Meta plans to spend $30 billion on computing centers, but only contributes $500 million (accounting for just 1.7%, roughly 20% of startup capital). What about the rest? They set up an SPV shell company and borrow money from private debt institutions to fill the gap.
This tactic is actually quite familiar—it’s a trick that domestic real estate developers loved to play back in the day. By off-balance-sheet financing, they hide their debt, making their asset-liability statements look shiny on the surface, while the risks are concentrated in unseen areas.
Now, tech giants are starting to play this hand as well. On the surface, their financial reports look healthy, but behind the scenes, it’s a massive capital game driven by high leverage. Honestly, this financing structure carries significant hidden risks.
View Original
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
18 Likes
Reward
18
6
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
WalletsWatcher
· 12-14 17:17
Wow, Meta's move is really genius, pulling 5 billion to leverage 30 billion, maxing out the leverage.
View OriginalReply0
ZenChainWalker
· 12-14 07:07
Wow, Meta's approach is just like what Evergrande did back then, almost writing "I want to go bankrupt" directly.
View OriginalReply0
Liquidated_Larry
· 12-12 04:53
Haha, laughing to death. What are you pretending with 500 million dollars? Isn't this just the old trick of cutting leeks?
A set of SPV shell, and the debt becomes invisible. The financial report looks stunningly good. Do you understand what "accounting magic" means?
This is exactly the same as the tactics used by domestic real estate companies. If I had known, I wouldn't think tech giants are that good either.
Let's wait and see how they crash later. It's only a matter of time.
They really think investors are fools. They only lost 500 million out of a 30 billion deal. That's bold!
View OriginalReply0
ImpermanentPhobia
· 12-12 04:49
Spending 30 billion and putting in only 500 million of your own? Isn't that just a classic case of making money out of thin air? The SPV move is executed with incredible skill.
View OriginalReply0
ChainComedian
· 12-12 04:45
Ha, Meta's move is really clever—spending 500 million dollars to make a show, while the remaining 29.5 billion relies entirely on borrowing. Isn’t this leverage game 2.0?
Same old trick, thinking no one will notice just by changing the shell company? The real estate play has been played out long ago. Now tech giants are stepping in to take over, but sooner or later, they'll have to pay the debt.
Looks good on the surface in the financial reports, but behind the scenes, it's all high leverage risks. Someone will eventually have to take over these issues, right?
View OriginalReply0
SnapshotLaborer
· 12-12 04:31
Wow, Meta's tactics are so familiar. Isn't it just like the real estate tricks from back in the day? Only spending 500 million and still claiming to raise 30 billion. All the debt is stuffed into shell companies, and you can't spot any flaws in the financial reports. Now that's truly a player.
Meta plans to spend $30 billion on computing centers, but only contributes $500 million (accounting for just 1.7%, roughly 20% of startup capital). What about the rest? They set up an SPV shell company and borrow money from private debt institutions to fill the gap.
This tactic is actually quite familiar—it’s a trick that domestic real estate developers loved to play back in the day. By off-balance-sheet financing, they hide their debt, making their asset-liability statements look shiny on the surface, while the risks are concentrated in unseen areas.
Now, tech giants are starting to play this hand as well. On the surface, their financial reports look healthy, but behind the scenes, it’s a massive capital game driven by high leverage. Honestly, this financing structure carries significant hidden risks.