Welcome to Global Data Center Hub. Join investors, operators, and innovators reading to stay ahead of the latest trends in the data center sector in developed and emerging markets globally.
TL;DR
NVIDIA signed memoranda of understanding with Apollo, BlackRock, Blackstone, Brookfield, Goldman Sachs and KKR on August 10, 2026, targeting over $500 billion of third-party capital. NVIDIA states the partnerships remain subject to execution of the final agreements. No partner has disclosed a dollar commitment, and no first project has been named.
NVIDIA may provide residual-value support for up to 25 percent of an opportunity, assessed project by project. NVIDIA has not disclosed what an opportunity measures, whether the support sits in a first-loss position, who values the collateral, or whether an aggregate cap applies. The percentage remains a term-sheet concept until the first agreement is executed and read.
Goldman Sachs is the only traditional bank among the six partners and holds investment and distribution roles. Goldman is in talks with banks, insurers, asset managers and private-credit firms, and asset managers plan to retain a sizable share of the financing. NVIDIA five-year credit default swaps traded at 72.11 basis points on August 11 after Jensen Huang clarified the limited scope of the support.
Part One: The Record
Six Memoranda And A $500 Billion Target
NVIDIA announced on August 10, 2026, that it had signed memoranda of understanding with six financial institutions to establish AI compute infrastructure financing platforms.
The six are Apollo, BlackRock, Blackstone, Brookfield, Goldman Sachs and KKR. The stated objective is to mobilize more than $500 billions of third-party capital over time.
The capital is intended to create dedicated pools at scale, at attractive rates, for NVIDIA customers including frontier AI labs, enterprises and AI clouds.
NVIDIA’s release states that the partnerships remain subject to execution of the final agreements.
NVIDIA published a follow-up post on August 11 defining the figure.
The more than $500 billion represents aggregate third-party capital that the platforms are designed to mobilize over time.
NVIDIA states the capital is not NVIDIA revenue, a single fund, or a commitment to a single customer.
The Division Of Roles And The Residual Support Mechanism
Under the announced structure, NVIDIA supplies the technology platform and the financial institutions supply and underwrite the capital.
NVIDIA states that the financial institutions will independently assess each opportunity, covering the customer, demand, utilization, cash flow and residual value.
NVIDIA disclosed one form of support. In some cases, NVIDIA may provide a residual-value support mechanism for up to 25 percent of an opportunity, assessed carefully on a project-by-project basis.
NVIDIA describes the arrangement as substantially lower than other compute-financing arrangements, and grounds it in four claimed properties of its compute: fungibility, universal adoption, software upgradability and redeployability.
Jensen Huang framed the commercial premise in one line: in AI, compute is revenue.
Apollo president Jim Zelter called modern compute a scarce, mission-critical asset class.
Brookfield chief executive Bruce Flatt described compute as fast becoming the essential layer of infrastructure.
KKR co-chief executives Joe Bae and Scott Nuttall put their emphasis on execution, saying delivery, not ambition, is the hard part.
Goldman’s Mandate And The State Of Play
Goldman Sachs is the only traditional bank among the six and holds both investment and distribution roles.
Reuters reported on August 14 that Goldman can provide junior capital and private credit through its asset management arm while placing debt with private-credit funds and, in time, public markets.
Goldman is in discussions with banks, insurers, asset managers and private-credit firms, and asset managers plan to retain a sizable share of the financing.
Goldman Sachs Research estimates the top four hyperscalers will spend more than $5 trillion on technology and data centers by 2030.
Credit markets moved twice. NVIDIA five-year credit default swaps narrowed as much as five basis points to 72.11 basis points on August 11 after Huang clarified the limited scope of the residual support.
The yield spread on NVIDIA’s 5.625 percent 2056 bonds narrowed two basis points to 113 basis points over comparable Treasuries.
Four days after the announcement, the Wall Street Journal reported that NVIDIA had cut its planned guarantee of the OpenAI campus in southern Ohio from roughly $250 billion to under $120 billion, limited to the first five gigawatts of a ten-gigawatt program.
No memorandum has converted into a binding final agreement. No partner allocation has been disclosed. No first project has been named.
Part Two: The Read
The Whole Deal Turns On 25 Percent
NVIDIA disclosed one number that determines whether any of this gets financed, and that number is 25 percent.
Coverage since August 11 has converted the percentage into something NVIDIA never described: a quantified first-loss tranche sitting beneath 75 percent of senior debt, multipliable to $125 billion across the program.
NVIDIA disclosed a ceiling on a support mechanism whose base, position in the waterfall and valuation method are all undefined, and a lender who prices that ceiling before reading the agreement is pricing a term that does not yet exist.
Twenty-Five Percent Of An Undefined Base
Start with the words. Up to 25 percent of an opportunity. An opportunity could mean total project cost.
It could mean eligible NVIDIA equipment cost, which would be a much smaller number. It could mean debt principal, expected residual value at a stated date, or a defined loss tranche.
Each reading produces a different credit enhancement, and the spread between the widest and narrowest reading is large enough to change whether a project clears a credit committee.
The instrument is equally open. NVIDIA has not said whether the mechanism is a put, a repurchase undertaking, a deficiency guarantee, a funded reserve account, a lease residual guarantee, or a commitment to take and redeploy equipment.
Also undisclosed: the valuation agent, the appraisal method, which hardware generations qualify, the support tenor, the draw conditions, the fees, and whether an aggregate cap applies across NVIDIA’s whole book.
The consequence over the next twelve to twenty-four months is a documentation race.
The first executed residual-support agreement becomes the market template, because every subsequent lender will benchmark to it and no lender wants to negotiate a bespoke version of a term the market has already standardized.
Whoever closes first writes the definitions everyone else inherits.
Five Asset Managers And One Bank Is A Distribution Design
Count the partners by type. Five are alternative asset managers. One is a bank. That composition tells you the intended holding pattern.
The capital is designed to be originated and held privately first, with public distribution arriving later, once portfolios season and ratings exist.
Goldman’s dual role sits precisely on that seam, supplying junior capital and private credit through asset management while structuring and placing senior paper through the bank.
Two developments make the second stage cheaper.
Larry Fink’s comparison to the early mortgage-backed securities market signals ambition around standardization and distribution.
On July 29, the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance agreed, based on facts presented by a law firm, that certain securities issued by entities directly owning data-center facilities fall outside the Exchange Act’s Section 3(a)(79) definition of asset-backed securities.
The staff was explicit that the position is not a Commission rule and may change on different facts.
For qualifying structures it removes credit-risk-retention, Regulation AB reporting and third-party diligence reporting requirements, and it does so at the exact moment six institutions want a tradable market.
The binding constraint on this program is not the supply of capital. It is the absence of a rated benchmark for compute-backed credit.
Watch for the first rated tranche, because that is the event that converts a private origination business into a market.
Six Managers Diversify The Borrower And Not The Collateral
The strongest structural argument for the platform is that risk genuinely leaves NVIDIA’s balance sheet at origination.
Six independent credit committees underwriting separate projects across separate customers do disperse idiosyncratic borrower risk, and that is a real improvement over a single vendor lending a single customer the purchase price.
The Ohio revision is evidence of the direction of travel: NVIDIA cut a concentrated corporate guarantee by more than half within four days of announcing the distributed alternative.
Now hold that against what does not disperse. Every project in the program is collateralized by hardware from one manufacturer.
That manufacturer sets the product cadence that determines the depreciation curve.
That manufacturer supplies the software layer that underwrites the claim of extended economic life.
That manufacturer may provide residual support on the same collateral it produces, and it earns revenue when financed proceeds buy more of it.
The recovery model of every lender in the program and the value of NVIDIA’s support both depend on one variable: the future market-clearing price of NVIDIA compute.
Diversifying across six managers reduces the chance that one borrower’s failure impairs the pool.
It does nothing about a common shock to GPU-hour pricing, because a common shock arrives at every project at once.
What Each Segment Prices Before The First Close
Private Capital. Underwrite as though the residual support is worth zero until the executed agreement is in front of the credit committee.
Put the five definitions in the term sheet before the indicative pricing: the base the 25 percent measures, the position in the loss waterfall, the valuation agent and method, the support tenor, and the aggregate cap.
Firms that skip this step and wait for the market template will inherit definitions negotiated by whoever closed first on terms written to clear that deal and to protect nobody after it.
Public Markets. NVIDIA’s economic-at-risk amount is undisclosed and accretes transaction by transaction.
Five-year credit default swaps at 72.11 basis points price the August 11 clarification of scope, and they do not price an aggregate that no one has published.
The disclosure threshold that would make this quantifiable may not be reached for several quarters, and holders who wait for it are holding a credit whose contingent exposures compound in the interim without appearing anywhere.
Operators. Contracted offtake is the currency in this market.
Projects carrying investment-grade offtake, secured power and explicit equipment-redeployment rights will price toward infrastructure spreads.
Merchant GPU fleets and single-customer frontier-lab exposure will keep a technology premium.
Operators that lock power and offtake within the next four quarters compete for the first pools, when documentation is still negotiable, and everyone after them competes for allocations under templates already hardened.
The Decisive Document Is The One Nobody Has Read
The August 10 announcement created origination capacity and a coalition with the balance sheet to use it.
It did not create a funded facility, and the distance between those two things is measured in documents.
The first residual-support agreement will define the base, fix the loss position, name the valuation agent and set the cap, and every deal that follows will be priced against those four terms whether or not its lenders negotiated them.
That leaves one question for the next two quarters.
If the first project’s residual-support agreement measures the 25 percent against eligible equipment cost, the enhancement is a fraction of what the market currently assumes, and the pricing on every deal behind it moves.
Ask which reading the first document takes before the market decides it already knew.
Gets even more intriguing to me with Huang's essay yesterday, beyond the "AI factory" buildouts themselves, on the vector of architecting & building financial infrastructure, even the semantic positioning ('Securing the Infrastructure of Intelligence | Land, power and shell: The next critical resource for AI factories'). Are we witnessing both emergence of new asset classes and the leverage of NVDA's own hardware demand?
. . Highly relative following your terrific adjacent pieces on CRWV & BTDR, aspects of the nuances and new unit economics of tenancy.
Cf. https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/securing-the-infrastructure-of-intelligence/