SitePower

The Interconnect

Issue 02  ·  June 2026

The money arrived from everywhere this cycle. The bank that used to write the biggest cheque quietly stepped back.

The Read

Ask who is financing the AI build-out and most people give the same answer: hyperscalers, from their own balance sheets. June quietly proved that answer out of date. The banks that would traditionally have anchored this cycle’s debt are stepping back from the largest tickets, and a different set of lenders — private credit, insurers, sovereign wealth — is stepping into the space they left.

The clearest single tell came out of Oracle’s financing for its Stargate-linked campuses. Reporting through the month put US banks retreating from the largest tranche of Oracle’s debt stack, with PIMCO stepping in to anchor roughly $10B of the bonds itself. By month’s end Oracle was reported to be lining up a further $45–50B of debt and equity for its 2026 build-out, including a mandatory-convertible structure designed explicitly to protect its investment-grade rating. Whatever the final number settles at — the figures moved across the month, so treat the total as evolving, not fixed — the pattern underneath it didn’t move at all: the bank that would once have taken that risk didn’t want it, and someone else did.

Meta was reportedly running the same play from the other direction. Rather than wait for a bank syndicate, it was said to be courting Blackstone, KKR and Blue Owl for a $29–35B private-credit facility to fund AI infrastructure directly — a reported figure, not yet a signed one, but a second data point pointing the same way inside the same month. And it isn’t only the hyperscalers. Nvidia priced roughly $25B of bonds in June, its largest-ever debt raise, a straightforward bet by the investment-grade bond market that AI demand is now a multi-decade credit story. By month’s end, AI-linked borrowers had reportedly sold in the order of $300B of bonds year-to-date between them.

Here’s the position I’d defend in the comments. None of this is a capital shortage. If anything, it’s the opposite — money is arriving from more directions and in more forms than at any point in this cycle. What’s changed is who is willing to hold the risk at the top of the stack, and for how long. Banks price capital on a shorter horizon and a tighter risk appetite than a twenty-year data-centre lease was ever going to satisfy at this scale; insurers, private credit and sovereign wealth are underwriting exactly that horizon, on exactly those terms, because it’s a better match for their liabilities than it ever was for a bank’s balance sheet. That’s not stress. That’s the market finding the right shelf for a very long-dated asset.

But there is a genuine stress point sitting underneath the reshuffle, and it’s worth naming plainly: the securitisation gap. Multiple briefings through June put the data-centre asset-backed securities market at roughly $25B today, against take-out needs that industry analysis puts approaching $300B as this vintage of construction debt seasons and needs refinancing. Morgan Stanley’s own estimate has $250–300B of hyperscaler-and-JV debt issuance landing in 2026 alone. Put those two numbers next to each other and the question isn’t whether the AI build-out can be financed — June answered that emphatically, yes. The question is whether the market that eventually has to take that debt out is anywhere near large enough yet. Right now, on the numbers reported this month, it isn’t.

The Month in Power

If you track five moves, track these.

Oracle’s evolving debt stack, reportedly $45–72B depending on the week. PIMCO anchored roughly $10B of a Michigan bond tranche after US banks were reported to have retreated from it; by month’s end Oracle was said to be assembling a further $45–50B in debt and equity for its 2026 build-out. The clearest single instance this month of a bank stepping back and non-bank capital stepping in. Treat the total as moving, not settled.

Meta’s reported $29–35B private-credit talks with Blackstone, KKR and Blue Owl. Reported, roughly 70% likely on current information, not yet confirmed. If a hyperscaler with Meta’s own balance sheet is reportedly choosing private credit over a bank syndicate, that’s a statement about where the marginal lending already sits.

Nvidia prices roughly $25B in bonds — its largest debt raise ever. Investment-grade markets absorbed the deal without difficulty. The chip supplier itself is now a credit story, not just an equity one.

Kuwait Investment Authority joins the AI Infrastructure Partnership as its first non-founder anchor, inside the $40B Aligned buyout. Confirmed. Sovereign wealth isn’t only co-investing alongside the mega-platforms anymore — it’s taking a formal seat inside the vehicle that owns them.

The securitisation gap: a roughly $25B ABS market against take-out needs approaching $300B. Recurring through the month’s analysis, not a single transaction. This is the number to actually watch through the second half of the year.

From the Desk

A pattern, anonymised.

The diligence conversation with financiers has shifted this month, and it’s worth naming the shift precisely. A year ago the first question was almost always about return. Now, more often than not, the first substantive question is about the exit: who refinances this facility in five to seven years, and on what terms, if the current lender doesn’t want to hold it to maturity. That’s a healthy question. It’s also one a striking number of the deals crossing our desk still can’t answer with anything more than “the market will be bigger by then.”

“The market will be bigger by then” is not a refinancing plan; it’s a hope dressed as an assumption. We’ve started treating it as a flag in its own right — on a par with the favourable- revision tell we wrote about in Issue 01. Where a developer or a technology partner has a genuine, named answer to the exit question, that answer belongs in the diligence pack from the first conversation, not extracted under questioning in month three. Where it isn’t there yet, that’s not a reason to walk away — it’s a reason to price the gap honestly rather than assume someone else closes it later.

The Call

Don’t just track who’s raising the money. Track who’s actually agreeing to hold the risk, and for how long — that tells you more about where this cycle is headed than the headline size of any single raise. If you’re building technology, structure your offering so it can be underwritten on a lender’s timeline. If you’re developing a site, build your capital stack with a real exit lender in view from day one. If you’re deploying capital, the opening this month is real — but underwrite the refinancing gap as carefully as you underwrite the return.

Watch who’s actually lending, not just who’s borrowing.

— Nigel Broomhall, SitePower

Get next month’s issue.

One read a month on where power, capital, and sites actually meet. No noise.