The primary collateral for GPU debt structures was not the GPUs themselves but the contracted cash flows from investment-grade counterparties, making the risk profile far safer than media portrayals suggested.
Tiwari explains that early media coverage mischaracterized GPU-backed debt as extremely risky by focusing on GPU depreciation, when in fact the primary collateral was take-or-pay contracts with investment-grade counterparties like Microsoft, with GPUs only as secondary collateral.
transcript
Neil Tiwari: And I think that's a lot of what the market got wrong, especially when there was a lot of press about this early on, where it was, there's billions of debt on these highly depreciating assets, and it's extremely speculative. And what was oftentimes characterized in the media was these debt structures had GPUs as collateral, and that's like putting a used car as collateral, which is obviously just going to depreciate incredibly fast. You know, that's a very risky kind of structure. And I think what got missed was the GPUs themselves were actually like the second, second or tertiary level of collateral in those instruments. The primary collateral was the contract of cash flows from investment grade counterparties.