AI

Could AI’s Leading Men Become as Powerful as Ford or Rockefeller? For Now, They Are Still a Long Way Behind.

Published

3 months ago

April 18, 2026

The five men reshaping intelligence — Dario Amodei, Demis Hassabis, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, and Sam Altman — command wealth, attention, and technological leverage that no previous generation of innovators has enjoyed. Yet the distance between their present dominance and the systemic, civilization-bending grip once exercised by John D. Rockefeller or Henry Ford remains vast — and poorly understood.

Imagine a boardroom meeting in 2035. The agenda is simple: who controls the infrastructure of thought itself? A decade earlier, five men launched what many called the most consequential technological disruption since electricity. By 2026, their companies had collectively captured trillions of dollars in market value, reshaped labor markets across three continents, and triggered geopolitical confrontations from Brussels to Beijing. And yet, if you measure their power by the standards history reserves for its true industrial titans — the men who didn’t just build industries but became them — the five AI leading men of our era still have a very long way to go.

That is not a comfortable argument to make. The numbers alone seem to render it absurd. Elon Musk’s net worth now exceeds $811 billion, a figure that surpasses the GDP of Poland. Musk’s February 2026 all-stock merger of SpaceX and xAI created a combined entity valued at $1.25 trillion — a single transaction larger than the entire U.S. defense budget. OpenAI, now valued at approximately $500 billion, counts some 800 million weekly active users of ChatGPT, a number that would have seemed science fiction five years ago. Anthropic — founded by Dario Amodei and his sister Daniela — reached a valuation of $380 billion in early 2026, while Meta has committed to spending $115 to $135 billion in capital expenditure in 2026 alone, with an astonishing $600 billion pledged toward data centers through 2028.

These are not ordinary fortunes. They are structurally new categories of wealth concentration. And still, the Rockefeller comparison fails — and fails instructively.

What Made a Tycoon a Tycoon: The Three Pillars of Historical Power

To understand why AI tycoons remain a long way behind their Gilded Age predecessors, one must first understand what actually made Rockefeller and Ford so uniquely dangerous to the social order of their time. It was not simply their wealth. Adjusted for GDP, Rockefeller’s peak fortune has been estimated at roughly $400 billion in today’s dollars — comfortably surpassed by Musk. What made Standard Oil a civilizational force was something more specific and more structural: the simultaneous control of physical infrastructure, political capture, and cultural monopoly.

Rockefeller didn’t just refine oil; he controlled approximately 91% of United States oil refining capacity by the mid-1880s through ownership of the pipelines, the railroad rebates, and the pricing mechanisms that every competitor had to use to survive. He didn’t lobby Congress — he owned the conversation. Ford, similarly, didn’t just manufacture cars; he built company towns, set wages for an entire economy, and deployed a private security apparatus — the Ford Service Department — to enforce his will on a captive workforce. Both men bent the physical world to their models in ways that left no exit for competitors, workers, or governments.

That is the three-pillar framework that the AI quintet has not yet replicated: physical infrastructure lock-in, political capture, and cultural monopoly. The gap between aspiration and achievement on each of these dimensions is the real story of power in 2026.

Infrastructure: Who Controls the Pipes?

The most important question in any era of technological transformation is not who builds the smartest machine, but who controls the plumbing. Rockefeller’s genius was not chemistry — it was logistics. He understood that the pipeline was more powerful than the refinery.

In the AI economy, the equivalent of the pipeline is the data center, the chip, and the undersea cable. Here the picture for the quintet is mixed at best. Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta is building on the most ambitious scale — two mega-clusters that dwarf any corporate construction project in a generation — but the silicon in those data centers is manufactured almost entirely by NVIDIA, a company none of the five control. Musk’s SpaceX-xAI merger is the most vertically integrated attempt to replicate Rockefeller’s pipeline logic: orbital data centers fed by Starlink satellites, in theory giving xAI the physical substrate to train and deploy models without dependence on third-party cloud providers. But as of 2026, that vision remains largely prospective. xAI’s Grok competes credibly against ChatGPT and Claude, but it does not yet possess the proprietary infrastructure advantage that would make it structurally inescapable.

Sam Altman, for his part, has no direct equity in OpenAI, earning a nominal salary of roughly $65,000 per year. His influence derives almost entirely from his position at the helm of the world’s most recognizable AI brand — a form of power that is real, but brittle. The moment a better or cheaper model displaces GPT, the institutional moat begins to crack. Rockefeller, by contrast, had no such vulnerability: he owned the pipes regardless of whose oil flowed through them.

Dario Amodei’s Anthropic presents a different case. With a $380 billion valuation, enterprise AI revenues reportedly growing at exponential rates, and a model — Claude — that has captured an estimated 40% of enterprise large language model spending in the United States, Anthropic is the most quietly formidable player in the quintet. Amodei has also demonstrated a rare form of institutional courage: in February 2026, he refused a Pentagon demand to remove contractual prohibitions on Claude’s use for mass domestic surveillance, even as the Trump administration labeled Anthropic a “supply-chain risk” and ordered agencies to stop using the model. That is not the behavior of a man who has captured the state. It is the behavior of a man trying not to be captured by it.

Political Power: Proximity Is Not Capture

The AI leading men have achieved unprecedented proximity to political power. Altman donated to Trump’s inaugural fund, sat on San Francisco’s mayoral transition team, and has testified repeatedly before Congress. Musk, as an architect of the Department of Government Efficiency, has arguably achieved more direct influence over federal bureaucracy than any private citizen since Bernard Baruch. Zuckerberg has reoriented Meta’s content moderation in ways that reflect political calculation as much as principled policy.

And yet proximity is not capture. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil didn’t merely lobby regulators — it effectively set the regulatory agenda in oil-producing states for two decades. The steel and railroad barons didn’t just meet with senators; they funded them in ways that made legislative independence a legal fiction.

Today’s AI executives remain subject to forces their predecessors never faced. The European Union’s AI Act imposes binding constraints that no 19th-century robber baron ever encountered. Antitrust scrutiny from both the Department of Justice and the EU threatens the integration strategies of both Google DeepMind and Meta. Anthropic’s standoff with the Pentagon demonstrates that even the most safety-focused AI lab cannot escape the gravitational pull of geopolitical competition. The five men are powerful political actors — but they are actors on a stage with many more directors than Rockefeller ever faced.

The Cognition Economy: A New Kind of Monopoly Risk

Where the AI quintet is converging toward something genuinely Rockefellerian is in what might be called the cognition economy — the emerging marketplace where intelligence itself, not oil or steel, is the resource being extracted, refined, and sold.

Demis Hassabis, the Nobel Prize–winning CEO of Google DeepMind, said at Davos 2026 that today’s AI systems are “nowhere near” human-level AGI, placing the milestone at “five to ten years” away. Amodei, characteristically more bullish, has predicted that AI will reach “Nobel-level” scientific research capability within two years, and has described the coming AI cluster as “a country of geniuses in a data center” running at superhuman speeds. If either is even partially correct, the downstream consequences for labor markets, knowledge production, and institutional power are more profound than anything the Industrial Revolution generated.

The danger is not that one of these five men will own the world’s intelligence outright. It is that the economic logic of AI — massive upfront compute costs, proprietary training data, and compounding capability advantages — tends toward the same concentration dynamics that produced Standard Oil. A model that is marginally better attracts more users; more users generate more data; more data enables further improvement; the loop closes. This is not metaphor. Meta’s Llama 5, released in April 2026, was explicitly designed to commoditize proprietary AI — Zuckerberg’s theory being that if intelligence becomes free, the company that distributes it through 3.5 billion social media users wins by default. That is not so different from Rockefeller’s insight that the real money was never in the oil itself, but in making yourself indispensable to everyone who wanted to transport it.

Cultural Monopoly: The Unfinished Frontier

Henry Ford didn’t just build cars. He built a culture. The five-dollar day, the $40 workweek — Ford shaped how Americans understood the relationship between labor, leisure, and consumption. His prejudices, published in the Dearborn Independent and later praised by Adolf Hitler, exercised a cultural influence that no modern tech executive has approached, for better or for worse.

The AI quintet has, so far, produced nothing comparable to that kind of cultural ownership. ChatGPT is used by hundreds of millions, but it has not yet redefined the terms of civic life in the way that Ford’s assembly lines redefined time itself. The AI leading men give TED talks and publish essays — Amodei’s “Machines of Loving Grace” and its sequel “The Adolescence of Technology” are genuine intellectual contributions — but they have not yet built the durable cultural institutions that the Carnegies and Fords used to launder their economic power into social legitimacy. The Carnegie libraries are still standing. The Ford Foundation still funds democracy initiatives. What will Sam Altman’s equivalent be? We do not yet know.

This gap may close faster than we expect. If AI agents do begin displacing 50% of white-collar jobs — as Amodei and others predict within five years — the resulting social disruption will demand new cultural narratives. The men who shape those narratives will wield a form of power that makes their current wealth look like a down payment.

Why the Gap Matters — And Why It Is Narrowing

The distance between the AI tycoons of 2026 and the historical robber barons is real, but it is not permanent. Three trends are accelerating the convergence.

First, physical infrastructure is being built at unprecedented speed. Meta’s $600 billion data center pledge, Musk’s orbital computing vision, and the arms-race dynamics of semiconductor procurement are creating the structural lock-in that historically defines industrial monopoly. The company that owns the compute wins — not just the model race, but the infrastructure race.

Second, regulatory arbitrage is becoming a competitive strategy. Just as Rockefeller used the legal patchwork of late-19th-century interstate commerce to outmaneuver state-level regulators, AI companies are exploiting the gap between national regulatory frameworks to deploy capabilities that no single jurisdiction can constrain. The Trump administration’s rollback of Biden-era AI safety executive orders has already opened space for more aggressive deployment by American companies.

Third, the feedback loops of AI capability are compounding in ways that no previous technology has. When Anthropic’s own engineers have largely stopped writing code themselves — directing AI-generated code as product managers rather than authors — the productivity advantages of leading AI labs over their competitors begin to resemble Standard Oil’s pipeline advantages over independent refiners. Not yet identical. But structurally rhyming.

The View from 2035: A Question of Institutions

The most important distinction between Ford, Rockefeller, and today’s AI leading men may ultimately be institutional rather than technological. The Gilded Age tycoons operated in a world with weak antitrust frameworks, no administrative state to speak of, and a political economy that had not yet developed the tools to constrain concentrated private power. The Progressive Era — Teddy Roosevelt’s trust-busting, the Sherman Act, the eventual dissolution of Standard Oil — was the institutional response. It took a generation.

We may be at the beginning of a similar reckoning. Whether the five men who currently lead the AI revolution become as powerful as Ford or Rockefeller depends less on their own ambitions — which are extraordinary — than on the speed and coherence of the institutional response. Policymakers who wait for the infrastructure to be fully built before acting will find themselves in the same position as the regulators who confronted Standard Oil in 1911: arriving at the scene of a revolution already completed.

The AI leading men are not, today, as powerful as Rockefeller. But they are building the conditions under which someone very like them could be. That is the moment for executives, investors, and policymakers to pay attention — not when the resemblance is complete, but now, while the architecture is still under construction and the pipes have not yet been welded shut.

Discover more from The Economy

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Up Next

Global Imbalances Are Back. Who’s to Blame in multipolar World ?

Don't Miss

A Reprieve, Not a Rescue: Why the IMF’s New Tranche for Pakistan is Just the Beginning

Click to comment

AI

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

Published

11 hours 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.