While the structure of Nvidia Corp.‘s (NASDAQ:NVDA) potential financing to help OpenAI lease a massive Ohio data center remains unclear, Seaport Research analyst Jay Goldberg expressed caution about such an arrangement.
Goldberg warned that vendor financing can backfire, noting companies have previously hurt themselves by financing customer purchases. He pointed to Lucent Technologies‘ 1990s telecom financing strategy, which he said ultimately “essentially broke that company,” reported MarketWatch.
“These kinds of financing usually don’t end well,” Goldberg said.
He said the reported arrangement remains unclear, but if it moves forward, he believes it would be difficult to “justify” from Nvidia’s perspective.
Jefferies technology strategist Jeffrey Favuzza said investors viewed the report as the clearest and largest example yet of potential circular financing, while noting the market is already familiar with such concerns.
What Happened to Lucent?
In the late 1990s telecom boom, Lucent aggressively used vendor financing, lending billions of dollars to telecom carriers so they could buy Lucent’s networking equipment.
The strategy fueled rapid sales and network expansion during the boom, but when many telecom startups collapsed after the dot-com bubble burst, Lucent was left with massive bad debts and write-downs, making its financing model a cautionary tale about supplier-funded demand.
In 2006, it merged with France’s Alcatel in a $13.4 billion deal, creating Alcatel-Lucent.
AI Financing Model Sparks Debate
On Sunday, the Wall Street Journal reported that Nvidia is in talks to provide a $250 billion financing guarantee to help OpenAI secure funding for a massive AI data center in Ohio that could cost more than $500 billion. The arrangement would also include discussions to finance up to $350 billion in Nvidia chip purchases. Developed by SoftBank Group’s (OTC:SFTBF) (OTC:SFTBY) energy unit, the project is expected to deliver 800 megawatts of capacity in its first phase by 2028.
The AI boom has fueled a growing network of cross-investments, sparking debate over whether they reflect strategic partnerships or artificially inflated demand. Critics have raised concerns about “circular financing,” where suppliers fund customers who then buy the suppliers’ products, with some warning the model relies on continuous funding, hype, and FOMO to sustain momentum.
“Circular deals, like their cousin the Ponzi scheme, require constant activity in the way of new funds, continuous hype, and the stoking of FOMO,” warned Hammerstone Markets, highlighted by Michael Burry on X.
In contrast, Janus Henderson argued that these massive AI infrastructure deals create a “virtuous circle,” efficiently aligning builders, suppliers, and customers to meet soaring demand for computing power.
Disclaimer: This content was partially produced with the help of AI tools and was reviewed and published by Benzinga editors.
Image via Shutterstock
Recent Comments