity backstop, leaving forced asset sales as one of the few levers available if investors demand their money back.

That vulnerability is no longer theoretical. Blue Owl paused quarterly redemptions on a retail-facing direct lending fund earlier this year, an early sign of the liquidity strain described by Forbes. BlackRock’s TCP Capital Corp wrote down a private loan to an Amazon-seller aggregator to zero from full value, while bankruptcies at First Brands Group and Tricolor Holdings last September, each carrying billions in debt, have sharpened scrutiny of underwriting standards built during the ultra-low-rate years of 2020 and 2021.

Direct lending funds, an ecosystem now exceeding $1 trillion, have quadrupled their exposure to the AI and IT sectors over five years, and that exposure now represents about 15% of their portfolios, the BIS report notes. The Financial Stability Board, which monitors risk across 24 central banks, has separately warned that “significant data challenges” make the sector’s true exposure nearly impossible to map, with bank exposure estimates ranging anywhere from $220 billion to $500 billion depending on methodology, a spread detailed by IndMoney’s market analysis.

Why the Timing Is Especially Dangerous

The AI credit question is colliding with a second global shock that has nothing to do with technology. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz following the outbreak of the Iran conflict in February cut more than 10 million barrels of crude oil a day from global supply, a disruption larger than either the 1973 oil embargo or the 1979 Iranian revolution, according to the BIS report cited by Fortune. That energy shock has kept inflation risk elevated even as central banks weigh whether to ease policy, creating a scenario the BIS describes bluntly: the same monetary tightening needed to contain energy-driven inflation could be exactly what pops the AI-financed debt bubble.

Credit markets are already pricing in some of this tension. Spreads on bonds issued by AI-related companies rated BBB or higher have widened noticeably since the first quarter, briefly approaching a 20-basis-point increase in March, even as equity markets continue to price substantial further upside, a divergence flagged in the Economy’s coverage. Debt coming due from weaker private credit borrowers is projected to jump from $56.6 billion in 2026 to $215 billion by 2028, according to S&P Global data cited by IndMoney, concentrating refinancing risk at precisely the moment AI infrastructure utilization rates are becoming the market’s most important, and least verifiable, number.

What Happens if the Bet Doesn’t Pay Off

Not every analyst agrees the danger is systemic. The CFA Institute’s Enterprising Investor blog has pushed back on comparisons to the 2008 crisis, arguing that private credit’s structural mismatch is fundamentally different from the overnight funding of illiquid mortgage assets that caused the Global Financial Crisis, and noting that a well-diversified multi-strategy portfolio would likely be only marginally affected even by a serious AI correction, per CFA Institute.

But the BIS itself is not predicting collapse so much as demanding preparation. Its central recommendation is for what it calls “robustness” rather than the more fragile “resilience” the global financial system has shown so far, a distinction the institution says matters because a shock, whether a renewed inflation surge or a sharp AI-led repricing, could trigger a broader credit crunch. If half of the projected $6 trillion in AI capital spending through 2030 ends up debt-financed, the resulting credit buildup would exceed all broadband infrastructure investment since the birth of the commercial internet, Oliver Wyman’s modeling shows, and an equity crash on the scale of the early-2000s dot-com bust would, at today’s valuations, wipe out roughly $33 trillion in value, more than the entirety of US GDP.